Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 6 To 12, 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
14 Nov 2023 2:51 PM GMT
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....
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
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.
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.
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)
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.”
Case Title: Smt. Mutuni v. The Collector Sant Ravi Das Nagar And Others [WRIT - C No. - 60108 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.5 Lacs on the UP government for illegal acquisition of land of a widow in 1998. The cost was imposed on grounds that the widow has been harassed and made to run from pillar to post for getting compensation for the illegal possession of her land by State Public Works Department.
While holding that no person can be dispossessed of his/ her land without due procedure, the bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,
“The petitioner, who is a widow, has not only been harassed and forced by the State Authorities to unnecessarily approach this Court in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but during the proceedings, the approach of the State Authorities has been inhuman as would be evident from their stand that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation because she had already been paid the market value of her plot. The cost of the writ petition is quantified as Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs).”
Case Title: M/S Rama Brick Field v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 909 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court has held that in the GST regime all details and returns filed are available on the portal of the GST Department and the authorities can verify from the portal the amount of tax deposited after filing of GSTR -1 and GSTR 3 B.
While quashing the penalty order, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Under the GST regime all details are available in the portal of GST department. The authorities could have very well verified as to whether after filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR 3 B how much tax has been deposited by the selling dealer i.e. Rohit Coal Traders but the authorities have failed to do so.”
Case Title: M/S Galaxy Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1412 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has held that once rectified/ correct tax invoices and e-way bills are produced before the authorities before passing of the detention/ seizure order, the proceedings under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ought not to be initiated.
Relying on the decision of the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others and M/s Bhumika Enterprises Vs. State of UP and others, the bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Once the documents were produced before passing of the detention / seizure order, the authorities ought not to have proceeded further as held by the the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of M/S Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd (supra) and M/s Bhumika Enterprises (supra).”
Case title - Khalid Khan And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 29284 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court held that a Judicial Magistrate, while dealing with an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering for the registration of the FIR in cases where he thinks that no cognizable offence is made out.
The court, however, added that the scope of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
Case title - Seema Bharadwaj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 427 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7821 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that to implicate an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, what is necessary is that the offended words must have been used against the victim with intent to humiliate her/him because of her/him belonging to SC/ST community.
The bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) further clarified that merely because the victim belongs to the SC/ST community wouldn’t be enough for implicating the accused persons under the 1989 Act unless it is shown that the intention to humiliate the victim on account of his/her caste was present in the facts of the case.
