Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 1 – July 7, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414 Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415 S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416 Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417 State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418 M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419 Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420 Orders/Judgments of the Week [Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414 The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee. India's Majority Population Would Be In Minority One Day If Conversions In Religious Congregations Not Stopped: Allahabad HC Case title – Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415 The Allahabad High Court observed that if the current trend of conversions during religious congregations is permitted to continue, the majority population of the country could eventually find itself in the minority one day. With this observation, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated that the religious congregations, where conversions are occurring and where the religions of the citizens of India are being changed, should be immediately stopped. 'Approach Competent Authority': Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Challenging LoP Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Election Case title - S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416 The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat. A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as far as it is permissible in law. Increased Awareness About Rights, Powers & Duties Led To 'Steep' Rise In Criminal Cases Lodged By SC/ST Community: Allahabad HC Case title - Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7191 of 2024] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417 The Allahabad High Court has noted a significant increase in the number of criminal cases lodged by members of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) community. A bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai noted that this upsurge could be attributed to the heightened awareness among the SC/ST Community regarding their rights, powers, and duties, facilitated by the proliferation of electronic and social media, even in remote village areas. Take Steps To Avoid Delays In Filing Arbitration Appeals: Allahabad High Court To State's Principal Law Secretary Case Title: State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. – 425 of 2013] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418 The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to take steps to avoid delays in filing arbitration appeals beyond statutory limitations by the State Government and submit a report on the actions taken in this regard within 6 months. While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with a delay of 224 days, beyond the statutory period of 120 days, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that government must not be given preferential treatment in litigation and must adhere strictly to the timelines provided in the statute, irrespective of their status or resources. Further, the Court held that the bureaucratic and procedural delays cited by the Government cannot be accepted as valid reasons for condoning delays beyond statutory prescriptions. No Provisions Of Appeal Provided Against An Order Passed By State GST Officer Under IGST Act: Allahabad High Court Admits Writ Petition Case Title: M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 1 – July 7, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags