Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 6 To 12, 2023

Nominal Index: Banti Sharma Alias Brahm Prakash Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 419 National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director v. Smt. Sampata Devi And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 420 Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421 Masood Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 422 Smt. Mutuni v. The Collector Sant Ravi Das Nagar And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 423 M/S Rama Brick Field v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 424 M/S Galaxy Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 425 Khalid Khan And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 426 Seema Bharadwaj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 427 Judgments/Orders Filing An Anticipatory Bail Application During Pendency Of Regular Bail Plea Is Misuse Of Process Of Court: Allahabad HC Case title - Banti Sharma Alias Brahm Prakash Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11952 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 419 The Allahabad High Court observed that filing an anticipatory bail application, while there being a regular bail application pending, is a misuse of the process of the Court. The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Banti Sharma, booked under Sections 420, 406 IPC for allegedly usurping the money of several persons. No Explanation Of ‘Sufficient Cause’, No Special Concessions To Govt Body For Limitation Vis-A-Vis Commercial Courts Act: Allahabad High Court Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director vs. Smt. Sampata Devi And 2 Others [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. - 53 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 420 The Allahabad High Court has held that no special concession can be granted to government bodies for condoning delay under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 if sufficient cause is not shown in application for delay condonation. Following the judgement of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra vs. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be filed within 60 days from date of order under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court held that in rare cases, where the specified value is less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the limitation period under Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the appeals, as the case may be. Ramcharitmanas Row| 'Remarks Prima Facie Provoked People To Incite Riots’: Allahabad HC Denies Relief To UP MLC Swami Prasad Maurya Case Title: Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421 The Allahabad High Court last week REJECTED UP MLC and Samajwadi Party Leader Swami Prasad Maurya's plea to quash entire criminal proceedings in the case lodged against him for his alleged controversial remark over Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas. Observing that healthy criticism does not mean that such words are used that prompt people to commit crimes, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted thus: "It prima facie appears that due to the (alleged) statement, some other leaders across India unanimously agreed to burn copies of Shri Ramcharitmanas and they used foul language against Hindu society, due to which, unrest was created in the public mind and a feeling of hostility and animosity arose among various sections of the Hindu religion." (emphasis supplied) S.17 Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta And Up-Lokayuktas Act Not A Bar On High Court’s Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Masood Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and others Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 422 The Allahabad High Court has held that the bar created in Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 on review of its decision by any court, does not apply to High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While dealing with suspension order based on the recommendations of the Lokayuta, Justice J.J. Munir held, “This Court must remark that the Lokayukta functions under the Act of 1975. The reference in Section 17(2) excluding the jurisdiction of the Court to review or quash the order of Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, except on ground of jurisdiction, cannot be pleaded as a bar to this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reference to ‘Court’ or bar to the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 17(2) of the Act would apply to Courts of ordinary jurisdiction; not the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.” Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs.5 Lakh Cost On State For Harassing ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 6 To 12, 2023

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags