Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 11 To September 17, 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
17 Sep 2023 4:01 PM GMT
NOMINAL INDEX India Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs. The Commercial Court And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 318 Smt. Vidya Rawat v. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 319 Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320 Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 321 M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of...
NOMINAL INDEX
India Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs. The Commercial Court And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Smt. Vidya Rawat v. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320
Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 321
M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Rajender Kumar vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Rakesh Kumar Keshari vs. Union Of India And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Dinesh Kumar vs. District Caste Scrutiny Committee And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Km. Pratiksha vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Ibnul Hussain @ Babu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Ifrak Ali Khan vs. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 329
Kailash Chand Agarwal vs. Principal Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 330
M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj And Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Sonu @ Pinku vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Case Title: India Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs. The Commercial Court And Another
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 318
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of objection under Section 47 of CPC at the stage of execution of arbitral award.
A bench comprising of Justice Neeraj Tiwari reiterated that arbitral award is not a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC, therefore, an objection filed under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings is not maintainable. Further, the Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Padmajeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS LTD that “arbitral award can be executed invoking Section 36 of New Act, 1996 along with the provisions of CPC in the same manner as if it is decree of the Court.”
Case Title: Smt. Vidya Rawat v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - C No. - 11692 of 2007]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated the principle that once Labour Court holds that the termination of workman was illegal and the workman is reinstated in service, it is bound to award back wages.
“If a termination order is set aside being illegal, the consequence would be that the order of termination was never passed and therefore, reinstatement in service with full back wages is the natural consequence of setting aside the order of termination,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 960 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has refused to order the DNA test of a child on the plea of a man seeking to prove adultery allegations he levelled against his wife by demonstrating that the child was not his legitimate son.
The child in question was born within 9 months of the man's marriage with his wife (respondent).
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV however observed that there were no pleadings to the effect that the parties had not known each or met each other before marriage. It held,
"Qua the allegation of adultery being levelled by the appellant, the burden to establish the same remains on the appellant. He cannot seek to lighten that burden by forcing the opposite party to lead evidence as may not only demolish the defence, if any of the opposite party but also be read as evidence that may prove the case of the appellants."
Case Title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 321
In a significant order, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has specified the reasons for the withdrawal of the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute (from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia) by stating that the decision was taken by him (CJ) on the administrative side "in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases".
Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, in his order dated August 28, a copy of which was made available earlier today, has reasoned that non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) for hearing through he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the master of the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases.
GST | Allow Assesee To Upload ITC-01 To Claim Input Tax Credit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 881 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has allowed the assessee-petitioner to upload ITC-01 to enable him to avail of Input Tax Credit for shifting from the Composite Scheme to the Normal Scheme.
The Petitioner was initially registered under the Composition Scheme for the Financial Year 2022-23. However, with an increase in its turnover of the Financial Year, it converted into a normal scheme after submitting a withdrawal from the Composition Scheme. Petitioner contended that on account of the shifting from one scheme to another, it was entitled to avail the ITC in respect of stock of inputs in the form of semi-finished/ finished goods and Capital goods held by it on the date of the withdrawal by furnishing statement within 30 days in Form GSTITC-01 on the common portal.
Case title - Rajender Kumar vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh [ELECTION PETITION No. - 6 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an election petition filed by one Rajendra Kumar, a BJP leader, challenging the election of the then Bijnor BJP MP Kunwar Bhartendra Singh in the 2014 Loksabha polls, observed that in political life, there are no permanent enemies or friends.
Noting that not only the term of Lok Sabha 2014-2019 was over but the term of subsequent Lok Sabha 2019-2024 is likely to be over within a few months, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also stressed the need to decide the election petition at the earliest so that the same may not be rendered infructuous due to the efflux of time.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar Keshari vs. Union Of India And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Judges of the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure over the continued abstinence from work by the lawyers since 30th August, 2023. The lawyers have been abstaining from work across the State of UP due to the Police lathicharge on lawyers in Hapur District.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Registrar General had issued due communication on Monday for arguments through Video Conferencing/ Virtual mode from Tuesday onwards. Necessary links for the same were also notified. However, the lawyers in the case before the Court did not appear physically or through virtual mode.
Case title - Dinesh Kumar vs. District Caste Scrutiny Committee And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 325
"Exercising judicial restraint", the Allahabad High Court refrained from making any observations on the (lack of) authority of the UP Bar Council to issue resolutions calling for lawyers strike, contrary to the statute and judgments of the Supreme Court.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra however penned his dismay at the continued strike by lawyers over Police lathicharge on lawyers in Hapur District, despite positive judicial intervention in the matter.
Case title - Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42430 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that appointment to the posts of District/Additional Government Counsel (Criminal) [DGC/ADGC (Crl.)] by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and the same is not a civil post and hence, such an engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason.
Holding that the action of the State in not renewing the tenure can't be subjected to judicial scrutiny, the bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed thus:
"The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment on the post of D.G.C./A.D.G.C.(Crl.). Such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. By holding a post of District Counsel or public prosecutor, no status is conferred on the incumbent. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such...The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of term of the post held by him."
Case title - Km. Pratiksha vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40163 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a woman arrested in July this year in connection with a dowry death case as it stressed that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed because lawyers are abstaining from Court.
With this, the bench of Justice Siddharth allowed a bail application filed by the applicant-accused (Pratiksha) booked under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act on the allegations of causing dowry death of her sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
Case title - Ibnul Hussain @ Babu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13865 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Ibnul Hussain who was arrested in July 2022 on the allegations of damaging the image of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath by misusing the mobile phone of the informant.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed the plea keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a 22-year-old person having no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since July 21, 2022.
Case Title - Ifrak Ali Khan vs. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 329
On the 15th day of strike by lawyers pursuant to the Hapur Incident, the Allahabad High Court observed that the strike is not a solution to the brutal lathi-charge on the lawyers at Hapur. The Court suggested that the erring officers and bureaucrats must be called to Court to justify their actions.
“The solution could have been to let the Courts function and make the officers and bureaucrats answerable compelling their appearance before the courts of law to justify their action of lathi-charge and not to shut down the courts giving liberty to the erring officials to roam freely and smiling with a confidence that there is none to call for an explanation or to take action against them or take remedial measures.”
Case Title: Kailash Chand Agarwal vs. Principal Commissioner [Writ Tax No. - 976 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the order refusing to delay condonation in filing ITRs for lack of records after more than 20 years of filing the condonation applications.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manoj Bajaj has observed that when the delay condonation application was filed on March 30, 1998, the applications ought to have been decided within the time provided by the Income Tax Act. The court was of the view that, at that point in time, all the records would have been available.
Case Title: M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj And Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 16998 of 2023]
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High court has upheld the maintainability of a writ petition challenging cancellation of dealership, citing to lack of alternate remedies available to the aggrieved.
A bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that regarding termination of dealership, there is neither a remedy of civil suit nor any other efficacious alternate remedy available to the aggrieved party. Hence, a writ petition challenging the termination of dealership would be maintainable.
Case title - Sonu @ Pinku vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2202 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of committing the offence of rape against an 8-year-old girl as it observed that it is not natural for any father to stake the honour of his minor daughter to avenge a previous dispute, that too by falsely alleging that she has been raped.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV dismissed the appeal filed by the accused as it concluded that the trial court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, had rightly convicted the accused-appellant under Section 363, 366-Ka and 376(2)(f) IPC.
