Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: February 12 - February 18, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84 Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85 Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86 Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87 Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88 Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89 Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90 M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91 Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92 Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93 The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94 Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95 M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96 Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Writ Petition Has To Be Drafted Carefully, Reliefs Sought Must Be Supported By Pleadings: Allahabad High Court Rejects Claim For Payment Of Gratuity Case Title: Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [WRIT - A No. - 18971 of 2022] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 The Allahabad High Court has observed that a petition must be carefully drafted, disclosing all relevant facts for grant of relief sought by the petitioner. While dealing with a bunch of cases relating to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that “In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.” NI Act Doesn't Prescribe Who Will Represent Company Which Is Complainant U/S 138, Can Be Represented By An Employee: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18652 of 2016] Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prescribe who can file a complaint on behalf of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The Court held that when company is the payee, the complaint must be registered in the name of the company. “Section 142 of the N.I.Act does not specify as to who should represent the company, if the company is the complainant. A company can be represented by an employee or even by a known employee, who is duly authorized and empowered to represent the company either by resolution or by a power of attorney,” held Justice Prashant Kumar. NDPS Act | Samples Not Drawn In Magistrate's Presence As Per S. 52A Can't Be Treated As Primary Evidence During Trial: Allahabad HC Case title - Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6549 of 2018] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 The Allahabad High Court reiterated that samples not drawn from the bulk in the presence of a Magistrate as per the mandate of Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can't be treated as a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. For context, Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) of the provide that when seized contraband is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, the officer must draw samples from the seized goods in the presence of a magistrate who shall certify its correctness. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act. S. 138 NI Act | Demand Notice Sent To Cheque Drawer Via Email/WhatsApp Is Valid: Allahabad High Court Case title - Rajendra vs. State of...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: February 12 - February 18, 2024

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags