Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 To February 2, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39 Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40 Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 Manorma Tiwari vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43 Rakesh Rathor vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Thr Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44 Ashish Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Tranning New Delhi And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45 Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46 Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47 Sushil Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48 Rekha v. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49 Hari Shankar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50 Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51 Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52 Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Equivalence Of Qualification For Eligibility Of Employment To Be Decided By Employer, Not Courts: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2025] Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 The Allahabad High Court has held that the question of equivalence of qualification for eligibility and employment is to be decided by the employer and the same cannot be interpreted by the Courts to treat any qualification to be equivalent to qualifications. The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that “the question of equivalence of qualification in the matter of examining the eligibility for the purpose of employment, is to be decided by the employer and the Courts cannot treat any qualification to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement.” Mutual Incompatibility Not Ground To Dissolve Hindu Marriage Within 1 Year Unless There Is 'Exceptional Hardship': Allahabad High Court Case Title: Sri Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 12 of 2025] Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39 The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved within one year of marriage on grounds of mutual incompatibility, unless there is exceptional hardship or exception depravity as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties had filed for mutual dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the same was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on grounds that minimum period for moving the application as provided under Section 14 of the Act, had not elapsed. 'Violation Of Familial Trust': Allahabad HC Denies Bail To POCSO Accused For 'Illicit' Relation With Minor Sister-In-Law Case title - Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40 The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act on the allegations of harassing his wife (complainant/informant) for dowry as well as for enticing away her minor sister and subjecting her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked that the accused's alleged conduct is not only a breach of the sacred bond of marriage but also an egregious violation of familial trust and moral integrity. Allahabad High Court Directs Registration Of PIL For Creation Of 9149 Trial Courts, Says Matter Interests 'Public At Large' Case Title: Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 453 of 2024] Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 In a plea to expedite a 14-year-old criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Registry to register a PIL pertaining to the creation of courts in the trial judiciary, and place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Justice Rajeev Singh held that, “this Court is of the view that the issue related to the creation of 9149 courts is related to interest of public at large and, therefore, the Registry is directed to register the PIL as a separate case and place it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.” [S.16 Arbitration Act] Jurisdiction Of Tribunal Cannot Be Challenged After...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 To February 2, 2025

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags