Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part II [Citations 257 - 511]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
14 Jan 2024 5:00 PM GMT
![Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part II [Citations 257 - 511]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/01/14/750x450_516140-annual-digest-part-2-allahabad-high-court.webp "Allahabad High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part II [Citations 257 - 511]")
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] Beneficiary Of Acquired Land Cannot File Reference U/S 28A(3) Of Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others [Writ C No. – 22731/2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257 The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'beneficiary of acquired land' is...
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others [Writ C No. – 22731/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'beneficiary of acquired land' is not entitled to file reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894") in view of the specific bars under Section 25 and Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
A bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while adjudicating a petition filed in Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. And Others, has held that once there is a specific bar under Section 25 of the Act, 1894, the Court shall not award compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector.
Case Title: Chandra Bhan vs. Union Of India And Another [Writ Tax No. - 829 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 258
The Allahabad High Court had held that mere non-issuance of notices with DIN will not render them invalid if the petitioner has otherwise participated in the proceedings based on manual notices.
Petitioner challenged the re-assessment order on the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued manually in violation of the circular issued by the Department. The notices ought to have been issued by applying the document identification number (DIN).
Case Title: M/S Desai Brothers Limited Ratanpur vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259 [WRIT TAX No. - 954 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259
The Allahabad High Court directed the GST Department to refund the amount based on physical application for refund under Section 54 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 97-A of the UP GST Rules, 2017. The Court further held that the Department is liable to pay interest on the refund withheld in terms of Section 56 of the Act.
Petitioner was transporting certain quantities of 'beedi' from West Bengal to Haryana, passing through the State of U.P. The truck containing goods was detained in the State of UP on the allegation of improper documentation.
Case title - Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7241 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 260
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a 19-year-old alleged associate of 'Lashkar-e-Taiba' who was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of UP Police last year on the charges of spreading hatred, promoting anti-India feelings and providing and facilitating the acquisition of weapons through WhatsApp groups.
Considering the allegations against the accused (Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz), the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that although the right to practise and propagate religion is guaranteed under Article 19, however, from the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, it can't be said that the second part of Section 121-A IPC was not made out against the accused.
Case title - Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261 [WRIT - C No. - 13703 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court observed that the right to construct a Temple on private property is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and such construction cannot offend the religious sensibilities of any other community.
The bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I also said that the mere fact that a Masjid exists nearby the plot on which the Temple is proposed to be built, by itself, cannot raise an apprehension that communal peace or public order would be disturbed if a Temple is built on the private plot.
Case title - Dr. Shailendranath Mishra vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources And Development India Govt.New Delhi And Ors [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 692 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The Allahabad High Court earlier this month dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea to the Union of India as well as the UP Govt to fix and recognize the correct date and place of birth of revered Hindu saint and author of Ramcharitmanas, Mahakavi Goswami Tulsidas based on the majority of evidence and information available on record.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the PIL plea involves purely a question that is essentially academic upon which the petitioner himself is uncertain.
Case Title: M/S M.L. Chains v. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263 [Writ Tax No. - 638 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by an erring officer of the Income Tax Department for violating the principles of natural justice while cancelling the earlier Assessment Order and initiating fresh proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessment of the Petitioner was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 263 (Revision of order pre-judicial to revenue) of the Act was issued to the Petitioner by the Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (PCIT) on the ground that the case of the Petitioner was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
Case Title: Anand Agarwal And Another v. Dr. Narendra Malhotra And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264 [Arbitration And Concili. Appl.U/S11(4) No. -74 of 2022 ]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intent of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration can be derived from the clauses of their agreement read along with the letters exchanged between them.
Applicant and the Opposite Party entered into a partnership agreement on 01.12.2016. Clause 21 of the agreement stipulated that in case of any dispute among the partners, the law of arbitration prevailing at the time shall be applicable.
Case title - Pawan Khera vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7810 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 265
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Congress Spokesperson Pawan Khera's plea seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceedings in the case against him for his alleged 'Narendra Gautam Das Modi' remark made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February this year.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be evaluated by the Court in the present proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of pleadings, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
Case Title: Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs. M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266 [ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. -137 of 2022 ]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court held that to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, once the same has been rejected by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party has to challenge the final award. Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court is not maintainable to that effect.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held,
“From the statutory scheme, noticed above, it is abundantly clear that where objection to the jurisdiction of arbitrator is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the only way in which such challenge can be pursued is by challenging the award, as and when it is made by the arbitrator. The applicant cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory scheme by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, on the premise that the appointment of arbitrator itself is bad.”
Case Title: M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur [FAFO No. - 236 of 2002]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 267
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot was adjudicating an appeal arising from a claim application filed before the Railway Claim Tribunal, which was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application for restoration of the claim application but the same was rejected for being time barred. The Court condoned the delay on the part of the claimant while observing as under:
“By filing an application for setting aside the order dismissing the application in default and for restoring the matter, the provisions of the Limitation Act for filing application will not be applicable. There is a time limit of 30 days in filing the application. Therefore, it has to be filed within 30 days. If sufficient cause is made out, Tribunal has got power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and liberal approach has to be adopted by the Tribunal. Here, adequate reasons are given by the appellants for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay.”
E-Way Bill Expired Due To Vehicle Break Down: Allahabad High Court Quashes Seizure Memo
Case Title: M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 599 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act 2017 by which a penalty was imposed solely on the ground that no evidence had been adduced regarding the illness of the driver and the breakdown of the vehicle.
Petitioner regularly made inward supply from GAIL, Auraiya U.P. Inward supply from GAIL Auraiya U.P. was made for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared. E-way Bills were generated having validity up to 12.3.2023, and a GR was also prepared on the same day in which invoice numbers and Eway bills have specifically been mentioned.
Case title - Vidhu Shekhar Trivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Culture Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 6990 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ plea filed seeking the removal of certain mantras of Brahman Bhag from Shukla Yajurveda Samhita.
The bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar observed that such relief can not be granted by the High Court.
'Very Serious Crime': Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 20-Month-Old Child
Case Title: Mata Pher Rawat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2611 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of committing rape against a 20-month-old infant while she was sleeping alone.
Taking into account the fact that the victim received serious injuries on her private part, the bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh rejected the second bail application of the accused.
“…it is evident that the medical report indicates that the private part of the victim was ruptured and vaginal bleeding is found, the summary discharge report also indicates that the victim received serious injuries on her private part that is why she was referred for surgery, the crime appears to be very serious as the infant of about 20 months who was sleeping alone was raped by the applicant…,” the Court said as it opined that minor contradictions in the statements of 3 prosecution witnesses won't help the accused-applicant who was lodged in the jail February 2020.
Case Title: Sunita Sharma and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271 [WPIL No. 1578/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which challenged the appointment of the Advocates by the State Government as Additional Advocate General (AAG), Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Additional Chief Standing Counsel (Addl. CSC), Standing Counsels (SC), Brief Holders Civil and Brief Holder Criminal.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava noted that an identical PIL was filed before a coordinate bench of the same court and is still pending.
"In view of the fact that a coordinate Bench of this Court is already seized of the issues raised in this petition as noticed herein above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ PIL and the same is dismissed."
Case Title: Paltoo Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT C No. 10192 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 272
The Allahabad High Court has held that remedy of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available against the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under Section 207 of the Code, 2006.
The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that the 'proceeding decided' in Section 210 (Power to call for the records) of the Code would include the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal.
Case Title: M. Devaraj vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma And 5 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 600 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 273
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely calling for an explanation from an officer does not amount to any legal injury if neither stricture has been passed nor disparaging or harsh remarks have been made against him.
The bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV held that sitting in intra-court appeal jurisdiction, it cannot set aside an interlocutory order merely because inconvenience may have arisen to the alleged erring officer. There must be injury caused to the officer because of the interlocutory order to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Case Title: Vishwajeet vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14479 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a minor who has been accused of posting comments against Goddess Durga on his Facebook Account.
Perusing his High School Marks-sheet and Aadhar card showing his year of birth to be January 2006, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi directed to release him on bail. He was arrested in September 2022.
Accused-Minor, booked under Sections 298, 505(i)(c) IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, was put behind bars on September 27, 2022, on the allegations that he was posting comments against Goddess Durga on his Facebook Account.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. [ WRIT - C No. - 35884 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person cannot be evicted from the household merely at the instance of the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The bench comprising Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,
“A Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the children and relatives to make available a residence to such senior citizens in pursuance of an application, filed under the abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that the District Magistrate as an appellate authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his 'need' and the right to eviction is the last step, where such authority finds that the need of a senior citizen is not being fulfilled.”
Case title - Neha Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7796 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Stressing that a person has a "constitutionally recognised" right to change his/her gender through surgical intervention, the Allahabad High Court directed the State DGP (Director General of Police) to dispose of an application filed by a female constable seeking permission to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar further said that if in modern society, we do not acknowledge this vested right in a person, to change one's identity, we would be "only encouraging gender identity disorder syndrome".
Compassionate Appointment Is Always On Regular Pay-Scale, Not Consolidated Pay: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ A No. 6719/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 277
The Allahabad High Court has held that compassionate appointment is in the nature of permanent employment and has to be granted on the regular pay scale. Being an exception to the rule of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be temporary in nature.
Petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on a consolidated pay of Rs.2550/- per month in 2004 by the Deputy Basic Education Officer, Etah. Thereafter, in 2010, he was granted a regular pay scale.
Case title - Govardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12619 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Observing that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 are being rampantly missed, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to form uniform guidelines by October 31 regarding the applicability of this Act
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi ordered thus as it observed that in the state of UP, there is no uniformity in the executive authorities of the districts of UP regarding the applicability of this "deterrent" enactment causing "unwarranted piling up of the cases", challenging the notices under this Act etc.
Case Title: Prabhat Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court set aside the dismissal of a government employee for allegedly entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, finding merit in the petitioner's argument that the punishment was unjust since the alleged second marriage was not sufficiently proven.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra further held that even if the second marriage was subsisting, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service as Rule 29 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules only provides for minor punishment in case of a second marriage of a government servant.
Case Title: Mahant Dinesh Das Disciple vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1904 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 280
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Mahant of Shri Thakur Ji Saket Bihari Mandir situated in Padrauna, Kushinagar, seeking directions for removal of unauthorized occupation over the temple land.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that the petitioner had invoked its PIL jurisdiction whereas the relief sought was of a private nature.
UP GST Act | Personal Hearing Mandatory Before Passing Adverse Orders: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B L Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P. and Another [Writ Tax No. - 981 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 281
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Authority to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Assesee before any adverse order is passed against him.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that “not only such opportunity would ensure observance of rules of natural of justice but it would allow the authority to pass appropriate and reasoned order as may serve the interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at the next/appeal stage, if required.”
Case title - Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 661 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who was convicted by the trial court under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years over allegations of instigating/abetting the suicide of his wife.
Having analysed the evidence on record, the Court said that some more overt act, though maybe an indirect one, was required on the part of the accused to bring his acts or conduct within the meaning of the word 'instigation' and therefore, he was entitled to acquittal.
Case Title: Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283 [CAPITAL CASES No. - 3809 of 2015 with Reference No.10 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283
The Allahabad High Court set aside the sentence of the death penalty imposed on a man accused of killing his mother-in-law and brother-in-law by setting them ablaze as the Court noted that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
“We find in the facts of the case that the court below has not subjected the testimony of witnesses to careful scrutiny and has accepted the prosecution case on its basis. The law with regard to the evaluation of the dying declaration has also not been applied correctly in the facts of the present case,” the bench Of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it gave a benefit of doubt to the accused.
Writ Petition Under Article 226 Maintainable Against Orders Of NGT: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M/s Hotel The Grand Tulsi and 15 Others v. State of U.P. And & others [Writ C No. 21979/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the orders passed by National Green Tribunals.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association as to the power of judicial review not being ousted by Section 22 of the NGT Act is in consonance with the ratio of the seven-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India.
Case title - Mahadev Enterprises Firm and 2 others vs. State of UP and 5 Others [WPIL/1953/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the State government and its authorities to not interfere with Hindu devotees from offering sugarcane juice to Kashi Vishwanath Jyotir Lingam in Varanasi.
During the course of the hearing, a bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also said that it was imposing a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner, however, on the petitioner's insistence, the court said that it would reconsider the cost part.
Case Title: M/S Manoj Steel Traders vS. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [WRIT TAX No. - 391 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The Allahabad High Court has held that service of an order upon the advocate of an assessee will be deemed service for the purposes of the GST Act as the advocate is an authorized representative of the assessee.
Perusing Section 107 (Appeals to Appellate Authority) and Section 169 (Service of Notice in Certain Circumstances) of the UPGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evidently clear that the appeal against an order can be preferred within a period of three months from the date of communication. Section 169 (1)(a) of the UPGST Act provides that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely, by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person. Therefore, it is evident that the order communicated on an Advocate will be deemed service upon the petitioner.”
Case title - Abu Talib Husain And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18824 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mutawalli of the wakf board, despite being deemed to be a public servant, is not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC (Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants).
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that for applicability of Section 197 CrPC even for the person who is deemed to be a servant under any statute other than IPC, he must be removable by or with the sanction of Central or the State Government.
Case title - Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the failure of the state police to serve the summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court is affecting the fundamental rights of the accused and their right to obtain bail in a timely manner.
"Rights of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated and fair administration of right of bail is being hampered as a consequence of these failures of the police department," the Court opined.
Case Title: Kusum Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 289
The Allahabad High Court has held that while invoking judicial precedents to decide a case with similar facts and circumstances, it was important to understand the relationship between logic and experience and reiterated that they cannot be applied mechanically.
Holding so, Justice Krishan Pahal rejected the anticipatory bail moved by the mother of the deceased who died in her house by suicide.
Case Title: Gurucharan Das vs. Tribhuvan Pal And 2 Others [ARCO No. 69/2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 290
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is bared by delay and laches.
Noting that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held
“What is, however, admitted on record is that a dispute did occur between the parties in the year 2000. The applicant was aware of the arbitration clause. However, the applicant choose not to invoke the arbitration clause and pursued his claim in suit, which has since been withdrawn. This Court finds substance in the objection of the opposite party that such dead and stale claim ought not to be allowed to be revived after such a long lapse of time. The limitation of three years expired in the year 2003. Filing of this petition, after 20 years is thus grossly barred by delay and latches.”
Case Title: Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - A No. - 12283 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 291
In a case seeking post retiral benefits, the Allahabad High Court has held that withholding retiral dues is not only arbitrary but also a sin in absence of provisions penalising such actions of employers, especially the State instrumentalities.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that such withholding was morally and socially obnoxious.
“Withholding of retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment to the retired employee must however feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our constitution.”
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Priyam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 292
The Allahabad High Court has held that though the post office acts as an agent of the recruiter, application forms must reach the concerned authority on or before the last date of submission.
Justice Vikas Budhwar added that a recruiter cannot be made to wait indefinitely on the pretext that the form was sent to the post office on time.
“Respectfully following the judgments in the case of the Neena Chaturvedi (supra) and Rajendra Patel (supra), applying the law culled out in the judgment in the case of Neena Chaturvedi (supra) and Rajendra Patel (supra) in the present facts of the case it is apparently clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the though the post office acts as an agent of the respondent but the respondents cannot be bound by any delay on the receipt of the application form and further the respondents cannot be allowed to wait for time immemorial in that regard.”
Tribunal Tried To Blow Hot And Cold At The Same Time: Allahabad High Court Upholds Levy Of Entry Tax
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 45 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad on the ground that it had made contradictory observations in its order regarding purchases made by the assesee.
“The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has tried to blow hot & cold at the same time. It may further be observed that the Tribunal, while recording the finding under the Entry Tax Act that the purchases have not been made from unregistered dealer by the respondent, has neither made any discussion, nor any material was brought on record to justify the said observation. Once it has been held that under the UP VAT Act purchases from unregistered dealer have been made, the Tribunal's observation that no purchase has been made and in the absence of any material and evidence, the entry tax cannot be levied, is perverse and cannot be justified in the eyes of law,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges framed against him.
Case Title: J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 44 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a penalty order under Section 129 of the GST Act on the ground that the missing E-way bill is a minor technical fault and does not prove intention to evade tax in the absence of any other discrepancies.
Petitioner, in ordinary course of business, sent five consignments for which five invoices were issued. The goods were being transported from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh and passed through the State of UP, where they were intercepted as the e-way bill was not accompanying them. Consequently, a penalty order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema [FIRST APPEAL No. - 959 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating an appeal against interim maintenance awarded to the wife by the Family Court, has held that the minimum amount must be paid to the estranged wife from the date of the claim to preserve her life and liberty with dignity.
The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV has upheld the interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- awarded to the wife and children by the Family Court while observing,
“Insofar as the award has been made from the date of the application, again, we find no good ground to interfere with the same. Minimum amounts are required to be provided from the date of the claim being made to ensure the life and liberty of the respondent/estranged wife involved in a matrimonial discord situation is preserved with minimal dignity,”
Case Title: Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
The Allahabad High Court waived off the cooling-off for a married couple as they had mutually filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, after entering a Memorandum of Understanding amicably.
The court said the substantive right of the two parties that settle their conflict amicably must not be interfered with by citing procedure.
A bench comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla observed,
“This Court may note that legitimacy or otherwise of an MOU arrived at between the parties out of their free will is not open to judicial scrutiny except on the ground of fraud. The very idea of settlement through mediation or amicable means runs and progresses through this realm of philosophy.”
Case Title: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1843 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his credentials as per Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952).
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi placed reliance on various Supreme Court judgments to hold that the public interest litigation has certain reservations.
“The jurisdiction of the public interest litigation is exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The said jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity. However, the courts while exercising this jurisdiction must exercise the same with extreme caution and responsibility.”
Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others [Civil Misc Review Application No. - 351 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on Jagran Prakashan to be paid to each employee who has been denied benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia found that the petitioner company had preferred an appeal and a revision petition after the initial judgment imposed a cost on the company and that the issues arising in both writ petitions were common.
Case title – Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27288 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner, the Allahabad High Court observed that a systematic design is working to destroy the institution of marriage in India and that films and TV serials are contributing to the same.
Opining that the brutish concept of "changing partners in every season" cannot be considered to be a hallmark of a "stable and healthy" society, the Court stressed that the security and stability that the institution of marriage provides to an individual, cannot be expected from live-in-relationship.
Case Title: Milind Saxena And 15 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the orders issued by Madan Mohan Malviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur, cancelling the admissions of 67 second and final-year B.Tech students for allegedly forging their way in.
A single bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra refused to draw parallels from the Vyapam case where Apex Court, finding established instances of fraud, cancelled the admissions of not only those who had completed their courses but also those who were engaged in medical practice for years after completion of their courses.
Case title - Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 935 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302
The Allahabad High Court observed that even if the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was secured illegally, the same would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against such accused.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while rejecting a revision plea filed challenging the order of a trial court refusing to discharge an accused (Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi) in a case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case title - Mohd. Shakeel vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Supply Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 5534 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the probability of unauthorized sale of meat is no ground to refuse a 'no objection certificate' (NOC) for a retail meat shop.
Observing this, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar directed the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar to reconsider and pass a fresh order on an application of one Mohd. Shakeel/Petitioner for the grant of an NOC to open a retail meat shop.
Case title - Shraddha @ Jannat And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 23672 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 304
The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by an inter-religious couple (who happen to be distant cousins) who purportedly married each other as per the Hindu rites and rituals.
The Court noted that the Petitioner no. 1/Girl, a Muslim by birth, had not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 before converting herself to Hinduism. In this case, while petitioner no. 1 belonged to the Muslim religious community, petitioner no. 2/Boy is a Hindu.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lokbhawan, Lucknow And 7 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 795 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 305
The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea for the declaration of a holiday on the festival of 'Karwa Chauth'.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that such matters fall under the realm of policy decision of the state and hence, the Court cannot entertain such disputes unless guided by statute.
"Even otherwise festivals are commonly celebrated by all," the bench further noted. With this, the PIL plea was dismissed.
Case title - Yaqoob Qureshi vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25492 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 306
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to former UP Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Haji Yaqoob Qureshi who was arrested in January this year under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly running a meat plant without a license.
Examining the matter at the touchstone of the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Gangster Act vis-a-vis the principle underlying the theory of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of the competent jurisdiction, the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh granted him bail.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Singh III vs. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - A No. - 53425 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 307
The Allahabad High Court set aside the adverse entry made in the service record of judicial officer Sunil Kumar Singh-III and directed that he be promoted with retrospective effect from UPHJS 2015.
A bench comprising Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Rajeev Misra held that once the complaints based on which adverse entry is awarded are found untruthful, such adverse entry cannot be sustained.
Case Title:- M/S Khan Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 309 [WRIT TAX No. - 857 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 309
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is a complete code in itself and there can be no deviation from the text of the Act, Rules and Forms.
A bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“The GST Act is a complete Code in itself. Various provisions, Rules and Forms are prescribed as well as various steps are also to be followed in an appropriate circumstances to be taken by the assessees as well as by the State authority. There is no room for deviation from it. The provision and the Rules are to be complied with strictly. In another words the action/working of the officers of State authority should be transparent.”
Case title - Jose Papachen And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 877 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court has observed that providing good teachings, distributing Holy Bible books, and performing Bhandara does not amount to 'allurement' for religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmad also explained the scope of Section 4 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 [person competent to lodge FIR] as to who can lodge an FIR regarding the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Case title - X vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 30708 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 311
The Allahabad High Court ordered for adequate medical facility and compensation for a 15-year-old year rape victim seeking to terminate her 29-week pregnancy after her father agreed to look after the newborn baby till adoption.
The rape survivor had essentially moved the High Court seeking to terminate her pregnancy, however, looking at the medical report of the girl, which stated that the fetus is of 30 weeks gestational age and there is a possibility of live birth as the fetus (unborn child) has crossed the age of viability (i.e. more than 24 weeks Gestational age), her father agreed to keep and look after the baby until the adoption.
Case title - Khalid Anwar Alias Anwar Khalid vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Branch Hear New Delhi [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1981 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 312
The Allahabad High Court has observed that until and unless a written proclamation is not published as per Section 82 CrPC, the occasion for the applicant being “declared” a proclaimed offender doesn't arise.
Referring to the provisions laid down under Section 82 of CrPC, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that a proclamation has to be been 'published' as provided under Subsection (1) of Section 82 CrPC before a person is declared as a proclaimed offender under Subsection (4) of Section 82 CrPC.
Case title - Amar Singh vs. State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Education And 3 Ors [WRIT - A No. - 1505 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 313
The Allahabad High Court came to the rescue of a school chowkidar who has been receiving a sum of Rs. 150 per month since 1998 by the state government.
Calling his employment as 'Forced labour' which is impermissible in law, the Court directed the state to pay him current wages equivalent to the minimum of pay scale admissible to Class IV employees within a period of six weeks.
Case Title:- Golu @ Arun Patel v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 314
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition, the Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 as it noted that the petitioner had not challenged the remand order and concealed material facts regarding the rejection of bail by the Court below.
A bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that the object of the writ of habeas corpus is to secure the release of a person who has been illegally restrained to protect his liberty.
Case title - Preeti Lata vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5365 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 315
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a life-convict woman who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial (in 2016) after finding her guilty of killing a doctor (in 2013) by chopping off his private part and later sending the same to his wife.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi vs.Devi Deen (Since Deceased) And 6 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 316
While deciding a tenancy dispute under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated the principle that no one can be permitted to take a different stand from what has been taken earlier on affidavit.
Relying on various Supreme Court judgments, a bench comprising of Justice Neeraj Tiwari said, “In light of Section 12(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the firm view that any affidavit given before any Court of law be read as conclusive evidence in subsequent proceeding before any Court of law, if related to that controversy.”
Case Title: Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court upheld the SIT probe into several Madrasas at Azamgarh based on powers accorded to the State Government under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004.
The Court held that under Section 13 of the Act, 2004, the State was empowered to take immediate action consistent with the Act without reference to the Board in certain circumstances. It was within the statutory powers of the State to call upon the Head of Madrasas or its officials to produce documents for verification at any time, it said. In such cases where the statute empowers the State to carry out inspection, Court held, “the principles of natural justice may be diluted”.
Case Title: India Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs. The Commercial Court And Another
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 318
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of objection under Section 47 of CPC at the stage of execution of arbitral award.
A bench comprising of Justice Neeraj Tiwari reiterated that arbitral award is not a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC, therefore, an objection filed under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings is not maintainable. Further, the Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Padmajeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS LTD that “arbitral award can be executed invoking Section 36 of New Act, 1996 along with the provisions of CPC in the same manner as if it is decree of the Court.”
Case Title: Smt. Vidya Rawat v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - C No. - 11692 of 2007]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated the principle that once Labour Court holds that the termination of workman was illegal and the workman is reinstated in service, it is bound to award back wages.
“If a termination order is set aside being illegal, the consequence would be that the order of termination was never passed and therefore, reinstatement in service with full back wages is the natural consequence of setting aside the order of termination,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 960 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has refused to order the DNA test of a child on the plea of a man seeking to prove adultery allegations he levelled against his wife by demonstrating that the child was not his legitimate son.
The child in question was born within 9 months of the man's marriage with his wife (respondent).
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV however observed that there were no pleadings to the effect that the parties had not known each or met each other before marriage. It held,
"Qua the allegation of adultery being levelled by the appellant, the burden to establish the same remains on the appellant. He cannot seek to lighten that burden by forcing the opposite party to lead evidence as may not only demolish the defence, if any of the opposite party but also be read as evidence that may prove the case of the appellants."
Case Title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 321
In a significant order, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has specified the reasons for the withdrawal of the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute (from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia) by stating that the decision was taken by him (CJ) on the administrative side "in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases".
Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, in his order dated August 28, a copy of which was made available earlier today, has reasoned that non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) for hearing through he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the master of the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases.
GST | Allow Assesee To Upload ITC-01 To Claim Input Tax Credit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 881 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has allowed the assessee-petitioner to upload ITC-01 to enable him to avail of Input Tax Credit for shifting from the Composite Scheme to the Normal Scheme.
The Petitioner was initially registered under the Composition Scheme for the Financial Year 2022-23. However, with an increase in its turnover of the Financial Year, it converted into a normal scheme after submitting a withdrawal from the Composition Scheme. Petitioner contended that on account of the shifting from one scheme to another, it was entitled to avail the ITC in respect of stock of inputs in the form of semi-finished/ finished goods and Capital goods held by it on the date of the withdrawal by furnishing statement within 30 days in Form GSTITC-01 on the common portal.
Case title - Rajender Kumar vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh [ELECTION PETITION No. - 6 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an election petition filed by one Rajendra Kumar, a BJP leader, challenging the election of the then Bijnor BJP MP Kunwar Bhartendra Singh in the 2014 Loksabha polls, observed that in political life, there are no permanent enemies or friends.
Noting that not only the term of Lok Sabha 2014-2019 was over but the term of subsequent Lok Sabha 2019-2024 is likely to be over within a few months, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also stressed the need to decide the election petition at the earliest so that the same may not be rendered infructuous due to the efflux of time.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar Keshari vs. Union Of India And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Judges of the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure over the continued abstinence from work by the lawyers since 30th August, 2023. The lawyers have been abstaining from work across the State of UP due to the Police lathicharge on lawyers in Hapur District.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Registrar General had issued due communication on Monday for arguments through Video Conferencing/ Virtual mode from Tuesday onwards. Necessary links for the same were also notified. However, the lawyers in the case before the Court did not appear physically or through virtual mode.
Case title - Dinesh Kumar vs. District Caste Scrutiny Committee And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 325
"Exercising judicial restraint", the Allahabad High Court refrained from making any observations on the (lack of) authority of the UP Bar Council to issue resolutions calling for lawyers strike, contrary to the statute and judgments of the Supreme Court.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra however penned his dismay at the continued strike by lawyers over Police lathicharge on lawyers in Hapur District, despite positive judicial intervention in the matter.
Case title - Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42430 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that appointment to the posts of District/Additional Government Counsel (Criminal) [DGC/ADGC (Crl.)] by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and the same is not a civil post and hence, such an engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason.
Holding that the action of the State in not renewing the tenure can't be subjected to judicial scrutiny, the bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed thus:
"The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment on the post of D.G.C./A.D.G.C.(Crl.). Such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. By holding a post of District Counsel or public prosecutor, no status is conferred on the incumbent. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such...The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of term of the post held by him."
Case title - Km. Pratiksha vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40163 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a woman arrested in July this year in connection with a dowry death case as it stressed that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed because lawyers are abstaining from Court.
With this, the bench of Justice Siddharth allowed a bail application filed by the applicant-accused (Pratiksha) booked under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act on the allegations of causing dowry death of her sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
Case title - Ibnul Hussain @ Babu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13865 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Ibnul Hussain who was arrested in July 2022 on the allegations of damaging the image of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath by misusing the mobile phone of the informant.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed the plea keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a 22-year-old person having no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since July 21, 2022.
Case Title - Ifrak Ali Khan vs. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 329
On the 15th day of strike by lawyers pursuant to the Hapur Incident, the Allahabad High Court observed that the strike is not a solution to the brutal lathi-charge on the lawyers at Hapur. The Court suggested that the erring officers and bureaucrats must be called to Court to justify their actions.
“The solution could have been to let the Courts function and make the officers and bureaucrats answerable compelling their appearance before the courts of law to justify their action of lathi-charge and not to shut down the courts giving liberty to the erring officials to roam freely and smiling with a confidence that there is none to call for an explanation or to take action against them or take remedial measures.”
Case Title: Kailash Chand Agarwal vs. Principal Commissioner [Writ Tax No. - 976 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the order refusing to delay condonation in filing ITRs for lack of records after more than 20 years of filing the condonation applications.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manoj Bajaj has observed that when the delay condonation application was filed on March 30, 1998, the applications ought to have been decided within the time provided by the Income Tax Act. The court was of the view that, at that point in time, all the records would have been available.
Case Title: M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj And Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 16998 of 2023]
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High court has upheld the maintainability of a writ petition challenging cancellation of dealership, citing to lack of alternate remedies available to the aggrieved.
A bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that regarding termination of dealership, there is neither a remedy of civil suit nor any other efficacious alternate remedy available to the aggrieved party. Hence, a writ petition challenging the termination of dealership would be maintainable.
Case title - Sonu @ Pinku vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2202 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of committing the offence of rape against an 8-year-old girl as it observed that it is not natural for any father to stake the honour of his minor daughter to avenge a previous dispute, that too by falsely alleging that she has been raped.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV dismissed the appeal filed by the accused as it concluded that the trial court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, had rightly convicted the accused-appellant under Section 363, 366-Ka and 376(2)(f) IPC.
Case Title: Dr Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 8 Others [WRIT - C No. - 19524 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 333
The Allahabad High Court upheld the delegation of powers by the District Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 22(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 22(2)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.
A bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV held,
“The power being vested in the District Magistrate, by an act of the principal legislature and that power being permitted to be delegated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, wherever there may arise any doubt as to maintainability of any application filed by any senior citizen under the Act, either before the delegate or the delegatee i.e. the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, such an application may never be dismissed as non-maintainable, for reason of delegation made or its lack.”
UP VAT | Burden To Prove Purchase From Registered Dealer On Assesee: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/S Ramway Foods Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 26 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 334
In a revision preferred by the Tax Department, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that purchases were made from registered dealer lies on the Assesee claiming the same. The Department cannot be made to discharge a negative burden to prove that the sales were made from unregistered dealers.
Perusing Section 16 (Burden of Proof) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“It is evidently clear that the burden of proof lies upon the dealer/opposite party. In other words, the burden of claim of ex U.P. purchases is squarely upon the opposite party, who has to discharge the said burden and not the Department. Merely showing the purchases through invoices from the registered dealer, will not enough and sufficient to proof that the purchases have been made bona fidely.”
Case title - Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of U.P. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 335
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 4 alleged conspirators of the 2005 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhumi terror attack case who were found guilty in 2019 by a special court in Allahabad of conspiracy and providing logistic and material help to terror suspects.
While passing the order for bail, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi took into account the long period of incarceration of the accused who were arrested in August 2005.
Case title - Sushil Kumar And 2 Others vs. Legislative Council U.P. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 11 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Expressing doubts regarding fairness in the recruitment process of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council staff, the Allahabad High Court has directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary probe into the matter and submit a report by the first week of November.
Case title - Anita Devi And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39963 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 3 women who were arrested in August this year on the allegations of condemning and criticising Hindu religion and inciting people to convert to Christianity.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan passed the order noting that the state counsel failed to show any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in the larger interests of the public or State.
Case title - Santosh Kumar vs. Gayatri Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 338 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 279 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 338
The Allahabad High Court observed that so long as a marriage survives, it remains the duty of the earning spouse to protect the life, liberty and dignity of the other.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed thus while hearing an appeal filed by one Santosh Kumar challenging an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 providing for Rs. 7K per month as interim maintenance to his wife.
Case Title: Amit Jaiswal v. Dr. Pankhuri Agarwal @ Dr. Pankhuri Jaiswal [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1033 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court has held that the family court ought not to reject an application filed for waving of the statutory six-month cooling off period in divorce proceedings under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a mechanical manner.
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal placed reliance on an earlier decision of the bench headed by Justice Singh in Vijay Agarwal v. Smt. Suchita Bansal, wherein the Court had held that the cooling off period under the provision is not mandatory. It is merely directory, and the discretion to waive the same rests with the Court.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 340
The Allahabad High Court expressed great displeasure and rebuked a lawyer for filing a criminal writ plea (challenging an FIR) just 5 days after a plea against the same FIR had been dismissed by the HC.
Calling the conduct of the petitioner as well as counsel as 'highly deplorable', the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh imposed a cost of Rs. 50K on the petitioners.
Case Title : Abhishek Singh v. Shashi Singh @ Bindu Singh [First Appeal No. - 995 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application may only be allowed if the party seeking amendment can show that there will be irreparable injury or justice will not be done in case the amendment sought is not allowed.
Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Family Court rejecting application seeking amendment in written statement on the ground that it was necessary amendment. It was argued that the appellant-husband had missed raising the objection in the written statement that the respondent-wife had set up a claim contrary to Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Chhote Lal Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Supreme Court's dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation applies to all civil as well as criminal cases irrespective of the "stage" of the proceeding.
A bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Sharma held,
“In my opinion, though in para- 36 of the judgment words "pending trial" has been used, but the intention of the Apex Court was to effectuate such direction, in all the civil as well as criminal cases irrespective of the "stage" of the proceeding. The court intended its ruling to apply wherever stay is granted, whether at the stage of investigation or at the stage of inquiry or at the stage of committal or the stages after the trial has commenced in a criminal case.”
Case Title: Priti Yadav @ Pinki v. Ashwani Gwal [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 294 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court directing parties to mediation, instead of waiving the cooling off period after almost eight years of living separately. The Court held that with changing times, the Court should be mindful of the realities and depart from obsolete and conservative approach in matrimonial disputes.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,
“In the context of matrimonial disputes arising in present times, the courts are required to stay tuned to the realities of life and depart from obsolete and conservative approach to such litigation. While preservation of marriage survives as a desired goal and all the courts must first examine if a troubled marriage may be made to work for the good of the parties involved, at the same time it essentially being a matter of personal choice, upon fair consensus reached by the parties to dissolve their marriage, parties may not be obstructed only to seek technical compliance of procedural safeguards.”
Case Title: Union Of India And 3 Others vs. Yashpal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court has held that while awarding major punishment of dismissal from service, surrounding factors along with past record need to be considered by the disciplinary authority.
“Gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties, position in organisation, previous penalty, if any and requirement of discipline to be enforced were relevant to be considered by the disciplinary authority before the punishment may have been awarded to the respondent,” observed the Court.
Case Title: Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court has held that passing of a subsequent order on point of remand does not take away the substantive right of appeal against the order of remand itself.
Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC makes an order under Rule 23 or Rule 23-A of Order XLI remanding a case, appealable.
“The order of remand under the statutory scheme would, therefore, be seen to have independent existence and cannot be held to have been nullified merely for the reason that the remand order has subsequently been given effect and the point on which the remand had been made, has been decided,” held Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
Case Title: Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court has held that doctrine of severability can be applied to arbitral awards for separating the good part from the bad, provided they are independent of each other and findings in the award are not substituted by the Court.
The bench comprising of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Vikram D. Chauhan held,
“We have thus, no hesitation in holding that scheme of the Act does not put any limitation on power of the court to apply the doctrine of severability to an arbitral award while considering the objections under Section 34 of the Act. It is well within the power of court to segregate, severe and set aside part of the award and uphold the remaining part. The only restriction is (i) that while exercising the power, the court cannot proceed to modify the findings returned on any of the issues decided by the arbitral tribunal and (ii) the remaining part is capable of surviving on its own.”
Case Title: Western Carrier India Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [Writ Tax No. - 1020 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court held that if goods are accompanied by invoices or any other document as specified, either the consignee or the consigner shall be deemed owner of the goods. Penalty, if any, should be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was transporting a consignment for M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Odisha to Pilkhua. Due to breakdown of engine in the State of Jharkhand, there was delay in transporting goods. As a result, E-Way Bills expired. Petitioner was able to extend one of the E-Way Bills, however, GST portal did not allow any extension in the rest. The goods were detained in Kanpur on ground that E-Way bills had expired.
Case title - Ram Komal and two others vs. State of U.P. and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 348 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12417 of 2005]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even after the submission of a charge sheet, the investigation of a case can be transferred to the police of another police station and there is no necessity to obtain permission from the concerned court.
The bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma also said that even after the Court took cognizance of any offence, on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the Police to conduct further investigation in a given case.
“There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. The casting of any such obligation on Court would only result in encumbering it with the burden of searching for all potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard,” the Court further added.
Case title – Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 349 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 349
The Allahabad High Court REJECTED an application filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, to defer a hearing in the Gyanvapi-Kashi Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute cases, presently pending before the Chief Justice.
The application, filed on September 18, prayed that the hearing in the cases be not conducted till the identify the applicant, on whose application, the Chief Justice passed an administrative order (on August 11) to withdraw the title dispute cases from the single judge, is disclosed and it is verified whether such person is an advocate for the opposite parties/plaintiff.
Case Title: M/S Baba Construction Pvt.Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has held that show cause notice for blacklisting must include the grounds on which blacklisting is being proposed in a clear manner. The Court has held that any action proposed to be taken against the party on failure to meet the grounds, must be mentioned in the notice clearly and unambiguously.
A bench comprising of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held,
“In our opinion, a notice for blacklisting is required to specify as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which the action is proposed. The notice is also required to state the grounds necessitating the action and the penalty proposed specifically and unambiguously. The show cause notice is also required to adhere to the principles of natural justice. We also find that the orders of blacklisting has been passed for an indefinite period which is not permissible under the law.”
Case Title: Committee Of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Thru. Admin Shri Rakesh Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Lko. And 2 Others
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court has held that neither the State Government nor any Board constituted by it has the power to revoke/cancel No Objection Certificates issued to Pharmacy Colleges as the power specifically vests with the Pharmacy Council of India.
The Pharmacy Act is a special enactment operating in the field of pharmacy. State cannot exercise power in that field based on any general state legislation, it is held.
“The State Government or the Board, at the most, can make views/opinion/report to the PCI and in such a situation, the PCI is only the statutory authority, which can take decision on the report of the State Government or the Board. Thus, the question no.(a), referred to hereinabove, is answered in favour of the petitioners/institutions that the State Government or the Board has no power to cancel the NOC granted earlier as the power to cancel the NOC is vested with PCI,” held Justice Om Prakash Shukla.
Case title - Syed Ishrat Hussain Jafri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 352 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1861 of 2023]
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail, on medical grounds, to the Vice President of the Hygia Educational Group, Syed Ishrat Hussain Jafri, who is an accused in the UP's ₹500 crore post-matriculation scholarship scam.
Keeping in view the fact that the medical condition of the applicant had been certified by a panel of expert doctors, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made an order of August 23 granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, absolute.
Case Title: Arun Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 354 [WRIT - A No. - 6796 of 2023]
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that once a person has been granted appointment, he acquires a vested right to continue on the said post and any order bearing civil consequences should be passed after affording him opportunity of hearing.
Petitioner's appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, Civil Police was cancelled on the ground of concealment of criminal proceedings against him. He argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated against him when he was a minor and that he was not aware of the same.
Case Title: M/S Gold Ripe International Private Limited vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Allahabad High Court held that Court is not an expert body to decide whether Ethephon (an insecticide) falls within the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticide Act, 1968.
Though the Court noted that petitioner had failed to discharge its burden to prove that exemption was rightly claimed, it directed the petitioner to appear before the statutory authority as it is a fact-finding body who is empowered to decide the issue of exemption claimed being right or wrong.
Case Title: U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited through its Managing Director and Another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U. P. Lucknow and two others [Writ C No.1006454 of 2011]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court has held that any dispute between an employer and employees of a cooperative society are to be adjudicated under the U.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and not the under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others and the division bench of the High Court in Ramji Lal Tewari Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Federation Ltd. Lko, bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held “it is clear that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said matter pertaining to a Society constituted under the Act, 1965.”
Case Title: Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And O [WRIT - A No. - 4422 of 2015]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that for dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the authority must look at the conduct which led to conviction on a criminal charge. Mechanical order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India cannot be passed based on mere conviction, it held.
“Now this issue is no res integra. Apex Court from the judgement of Tulsiram Patel(Supra) to many other judgments has considered this issue repeatedly and has held that even after conviction of an employee, while passing the removal or dismissal order, there must have been consideration of conduct of the employee and without that, any order of dismissal is bad,” held Justice Neeraj Tiwari.
Case Title: Union Of India And 4 Others v. Ashutosh Kumar And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15197 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting notional promotion to employees of railways from the date of their application on the ground that delay caused by one arm and arbitrary action of other arm of the Railways cannot take away the benefits accruing to the employees.
A bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV held,
“Seen, thus both ICF and CMLRW are two arms of the same department of the Union of India. Delay caused by one and arbitrary action taken by another may not be relied any benefit accruing to the respondents. Ultimately, it is the department of the Railways, under the Union of India that remains primarily responsible and liable for the mistake committed either by ICF or CMLRW or both.”
Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether an application, filed under Section 482 of CrPC, challenging entire proceedings of a case under the SC/ST Act, is maintainable.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir referred the issue in question as it noted that there were conflicting judgments of the High Court regarding the maintainability of such an application moved under Section 482 CrPC.
Case title - Legislative Council Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy And 2 Others vs. Sushil Kumar And 11 Others along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a review plea filed by the UP Vidhan Parishad against an order of the HC passed last month directing the CBI to conduct a preliminary probe into the 'irregularities' in the recruitment of staff for the secretariat of the State Legislative Assembly and Council in 2022-23.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla that the prima facie, the alleged irregularities indicate that it was not less than a recruitment scam, wherein hundreds of recruits were illegally and unlawfully recruited by an external agency of shaken credence.
Case title - Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23148 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be 'solemnised' unless the 'Saptapadi' ceremony (taking of seven steps by the the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and other rituals have been performed.
With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a petition filed by one Smriti Singh challenging the entire proceedings of a complaint filed against her by her husband under Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 109 (Punishment of abetment) IPC.
National Informatics Centre Under Allahabad High Court's Radar For Discrepancy In Listing Of Cases
Case title - Sajjan Kumar vs. State of U.P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court has directed inquiry against officers of National Informatics Centre at the High Court, as repeated cases of listing of second bail applications by the same person before different bench has come to light.
Case Title - Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi Thru. Chief Operation Officer, Shri Avadhesh Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health, U.P. Lucknow And Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court stayed the suspension of license of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi.
The bench comprising of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manish Kumar observed that because inquiry is pending in a single incidence of medical negligence, the entire hospital cannot be made dysfunctional.
Case title - Tannu Kumari and 10 Others vs. Union Of India And 2 Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court observed that certain candidates with lower marks had been granted back door entries in private medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh while petitioners who belonged to different states had been refused an opportunity to participate in counselling based on their lack of domicile.
Eleven petitioners, non-residents/ non-domicile of State of UP, appeared in the National Eligibility and Entrance Test conducted by National Testing Agency in Dental Colleges & passed with marks ranging between 108-132. Petitioners belong to OBC/ SC category for which cut-off had been declared as 107 whereas the cut-off for general category is 138.
Invoking Doctrine Of 'Parens Patriae', Allahabad HC Appoints Wife As Guardian Of Husband In Comatose
Case Title: Pooja Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court has invoked the doctrine of 'Parens Patriae' to appoint petitioner-wife as the guardian of her husband who is in permanent vegetative state, to meet the ends of justice.
A bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held
“Mental incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which would justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is in a vegetative state, then surely “parens patriae” jurisdiction can be exercised.”
Case title - UP Congress Committee vs. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - C No. - 3740 of 1998]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee (UPCC) to clear Rs 2.66 crores (266 lakhs) due to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) for using its buses and taxies for its political purposes between 1981-89, the period during which the Congress party was in power in the State.
While passing the order, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar noted that the UPCC exercised its dominant position and utilized the public property for its political purposes, however, it did not pay the dues even when the bills were duly raised by the UPSRTC.
Case Title: Divine Faith Fellowship Church And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court has strongly deprecated the adjudication of civil disputes by the National Commission for Minorities and its State counterpart as it is beyond the scope of the powers given to them under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and the U.P. Commission for Minorities Act, 1994.
A bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held,
“We strongly deprecate such practice adopted by the National Commission for Minorities to adjudicate disputes and proceed to adjudicate matters, as if they are Courts and also to summon the officers without any rhyme or reason in continuance of such adjudication or to pressurize officers to pass any order. We further request the Members or Chairpersons of the Commission for Minorities of the State of U.P. and also the National Commission for Minorities, not to function or adjudicate any dispute as a Court for which they are not empowered under the Act to do so.”
Case Title: M/S World Solution vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 931 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 368
While setting aside order cancelling GST registration of assesee on grounds that it was unreasoned, the Allahabad High Court has held that 'reasons are heart and soul' of any order. In absence of reasons assigned, the order is vitiated in law.
Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 25, State Tax, Kanpur Nagar. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on grounds of delay. Counsel for petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed in violation of Section 29 (Cancellation or Suspension of Registration) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Case title - Kaliya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6826 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a vehicle used for the transportation of cows and their progeny within the state (and not outside the state) is not any offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and hence, such a vehicle cannot be seized or confiscated by the authorities.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar further held that when cows and their progenies are being transported within the State of UP, no show-cause notice under section 5-A of the Act could be issued by the District Magistrate.
Bakery Shortening And Vanaspati Are As Same: Allahabad High Court Applies Common Parlance Test
Case Title: The Commissioner vs. Adani Wilmar [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 100 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court has applied the Common Parlance Test and held that bakery shortening and vanaspati are the same.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has observed that on the test of 'Common Parlance' Notification No. 37/2003 dated April 30, 2003, issued by the Government of India is very important and relevant, as in the Notification the Union Government has very categorically and specifically mentioned bakery shortening, or partially or wholly hydrogenated vegetable fats and oils refracting, commonly known as "Vanaspati". The Union Government has used the word commonly known, which means known and understood in common parlance, and therefore, the Government of India is treating both the goods in question in common parlance as one and the same commodity in the eyes of law.
Case Title: M/S Amrit Steels v. Commissioner Commercial Tax [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 377 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that concession has been rightly claimed is upon the assesee in the original proceedings. However, the Court held that in reassessment proceedings, burden shifts upon the Department to prove that assesee had wrongly claimed concession.
Distinguishing the decision of Allahabad High Court in Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax relied on by the Assesee-Revisionist, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“When the reassessment proceedings are being initiated, the burden is shifted to the Revenue, but in the original proceeding, the onus is upon the dealer to discharge beyond doubt the claim so made.”
Case Title – Jitendra Giri vs. State of UP
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed by a Pujari (Jitendra Giri) seeking permission to worship and receive offerings made by devotees to Naugrah Shivlings established within Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple corridor in Varanasi.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed the plea as it found no grounds to direct the UP Government to allow Giri's representation made to it.
Wrong Mention Of Section In Title Of Application Can't Be Held Against Assesee: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Purnagiri Rice Mill, Shahjahanpur Thru. Authorized Representative Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue, New Delhi And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 197 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court has held that based on the observations of the Tribunal, if a wrong Section is written in the title of the application, it will not take away the scope/ application of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules.
Petitioner preferred an appeal against order of assessment/penalty before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. Due to lack of notice of hearing, the petitioner could not appear before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution with an observation that the assessee would be at liberty to move an application under Section 254 (Orders of Appellate Tribunal) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: M/S Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 603 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is necessary for the authorities to establish intention to evade tax for proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that without recording a finding a as to intention to evade tax, proceedings can at best be initiated under Section 122 of the Act.
Dealing with Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Both the sections revolve around a similar issue and provide for the proceedings available at the hands of the proper Officer upon him having found the goods in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the CGST Act being one of them. Upon a purposive reading of the sections, it would sufice to state that the legislation makes intent to evade tax a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act.”
Case Title: Mehek Maheshwari vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1751 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking recognition of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque site as Krishna Janam Bhoomi.
A bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed this order after reserving its verdict on the matter last month.
Case Title: Vivek Saran Agarwal vs. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 968 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash order and consequential notice under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that all permissible grounds of defence remain open to assessee at the stage of proceedings under Section 148.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava stated that order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not final adjudication on escapement of assessment of income of assesee. The. Court observed that the Income Tax Act was framed to exclude determination of correctness of information at the stage of proceedings under Section 148A owing to existence of alternate remedy/appeal under Section 246-A.
Case Title: M/S Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others [WRIT - C No. - 15519 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court has held that tender proceedings carried out fairly by State and its instrumentalities cannot be interfered with by the Court easily as no bidder has a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held,
“While considering the dispute wherein award of the tender has been challenged, the Court only has to see whether the decision making process had any error or the authorities have exceeded its jurisdiction or there was violation of rules of natural justice.”
Case Title: M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 378 [WRIT TAX No. - 277 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court has held that unlike the Value Added Tax Act, 2008, there is no specific provision in the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which requires assesses to declare route of transportation/ transit of goods. Therefore, goods cannot be detained for not being transported through the regular route.
A bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“Under the GST Act, there is no specific provision which bounds the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during transportation of goods or while goods are in transit however there was a provision under VAT Act to disclose the route during transportation of goods to reach its final destination. Once the legislature itself in its wisdom has chosen to delete the said provision, this Court opined that the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route.”
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21621 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to expunge the name of NOIDA from revenue record pertaining to land of the petitioners and mutate their names in place of NOIDA.
The bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Donadi Ramesh held even if the notifications for acquisition of the petitioners' land could be saved by a Supreme Court judgment (discussed later), proceedings would be hit by limitation under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as no award had been passed after the enforcement of the new Act.
Case Title: M/S Namo Narayan Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1476 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 380
The Allahabad High Court has held that any order devoid of reasons will become lifeless as reasons are the heartbeat of every order.
“Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. In the absence of reasons the order becomes lifeless. Non recording of reasons renders the order to be violative of principles of natural justice. Reasons ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. It enables litigant to know reasons for acceptance or rejection of his prayer. It is statutory requirement of natural justice. Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. It is link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. Thus failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: M/S Ennkay Timbers And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 381 [WRIT TAX No. - 1208 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court has directed restoration of GST registration of a firm as return could not be filed in time due to unavoidable circumstances. The Court noted that mother and sister of the petitioner died of prolonged illness, due to which petitioner suffered both mentally and financially, which were unavoidable circumstances.
Petitioner was registered under Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The proprietor could not file returns for the petitioner for a consecutive period of six months. A show cause notice was issued against petitioner proposing cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 (2) (c) of GST Act. Due to bereavements in the family, appropriate reply could not be filed within time. Petitioner approached the High Court against the cancellation; however, the petition was dismissed in lieu of alternate remedy. Thereafter, an appeal was filed, which was also rejected.
Case Title: Deepak Dewvedi And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lucknow And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7450 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking compliance of a Supreme Court order.
The Court placed reliance on re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others, wherein a division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that “in case of non-compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court the power is vested in Supreme Court itself to take action in contempt and not by this Court.”
Case Title: Smt. Manorama Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6848 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that a victim cannot make multiple requests for recording her statement a fresh under Section 164 CrPC. The Court held that though there is no bar on the Investigation Officer to move applications for recording statement under Section 164 CrPC a second or a third time, the victim cannot make such requests as it will destroy the sanctity of such statements.
“For certain good reasons, the statement under sections 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once. But that doesn't mean that victim or the I.O. can keep on giving such applications for recording of statements any number of times without any good cause. Doing so, will destroy the sanctity of such statements and in my view, shall frustrate the very purpose behind such statements,” held Justice Jyotsna Sharma.
Case Title: U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,Unnao Thru. Its Senior Project Officer/Regional Manager vs. Gurmeet Singh [RERA APPEAL No. - 28 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court has held that condonation of delay application must be dealt with liberally otherwise it will cause obstruction of justice. Any court or tribunal dealing with delay condonation must consider the facts and circumstances stated in the application before rejecting the same, the Court held.
“Any order passed either allowing the application for condonation of delay or rejecting the same without recording a finding sufficiently would be arbitrary and liable to be interfered by the superior courts,” held Justice Alok Mathur.
Case title - Surendra Koli vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Acquitting prime suspects Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Surinder Koli in the 2005-2006 Noida serial murder cases (Nithari Kand) for lack of evidence, the Allahabad High Court has raised serious questions regarding how the investigation in the case was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
A Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi also pulled up the CBI for 'completely overlooking' the strong possibility of organ trade being an actual reason behind murders.
Case Title: M/S Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 433 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 386
The Allahabad High Court has quashed demand of Rs. 235.52 Crores raised against Vivo Mobile India Private Limited by GST Authorities vide order under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vinod Diwakar while granting relief to Vivo Mobile held that Input Tax Credit is a substantive right granted to the assesee under Section 16 of the GST Act. Further, it was held that a circular though in force cannot be enforced contrary to the provisions of the statute.
Case title - Deepak Prakash Singh @ Deepak Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10246 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an accused has been booked under the POCSO Act as well as the SC/ST Act, the provision of the former will prevail over the latter and an anticipatory bail plea moved by such accused would be maintainable.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea moved by one Deepak Prakash Singh, a teacher by profession, who has been accused of committing rape on a 14-year-old mentally retarded girl.
Case title - Ram Dhari Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 390 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35789 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court has observed that all the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 should be concluded expeditiously without going into unnecessary technicality.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus given the Supreme Court's directions issued in the case of In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508.
Case title - Dev Raj Singh And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 392 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2254 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by 5 residents from the Tilak Nagar area of Prayagraj complaining about the non-supply of water affecting 10,000 people of their ward, after the UP Government (through Chief Standing Counsel) submitted before the Court that the water supply has been restored last evening.
A bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ajay Bhanot was also assured by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, who remained personally present in compliance with the Court's October 18 order, that any water supply issues arising in future would be taken care of.
Case title - Mohd Imran Kazi vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31091 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely liking a post on Social Media will not amount to publishing or transmitting the said post and therefore, the act will not attract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal further observed that the words appearing in Section 67 of the IT Act are "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" which means relating to sexual interest and desire, and therefore, the provision does not prescribe any punishment for any other provocative material.
Case title - Alok Awasthi vs. Additional District Judge-4 Lucknow And Another [WRIT - C No. - 1000861 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Observing that the Journalists in the State are being extended the benefit of Estate properties at throw-away prices, the Allahabad High Court last week decided to suo moto consider the vires of The Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Act 2016 (UP Act of XXIII of 2016) [AHUCED ACT].
The Court decided thus as it found the 2016 Act to be prima facie contrary to the mandate of Article 14 as it purports to extend Government largesse to the persons, who are not authorized or are not engaged in any Government functions.
Case title - Chhavinath vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29678 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Observing that our nation is the land of 'legendary' Shravan Kumar who sacrificed his life for aged blind parents, the Allahabad High Court recently said that the traditional norms and values of the Indian society emphasize the duty of taking care of elders.
Noting that children are expected to look after their elderly parents properly, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar also opined that this duty of the children is not only a value-based principle but a "bounden duty" as mandated by law.
Case title - Radhika And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15096 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 401
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection from the police as they continue to be in a live-in relationship, the Allahabad High Court observed that such relationships are more about infatuation for the opposite sex without any sincerity and they often result into timepass.
Though accepting that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, validated the live-in relationship, the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi however added that in the span of two months and that too, at a tender age of 20-22 years, the Court cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such type of temporary relationship.
Case Title: M/S Vacmet India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 402 [WRIT TAX No. - 687 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 402
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision for taxing goods (stock transfer) being transported from one unit of the assesee to another within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court further held that intention to evade tax cannot be attributed on movement of assesse's goods from one unit to another.
Petitioner's goods were being transported from one unit to another in the State of Uttar Pradesh when they were intercepted and detained as Part-B of the e-way bill was complete. In reply to the show cause notice, petitioner submitted that the transporter had failed to fill Part-B of the e-way bill and it was rectified as soon as it came to the knowledge of the petitioner. However, penalty order under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act was passed against the petitioner. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
Case title - Anchal Rajbhar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15799 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403
While dismissing an FIR quashing plea filed by a live-in relationship couple, involving a minor boy and a major girl), the Allahabad High Court expressed 'surprise' that the minor boy, dependent upon his father, wants to be in a live-in relationship.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a girl (Anchal Rajbhar) and her minor live-in partner (Jaihind Rajbhar) seeking to quash an FIR lodged against the boy under Section 366 IPC.
Case title – Vipul Tripathi vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Youth Affairs And Sports New Delhi And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 936 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 404
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea highlighting concerns about price disparities in tickets for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2023 matches to be held at Bharat Ratna Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ekana Cricket Stadium, Lucknow.
A bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla gave the liberty to the petitioner, one Vipul Tripathi, to raise his grievance, if any, with the UP-Cricket Association's ombudsman, a body created to address the public grievances relating to ticketing and access and facilities at stadiums.
Case Title: Jhamman Singh v. Union Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 34359 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a party seeking to challenge the findings of the Full Bench of Lokpal of India in a complaint made by him.
The bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held that findings of fact cannot be gone into by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, when the same have been considered in detail by a Full Bench of Lokpal of India.
Case Title: Top Filling Point Proprietor Rakesh Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 406 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7011 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court has held that in the ordinary course of business, notice is deemed to be served if it has been proved to be sent through registered post to the correct address.
While deciding the issue of the date of service of demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881, Justice Jyotsna Sharma held
“In the instant case, the trial court seems to have drawn a presumption of law as regard service of demand notice. In my opinion, even if the track consignment report is not filed, the court may presume service of notice in ordinary course of business, if it was shown that the same was sent by registered post on correct address.”
Case Title: Nageena Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 34147 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 407
While dealing with a petition challenging recovery under Section 27 (Surcharge) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the state functionaries/ officers must be aware of recent issues settled by the Courts to avoid frivolous litigation from clogging the Courts.
“This Court feels that adequate exercise for counselling of officers, who remain oblivion on the recent settled issues by the Courts, be expounded to them on regular intervals by issuing circulars for the purpose, with the assistance and guidance of panel State Law Officers who are paid hefty amount from the State Exchequer to render their services in order to protect the interest of State who is ultimately meant for public at large. It would certainly save the precious time of the Courts also,” observed Justice Manju Rani Chauhan.
Case Title: Rina Rani Rustogi vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 408 [WRIT TAX No. - 1044 of 2018]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court held that if registration under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was subsisting on the day of his death, his family would be entitled to insurance claim under the Group Insurance Policy.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh-I held
“If the deceased held a registration certificate prior to the occurrence of his death and that registration did not stand cancelled on the date of occurrence of his death, the status of the deceased would remain to be of a registered dealer for the purpose of Group Insurance Policy.”
Case Title: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45007 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and it was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, the Allahabad High Court observed.
Noting that nowadays, more often than not, the Act has become a tool for their exploitation, the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stressed that the fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail in such cases.
Case Title: In Re v. Sri Shubham Kumar Advocate [Contempt Application (Criminal) No. - 15 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 410
While dealing with a criminal contempt initiated at the behest of a Family Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that lawyers though free to choose their clients should avoid taking up cases of blood relatives as it may make them emotionally involved in the case.
The bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV was dealing with the contempt notices issued to son-lawyer and father-litigant for disrupting proceedings in the Court of the then Additional Principal Judge Family Court No. 1, Aligarh. The Court observed,
“What more catastrophic or precipitative ingredient could have existed than a son (lawyer) appearing for his father (litigant) that too in a matrimonial case with his (lawyer's) mother! It cannot be for Courts to advise lawyers to choose their clients. It has always been left to the wisdom of the learned members of the bar. The basic learning that any member of the bar imbibes at the initial years of practice tell him to not appear for his blood relatives.”
Case Title: M/S Sah Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 411 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 139 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a form through which exemption/concession has been claimed under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not be produced at the time of assessment due to unavoidable circumstances, the same can be produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is bound to consider it before passing any order.
The bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“The transaction already claimed by the applicant as exempt/concession rate of tax in its hand, the form, which could not be furnished due to unavoidable circumstances, the form could be considered by the Tribunal.”
Case Title:- Smt. Adity Rastogi v. Anubhav Verma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1145 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court has held that though the term 'residing' appearing in Section 19 (Court to which petition shall be presented) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not defined under the Act, a casual visit to a place will not grant jurisdiction to the Court in that area to adjudicate upon divorce proceedings.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi while hearing an appeal of wife residing in Australia held,
“The term 'residing' though not defined under the Act, it clearly denotes more than a casual visit to a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where a divorce proceeding may be instituted. Once it is admitted to the appellant that she is continuing to reside in Australia though under force of circumstance, it has to be maintained in law that she is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Moradabad.”
Case Title: M/S New India Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 413 [WRIT TAX No. - 527 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court has held that principles of natural justice must be complied with before drawing any adverse inference.
While quashing the penalty order and subsequent order of the appellate authority, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Once the authorities intend to take an adverse view, the petitioner has to be informed and put to notice to rebut the same and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Case Title:- M/S Bajrang Trading Company vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 414 [WRIT TAX No. - 1123 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court has held the allegations of violations of law cannot be dealt with in extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless inherent lack of jurisdiction is claimed.
The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh-I held
“Once allegations of infraction of law arise, adjudication proceedings may not be interjected in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of the writ court. Limited scope of challenge may be preserved for cases involving inherent lack of jurisdiction or grounds of like nature.”
Case Title: Kapil Kumar And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 415 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 93 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 415
While dealing with the challenge to answer in the selection process under U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that the candidates appearing in examination for appointment in police force are tested for logic and reasoning, not for science.
Observing that complete hands-off approach of no interference has not been suggested by the Supreme Court in matters relating to selection process, bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“A question has to be given its plain meaning and read as a whole. The candidates were being tested for reasoning and logic and not physics.”
Case title - Chandrapal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 416
A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected the reference made to it regarding consideration of the directions given by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 34, 36, and 37 of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2018.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ajay Bhanot however framed the following ten questions of law and granted a certificate to appeal to the applicants and similarly circumstanced people to approach the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Chandra Kishori vs. Union Of India Thru. Chairman Of National Highway Authority Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 417 [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 55 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court held that the Court adjudicating upon arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has the power to recalculate compensation awarded under the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956.
The bench comprising of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that if the calculation of compensation is patently illegal and the award is against the public policy of India, the Court under Section 34 ought to interfere and set aside the award.
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) 418
The Allahabad High Court last week 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 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 419 [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. - 53 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 419
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 UP and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 420
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 vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 421
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 - Suraj vs. State Of U.P.And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43140 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Observing that the circulation of indecent videos on social media is a major menace which is degrading our society, the Allahabad High Court stressed that in such cases, the police authorities must ensure the highest proficiency while conducting probes.
Importantly, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was also of the view that the quality of investigations of UP Police in such matters is “very weak” which would start making “social collisions”.
Case Title: Smt. Mutuni v. The Collector Sant Ravi Das Nagar And Others [WRIT - C No. - 60108 of 2008]
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 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 424 [WRIT TAX No. - 909 of 2022]
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 - 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 - Shamim And Others vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5690 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court acquitted three men in a case for the offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and that the statement of the prosecutrix was full of discrepancies and did not inspire confidence. The incident took place in 1991, about 32 years ago.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla noted that though the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however, in the instant case, the evidence of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, did not corroborate with the medical evidence and hence, the same was not worthy of credence.
Case title - Allama Zamir Naqvi Alias Tahir In Fir Zameen Naqvi Alias Tahir vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 430 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2553 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the benefit of the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 which revived the provision of anticipatory bail in the State (with effect from June 6, 2019) is also applicable to the persons 'apprehending arrest' after the enactment of the 2018 Amendment Act even if the offence was committed before its enactment.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi added that the 2018 Amendment Act merely restores the benefit of anticipatory bail to persons apprehending arrest, which was available to the persons in the State of UP till 1976 and hence, this being a beneficial legislation, it cannot be restricted in its operation to offences committed after enactment of Act in 2019.
Case title - Arvind Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court acquitted three accused in a 1999 rape and murder case concerning a 13-year-old girl as it found that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants were the real culprits.
“No doubt that the victim has been sexually assaulted and was strangled to death but it is not proved that the appellants accused are the real culprits and they have committed the offence,” the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it allowed the appeal filed by the accused against their conviction by the trial court.
Case title - Mahesh (Minor) Thru. Her Mother Smt. Meena @ Kiran vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 337 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 432
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in respect of any and every missing person, more so when no named person is alleged to be responsible in the FIR for the illegal detention of the person for whose production a writ is to be issued.
A bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed thus while dismissing a habeas corpus plea filed by a mother seeking the production of her missing son.
“The petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful detention of her son. A Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued by this Court for tracing out a missing person particularly when the F.I.R. of the missing has already been lodged more than one year back by the father of the detenue where there is no allegation of illegal detention,” the bench observed in its order.
Case Title: Suresh Babu vs. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 12991 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court has held that inquiry shall be flawed if oral testimony is given a go-by in cases involving imposition of major penalty.
While allowing the writ petition, Justice J.J. Munir observed that the establishment has to prove its case before the inquiry officer by leading evidence. Merely pointing out that the petitioner has not disputed the authenticity of documents produced or has not asked the establishment to produce any witnesses for examination or cross-examination does not satisfy the standard of proof in such a case.
Case Title: Manoj Mittal v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 434 [WRIT - C No. - 4042 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has held that no objection certificate granted to a firecracker shop cannot be cancelled merely because it is in a thickly populated area. Unless there is violation of the India Explosives Act, 1884 and Rules thereunder, NOC cannot be cancelled or revoked.
Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Court had held that “increase of population in the area wherein there is an apprehension safety of public life and property are not relevant, as provided under the Act and Rules, the NOC cannot be denied or cancelled.” Accordingly, Justice Piyush Agrawal following the law laid down by the Court, directed reinstatement of the license of the petitioner.
Authenticity Of Transaction Cannot Be Disputed If E-Way Bill Not Cancelled Within Time: Allahabad HC
Case Title: M/S Sun Flag Iron And Steel Company Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 837 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court held that once e-way bill has been generated by the assessee and the same has not been cancelled within the time prescribed in the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, movement of goods and genuineness of a transaction cannot be disputed by the Department.
While quashing the penalty order issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“The purpose of e-way bill is that the department should know the movement of goods. Once the e-way bill has been generated and same has not been cancelled by the petitioner within the time prescribed under the Act, the movement of goods as well as genuineness of transaction in question cannot be disputed.”
Case title – XYZ vs. State of UP and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court observed that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled on the basis of an application filed claiming that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain reasoned that if based on such an application, bail granted to the accused is cancelled, then it would open a Pandora's box and endless litigation would start between both parties.
Case Title: Smt. Sumitra Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5755 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that revenue courts are not supposed to pass orders using the rubber seal stamp.
“As per law the rubber stamp seal cannot be used for passing the orders and Revenue Courts are not supposed to pass the order by using the rubber stamp seal as per observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/0405/2006,” held Justice Saurabh Lavania.
Case title - Mahant Mukesh Goswami Prachin Shani Dev Mandir Ganga Ghat vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 438 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2676 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a UP Government and concerned official authorities to clean the Banks of the Hindon River and the River itself (at Ghaziabad) to facilitate the Devotees in performing Chhath Pooja commencing from November 19, 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava however left it open for the petitioner (Mahant Mukesh Goswami) to approach the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance.
Case Title: Radhasoami Satsang Sabha vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the demolition orders passed by Tehsildar, Agra against Radhasoami Satsang Sabha on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held that a society needs more time compared to an individual to file reply to a notice since more stake holders are involved in a society.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“In considering reasonableness of the request for extension of time, it is not possible to ignore that a registered society is not an individual, who has to act on its own and therefore, involving a simple process of application of mind. A registered society is governed by its bye- laws and is composed of many members. The society and the office bearers of the society has a duty to defend the society and also the individual who constituted it after observing the due procedure as provided by the bye-laws of the society which required more time in contrast to individual who has to take a decision of its own.”
Case title - Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State Of UP And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 440 [APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 30646 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court REJECTED the plea of Congress leader and Rajyasabha MP Randeep Singh Surjewala seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a 23-year-old case of alleged political agitation, rioting, damaging public property when Surjewala served as a youth Congress leader.
For context, Surjewala had moved the Court on the ground that the FIR in the case was lodged in the year 2000 but the case was committed to the court of sessions in the year 2022 and thus, there has been a long and undue delay in trial coupled with the fact that certain original records of the case are not available with the prosection.
Case Title: Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Bench And Another [WRIT - A No. - 20745 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court has held that without specific evidence in the manner contemplated under Office Memorandum, an employee could not have been said to have opted for staying under a previous pension scheme.
“The fact that the Union of India may have continued to make deductions under the CPF scheme did not militate or defeat the substantive right that arose to the respondent to claim benefit of applicability of the GPF scheme. That position in law arose solely by operation of law i.e., full enforcement of the legal fiction, noted above,” held the Court.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Relying on Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad High Court has given a nod to the development of the Vrindavan (Mathura) Banke Bihari Temple Corridor, a plan proposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The Government has further been directed to remove the encroachment in and around the temple
The Court has, however, restrained the UP Government from using Rs.262.50 Crores from the bank account of Deity for the construction of the corridor.
Case title - Vishal Mishra And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8245 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court has observed that any investigation which is done by the anti-terror squad or the UP police, so far as the offences specified in the schedule (in the NIA Act 2008) are concerned, are to be exclusively tried by the Special Courts set up under the 2008 Act.
“...for the trial of all offences as specified in the schedule which are investigated by anti-terror squad or State Police of Uttar Pradesh meaning thereby that even if the matter is investigated by the State Police, the jurisdiction would lie to the Special Court as provided under Section 13 of the Act 2008,” a bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed.
Case title - Vaseem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 446 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4956 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 and its associated Rules apply specifically to the transportation of cows, bulls, or bullocks into Uttar Pradesh from outside the state and thy do not prohibit the transportation of beef, as there is no provision within the Act or rules restricting the movement of beef.
The observation was made by the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia while allowing a criminal revision plea filed by one Vaseem Ahmad challenging an order of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur confiscating his motorcycle (on the allegations that it was used for transportation of beef) in exercise of powers under section 5A(7) of the 1955 Act.
Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 447 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3121 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday denied bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, son of the gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, in an arms license case.
In its order, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi stated that huge quantities of arms and ammunition had been recovered from Ansari's premises in New Delhi.
The bench also cited a potential risk of witness influence and evidence tampering taking into account Ansari's significant influence on jail authorities, evidenced by his wife's unauthorized and unchecked visits carrying a mobile phone inside the jail.
Case Title: Mrs Lalitha Subramanian vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 448 [WRIT TAX No. - 1137 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Department is required to serve notice upon the legal representative of a deceased before proceeding against the deceased under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner's husband was the sole proprietor of the firm was engaged in providing services as a Consultant. A show cause notice was issued in the name of petitioner's husband imposing liability of Rs.8,97,716/- under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Sections 142, 173, 174 of the CGST Act towards Service Tax for the Financial Year 2014-15 along with equivalent penalty and interest thereon.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. vs. S/S Sanya Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 94 of 2023]
Citaion: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court has held that though in case of doubt, taxing statues are to be interpreted in favour of the assesee. However, a stricter approach needs to be followed before giving the benefit of exemptions and deductions.
“The general rule of law in taxing statutes is that in case of any doubt the benefit should be given to the assessee. However, in case of exemption and deduction to be given, a stricter approach may be followed, as per catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, to examine whether the assessee is eligible for such benefit,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Deepak vs. Smt. Reena [First Appeal Defective No. - 377 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court has held that order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not appealable before the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
While referring to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“By using the words "Save as provided in sub-section (2)", the parliament has left no doubt to be entertained as to the supremacy of sub-section (2) of Section 19 with respect to right of appeal created under Section 19(1) of the Act. Section 19(2) of the Act clearly denies right of appeal against any order that may be passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. Undisputedly Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an integral part of Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.”
Case Title: M/S Sri Shanti Readymade vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 99 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in absence of any material on record, rejection of books of accounts under local laws cannot be the sole ground for rejection of books of accounts under Central Sales Tax Act.
“Merely because books of account under local sales have been rejected, the same will not necessarily be the ground for rejecting the books of account under Central Sales Tax Act also in the absence of any cogent material available on record,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: M/S Sri Shanti Readymade vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 452[Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 106 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court has held that turnover cannot be enhanced merely based on rejection of books of accounts. There has to be material as to suppression of turnover by the assesee to indicate evasion of tax.
Relying on various judgments of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Once the findings of fact has been recorded in favour of the petitioner, there is no cogent reason for enhancing the turnover. The tribunal was not justified in confirming the enhancement of turnover in view of the fact that at the time of survey loose papers were found which have been explained by the revisionist and merely on that ground the books of account can be rejected but enhancement should not be made.”
Case Title: Smt. Jyoti Verma vs. Prashant Kumar Verma 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 453 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1210 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though opportunity of hearing before passing an order is non-negotiable, the same cannot be used to defeat the ends of justice. The Court held that if delay has been negligently or deliberately caused by one party, it cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held,
“Delay largely attributed to the conduct of a party, he may never be allowed to turn around and take advantage of the same even if the costs are offered to be paid. To accept the same, it would be to make mockery of justice dispensation.”
Case Title: Mahadev Singh Dal Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ( Revenue), Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 9984 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court has held that land recorded for public use cannot be exchanged by encroacher with his own land.
The bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar held that restoring the pond and maintaining it is beneficial for the villagers and for maintaining ecological balance. The Court further observed that under Section 101 (Exchange) of UP Revenue Code a bhumidar can exchange land held by another bhumidar or entrusted or deemed to be entrusted to any gram panchayat or local authority under Section 59. However, a land recorded as pond cannot be permitted to be exchanged even if it has been created into abadi.
Case Title: Smt. Mobin And Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others [WRIT - B No. - 2526 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has held that matriculation certificate issued by a school is recognized as sufficient legal proof for determining date of birth. The Court held that DNA test is not necessary where such certificate has not been proved wrong.
Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“As held in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra) order to conduct DNA test could not be passed in a routine manner and it has to be passed only in extraordinary circumstances when there is no other legal basis to determine parentage of person concerned and since in the present case there is a document which is recognized to be sufficient legal proof of determination of date of birth, i.e., matriculation certificate, therefore, no circumstance exist to pass an order for DNA test.”
Case Title: Rohit Chaturvedi v. Smt Neha Chaturvedi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 295 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 456
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of illicit relationship of a spouse cannot be left to the imagination of the court. Such allegations must be clearly made.
While granting a decree of judicial separation under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held,
“To infer existence of illicit relationship, it is not to be left to the imagination of the Court what the parties may have intended to say by way of fact allegation. The allegation of one party having illicit relationship with another must be clear.”
Mining Lease | Consequential Order Cannot Go Beyond Realm Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ramlala v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31059 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court has held that any order passed as a consequence of the show cause notice cannot go beyond what is alleged in the show cause notice. Actions to be taken against a person must be clearly stated in the show cause notice, it held.
While dealing with dispute regarding illegal mining, the bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the reason for not allowing the authority to travel beyond the realm of the show cause notice is that “the petitioner has to be given a chance to put up his case with regard to the said show cause notice.”
Case Title: Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Another, WRIT-C No. 25003/2023
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Setting aside an order of blacklisting and cancellation of mining lease passed against the petitioner, the Allahabad High Court held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.
Considering that the petitioner had not been heard before passing of the impugned order, the court passed directions for it to be allowed to function on the leased land.
Medical Representatives Deemed To Be "Workman" Under Industrial Disputes Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and Ors v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko. and 3 Ors., WRIT-C No. 1004529/2007
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that following the enactment of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 ("SPE Act"), medical representatives are deemed to be "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. U.D. Pademwar and of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd, Justice Alok Mathur observed that “after 06.05.1987 all the medical representatives were declared to be workmen without limitation on their wages thereafter and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged.”
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) And Another v. Lalitpur Power Generation Co. Ltd. [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 111 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has held that an otherwise indivisible contract cannot be dissected by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, in absence of any legal provision allowing such dissection.
Agreeing with the principals laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-II, Chandigarh Vs. The Senior Manager (Finance), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Jhajjar and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Unless an external (legal tool) was available to the assessing authority under any of the provisions of the [Income Tax] Act as may have allowed it the luxury to dissect an otherwise indivisible contract and/or unless an internal tool was seen to exist to allow that exercise to be made, a composite contract could not dissected by the assessing authority.”
Case Title: Hindustan Paper Machinery Industries v. Commissioner Cgst And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1047 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court has held that tax cases where the facts are undisputed and there are issues of jurisdiction and violation principles of natural justice involved may not be relegated to the Authorities.
The Court held that cases where minimum statutory compliances have been made are generally relegated to the forum of alternate remedy.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Relegating the petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy in face of undisputed facts noted above may be of no real use or purpose. The writ court regularly relegates petitioners specifically in tax matters, to the forum of the statutory remedy of appeal where minimum compliances of law have been made. However on lack of jurisdiction or violation of principle of natural justice, the writ Court is equally inclined to offer interference to ensure due adherence to the rule of law both by the assessee as also the revenue authority.”
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad and a connected case
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court has allowed the state government's application to withdraw a criminal case, lodged in 2015 under the Railways Act, against Uttar Pradesh's Cabinet Minister Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dealing with a Criminal revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order passed by Additional CJM, Gorakhpur in September this year rejecting the plea moved by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad.
Case title - Banwari Lal Kanchhal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 463
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the Judges of the HC are making efforts to address the issue of case pendency by speeding up the dispensation of justice, however, the cooperation of the advocates is also required to reduce the backlog of unresolved cases.
The Court also urged all the Counsels appearing before the Court to contribute to the swift dispensation of justice by minimizing the nonproductive use of the Court's time by reducing adjournment requests and refraining from objecting to proceedings in their absence, especially when another counsel is available to take notes.
Case Title: Umesh Garg v. Union Of India and Another, WRIT TAX No. - 566/2021
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 464
While dealing with a rejection order under the Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant does not have a fundamental or inherent right to claim settlement of dispute outside court. The right being created by statute must be availed in accordance with it.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad opined,
“In the first place, settlement of disputes outside courts/ judicial process is not a fundamental or inherent right of any litigant. That right was created by the statute i.e. the Act. Being a statutory right, the same may have been availed strictly in accordance with the statutory conditions and further inasmuch as it was a stipulation that the application/ declaration may be maintainable only if there was pending a litigation between the parties before the cut off date, it remained from the petitioner to satisfy that condition.”
Case Title: Smt. Monika Yadav v. Aakash Singh And 3 Others [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 366 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against the order of a Civil Judge rejecting a plea for the issuance of a succession certificate would lie before the District Judge under Section 388(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and not before the High Court under Section 384 of the Act.
The Court held that the legislative intent was to provide for an appellate mechanism before a District Judge, and 'not to the High Court.'
Case title - Hanuman Ram vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to an 'Ojha' (exorcist) for allegedly raping a 15-year-old girl under the pretext to provide treatment to her through religious methods.
A Bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that the accused was not entitled to be released on bail as he had been accused of raping the 15-year-old girl while she was alone with him in a room.
Essentially, the allegations against the accused were to the effect that due to the bad health of the victim, her father (informant) invited the applicant (Hanuman Ram), who was an 'Ojha' to treat her, however, the applicant, under the pretext of a religious ceremony, he committed rape with her daughter.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Zameel Alias Fauda And 5 Ors. [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 792 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court released a man on bail noting that he was arrested (and not produced before the HC) pursuant to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants by the HC while the State's appeal against his acquittal in a criminal case was pending before the HC.
Calling the accused-respondent's custody 'illegal' and his arrest 'groundless', the bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra directed for his release on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
Case Title: Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development [WRIT - C No. - 3990 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 468
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has held that though a petitioner has the right to choose the forum to file a writ petition, he/she cannot be permitted to hop between two jurisdictions without cogent reasons.
The Court further observed that under Clause-14 of the United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 petitions at Lucknow can be transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court while sitting at Lucknow to Allahabad, however, the reverse cannot be done.
Case Title: Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11864 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that writ should not be granted for expeditious disposal of civil suits routinely. Only when extraordinary circumstances are shown, such directions for expeditiously disposal within a fixed period should be granted.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava placed reliance on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba and Km. Shobha Bose V. Judge Small Causes & Ors wherein it was held that “the power to direct expeditious disposal of Suit or any other Cases should be exercised sparingly in extra ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner.”
Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 512 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471
While refusing to quash an 11-year-old judgement in review, the Allahabad High Court held that a judgment which has attained finality cannot be treated lightly by the Courts. The Court observed that the doctrine of finality of adjudication of a case often overpowers the accuracy or correctness of a judgment.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Almost eleven years have passed since the impugned order came to be pronounced more than a decade ago. Finality attached to the judgements and orders passed by a Court is not a matter to be triffled with. It is not an assumption available under the Constitution that all judgements of the Courts would be correct on all counts. Yet, for functionality to exist and order to prevail, the doctrine of finality of adjudication often eclipses or over powers concerns or considerations that otherwise exist in favour of accuracy or correctness of judgements.”
Case Title: Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18992 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court cannot interfere in transfer orders as they are administrative in nature and are inherent conditions of appointment.
While declining to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner, a bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another."
Case Title: Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6662 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to the government employees.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, Justice Abdul Moin held
“From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment also it emerges that merely because the autonomous bodies have 'adopted' the government service rules, the same would not confer any right of the employees of the autonomous bodies to claim the same benefits as are admissible to government employees inasmuch as they would not fall within the ambit of being government employees or in government service.”
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India v. Parimal Bajpai And 3 Others [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 901 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court can set aside an arbitral award and remit the case back to the Arbitral Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju and Ors to hold thus:
“In light of the provisions of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the appellate powers of this Court, interest of justice which are consistent with the provisions of law will be served by remitting the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Smt. Sudha And 3 Others [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 378 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the direction of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. And Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) regarding summoning of lower court records applies only to pending cases. The Court held that the direction to file copies of pending cases was to avoid delay in proceedings of the lower court.
Justice Ajay Bhanot held that the direction to not summon original records does not cover the proceedings which have been concluded by the lower court.
Case title - Sahil Mehra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a chargesheet filed against a man facing an FIR for allegedly sharing disrespectful posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the Indian army.
"Prima facie, given the totality of the context, the statements are divisive of the community and tend to promote insecurity in the minds of one community against another. These also tend to create fear or alarm amongst the public that may induce one Section of the public to commit offences against public tranquillity or the State," a bench of Justice JJ Munir observed as it refused to quash the chargesheet against the accused (Sahil Mehra).
Case Title: M/S Maa Bhagwati Shiksha Samiti Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Two Others [Writ Tax No. 476 Of 2022]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Form-10 under rule 17(2) for claiming exemption has been supplied to the assessing authority after the prescribed period but before completion of assessment, it ought to be considered by the Assessing Authority for granting benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in original assessment proceedings.
Placing reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust, the bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“It is crystal clear that Form-10 under Rule 17 of the Rules is required to be filed before the Assessing Officer before he completes the assessment. In a case, where Form-10 is filed late but is filed before the Assessing Officer completes the assessment, benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act shall be available to the assessee.”
Case Title: Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta, Matters under Article 227 No. 11263 of 2023
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of the Arbitrator's mandate, citing an unjustified eight-year delay in proceedings.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the arbitrator sat over the arbitral proceedings for 8 long years without any progress and passed the award in haste after the application seeking its removal was made. Ergo, the Court held that the arbitrator acted in breach of Section 14 and its mandate stands terminated under the said provision.
Allahabad High Court Holds That Improper Notice Invalidates Ex-Parte Arbitral Award
Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited v. Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, Appeal U/S 37 of the A&C Act No. 146 of 2022
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court has held that improper notice of arbitration invalidates an arbitration award passed ex-parte.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requires that notice be given to the parties after the arbitrators or umpire have signed the award. Without proper notice, the court held that the proceedings leading to the judgment making the award rule of the court would be flawed.
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480
While acquitting a husband of the charges under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing an “unnatural offence” against his wife, the Allahabad High Court has observed that protection of a person from marital rape continues in cases where his wife is of 18 years of age or more than that.
In its order, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also noted that in the proposed Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (which is likely to replace the Indian Penal Code), there is no provision like Section 377 IPC.
Case Title: Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 24559 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Government e Marketplace Portal for procuring goods and services is a “need of the hour”. The Court noted that the mechanism followed by the portal and the steps taken by the Government to procure all goods and services through this portal is in the best interest of buyers and sellers.
The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed
“It is a technology-driven platform to facilitate procurement of goods and services of various government departments. Introduction of such portal was actually a need of the hour. This platform does the comparison process and automatically choose by using an auto-run method to find the 'L-1'. This portal further eliminates any interference in placing the order and processing the payment.”
Case Title: M/S Nutema Helth Care Pvt.Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42393 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings for alleged different usage of land other than the sanctioned purpose cannot be initiated under Section 28-A UP Urban Planning and Development Act 1973.
The bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that for proceedings under Section 28-A of the 1973 Act, notice needed to be issued under Section 27 or Section 28 before the order is issued under Section 28-A. However, if allegations of land being used for a different purpose than the sanctioned one, then proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 28-A.
HC Can't Interfere In Factual Findings Regarding Grant Of Arms License: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Gyanendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 483 [WRIT - C No. - 10887 of 2015]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court has held that the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in factual findings returned by the Licensing Authority regarding the grant of arms license under the Arms Act, 1959.
“There is no right to have an arms licence which is a privilege and it is a question of fact which is to be ascertained by the authorities concerned whether a person is entitled to the said privilege or not and no interference with such factual findings is possible in writ jurisdiction,” held Justice Prakash Padia.
Case Title: Neelam Shukla And 3 Others vs. Balika Shukla And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 484 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5782 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person whose name mutation as the tenure holder of a land has been stayed, cannot execute a sale deed for the said land.
While dealing with the sale of land by the wife of a deceased tenure holder, Justice Rajnish Kumar held since a stay was ordered by the Tehsildar on entry of the wife's name as the tenure holder of the disputed land, she did not have any right to create third party rights on the land.
Case Title: Bhurangi and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 485 [WRIT - C No. - 19079 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court directed the official state authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, and vacant land to two persons who were admittedly unlawfully dispossessed of their land by the them.
While awarding the compensation, Justice J.J. Munir held that
“They (referring to State Authorities) have employed powers available to them and the might of the State to unlawfully deprive the petitioners of their roof and shelter, which they now admit before this Court was on account of not noting earlier orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The respondents also acknowledge that they have constructed public toilets over a part of the land in dispute, to which they had no right, whatsoever, under the law. They have also acknowledged that the petitioners' right under the awasiya patta is a subsisting right.”
Case Title: Smt. Sonali Sharma v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 9110 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a piece of beneficial legislation which will override the provisions of the Financial Handbook on an institution. The Court further held that there is no bar on claiming second maternity benefits within two years from the first one.
Relying on the earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Anupam Yadav & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Anshu Rani vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Satakshi Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 410, Justice Manish Mathur observed that
“The aforesaid reasoning has also been indicated by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the other two judgments as well to the effect that the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 being a beneficial legislation would have overriding effect over the provisions of Financial Handbook. It was being specifically held that Second Maternity Leave within a period of two years from the grant of First Maternity Leave is admissible.”
Case title - Sanjay Kumar Nishad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 487 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2805 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking alterations to the statue of King Nishad Raj & Lord Shri Ram, situated at Sringverpur Dham in Soraon, Prayagraj. The plea sought to depict King Nishadraj in a manner befitting a king.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh opined that the issue in the PIL plea cannot be decided in the present proceedings as the matter falls in the domain of the Executive.
Case Title: Marsons Electrical Industries v. Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board) And Another [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 701 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court held that the provision of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 have an overriding effect on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any agreement entered into between parties.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held that MSMED Act being a special and beneficial legislation will override the 1996 Act.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs. Ziladhikari Distt. Mainpuri And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 491 [WRIT - A No. - 6119 of 2001]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated its earlier stand that the appointment made under the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature.
The bench comprising of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 “being statutory Rules, nowhere provide that the compassionate appointment of an appointee is temporary in nature.”
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 492
In a significant order likely to affect the fate of the prayers in the pending suits before the Allahabad High Court concerning Mathura's Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the HC ALLOWED a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Idgah Mosque.
A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order on an Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application filed by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman) and 7 others through advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Devki Nandan in an original suit pending in the HC.
Case title - Takbeer Khan (Minor)Thru. His Mother Rehana vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 493 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 256 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 493
The Allahabad High Court has observed that according to the Mohammedan Law, a mother is entitled to custody (hizanat) of a male child until he completes the age of 7 years.
The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed thus while allowing a habeas corpus filed by the mother (Rehana) of the detenue-Takbeer Khan, aged about 3 years and 7 months. In her plea, she had sought custody of her child, currently residing with her husband (Intiyaj Khan/opposite party No.4).
Title - Shakuntala Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 494
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Court has wide jurisdiction to quantify damages as it may think are proportionate to the loss suffered by the claimant.
While awarding a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs plus interest, the bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Wide discretion is vested with the Court to award such damages as it may think proportionate to the loss. Since these are writ proceedings and no evidence has yet been led by the parties, we seek to adopt a rough and ready method to compute the compensation to bring a quick end to this avoidable litigation that has already suffered a procedural delay of 12 years, the writ petition having been filed within a year of the occurrence.”
Case title - Lalla vs. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court set aside the rape conviction of a man (who has been in jail since 2000) given the doubts surrounding the credibility of the victim's testimony, which was, in the court's opinion, 'shaky' or unreliable. The alleged incident took place in January 1997.
In its order, a bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the victim's age beyond the medical report, which confirmed she was above 16. In this regard, the Court noted that as per the unamended Indian Penal Code, at that time (in the year 1997), the age of consent for sexual intercourse was 16 years.
Case title - Rajendra Bihari Lal And 6 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 496 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19192 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Refusing to quash an FIR lodged against the Vice Chancellor and other higher officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) accused of persuading a woman to adopt Christianity by offering her a job and other allurement, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that no true religion on the earth would approve of malpractices by the priest or the Godmen.
“No God or true Church or Temple or Mosque would approve such type of malpractices. If someone on his own, has chosen to get him converted to a different religion is totally another aspect of the issue. In the instant case prevailing upon a tender mind of a young girl providing gifts, clothing and other physical amenities and then asking her to get her baptised is an unpardonable sin,” the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed.
Case Title: Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 497 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4878 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court held that an order of interim maintenance during the pendency of application under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order and thus, can be challenged before the High Court in revision.
While enhancing the interim maintenance granted to revisionist-wife, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held
“The power to grant maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings flows from second proviso to section 125(1). The manner in which, the said power is to be exercised is ultimately to determine whether the order is interlocutory or not. As the order conclusive decides the grant of maintenance during the pendency of application based upon the material facts, it can certainly not be termed as an interlocutory order as it decides the rights of grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.”
Case Title: Smt. Kalpana Karwariya vs. The State Of U P And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 498 [WRIT - C No. - 28355 of 2021]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 royalty or any other dues which have not been paid under a mining lease can only be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manoj Bajaj held that rent, royalty and other dues cannot be recovered from the security deposit made at the time of entering into the lease agreement for mining.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Pnc Infratech Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 499 [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 46 of 2019]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court held that investments made through banking channels and show in regular returns cannot be disbelieved unless proven otherwise by the department.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held there was “no room” to disbelieve investments made in the assesee company if they have been made through banking channels and have been disclosed in the returns of the investing companies.
Case title - U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 500
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court said that the religious character of the Gyanvapi Complex (as it existed on August 15, 1947) is to be determined by the Varanasi Civil Court in light of documentary as well as oral evidence led by both parties and hence, unless and until the court adjudicates upon this issue, the same cannot be called either as a temple or a mosque.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal observed thus while holding that a batch of civil suits (primarily year 1991 suit) pending before the Varanasi Civil Court filed by Hindu worshippers and deity seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of the temple at the disputed place (Gyanvapi Complex) ARE NOT BARRED by the Places of Worship Act 1991.
Case Title: Lalit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 502 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3686 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court has recently set aside an ex-parte order of maintenance passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Agra and consequential recovery warrant on grounds that the mode of service of notice/summons on the husband was not mentioned in the order.
In view of the compromise agreements between the parties, the bench comprising Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that
“In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of fact that in impugned judgement the mode of service of notice/summon to revisionist in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not mentioned, therefore, the claim of the revisionist that he was not aware of the maintenance proceeding initiated by opposite party No.2 as the dispute between the parties was settled through compromise dated 4.3.2016 and no notice of said maintenance case was served upon him, cannot be brushed aside.”
Case Title: Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 2461 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 503
While dealing with a case of cancellation of arms license of a young lawyer, the Allahabad High Court observed that cases of persons carrying firearms inside court premises were on the rise.
The bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that despite a specific bar in Rule 614-A of The General Rules (Civil) on carrying of arms in the Court premises and directions by the Allahabad High Court in PIL No.2436 of 2019 In Re Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of U.P., firearms were being carried within the premises of the Court.
Case Title: M/S Wave Distilleries Breweries Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 504 [WRIT TAX No. - 1461 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the initiation of proceedings is bad in law, all consequential proceedings shall fail.
While dealing with recovery without show cause notice under the Excise Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Once the initiation of the proceedings itself is bad, the consequential proceedings automatically fails in the eyes of law.”
Certain samples were drawn by the Excise officials from the CL - 2/wholesale suppliers, which was not under control of the petitioner, but under control of some other entity, i.e., whole seller under the control of Excise Department. Counsel for petitioner argued that Rule 776 of U.P. Excise Manual was not complied with while drawing the samples as no person of the distillery was present.
Case Title: M/S Zest Inc v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 964 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has held that refunds on exports in the period April, 2018 to June, 2018 can be claimed till 21.6.2021 and refunds for exports made in April, 2019 to June, 2019 refund can be claimed till 24.7.2021
Petitioner applied for refund on 31.3.2021 and 21.6.2021 for the period April, 2018 to March, 2019) and on 30.6.2021 and 24.7.2021 for the tax period April, 2019 to June, 2019 which were rejected on grounds of delay.
Case Title: C/M Smt. Vimala Devi Mahavidyalay Bhamai v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - C No. - 43297 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs on C/M Smt. Vimala Devi Mahavidyalay Bhamai for admitting 60 students in additional section without completing the formalities as required.
The bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that
“Since the last instruction of the respondent no. 2 shows that some formalities have not been completed by the petitioner - Institution before taking admission of 60 students in the additional section, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with the Registrar General of this Court on or before 19.12.2023. Further, an affidavit of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs, along with receipt, shall be filed by the petitioner by 20.12.2023 and copy of this order, along with deposit, shall also be submitted before the District Magistrate, Prayagraj.”
Cause Of Action To Seek Divorce Arises Once Cruelty Is Found To Be Committed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Hemsingh @ Tinchu vs. Smt. Bhawna 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 507 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1360 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has held that Once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. The Court added that in cases of cruelty, the Court should look into other attending circumstances before passing an order to restore the marital relationship.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held
“Once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. How the parties may conduct themselves thereafter, may remain a relevant factor. Yet, no rule of law may arise as may dictate to the Court to pass an order to restore the matrimonial relationship between the parties, without looking into the other attending circumstances.”
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal defamation case against Aroon Purie, Chairman and Director of TV Today Network Ltd. The case had been filed by a former Uttar Pradesh District Judge, relating to a 2017 article published by Aajtak/Indiatoday about the grant of bail to the then-UP Minister, Gayatri Prajapati, in a minor rape case.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 509 [WRIT TAX No. - 1425 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court has held that stand taken by revenue in the detention order cannot be changed in the subsequent show cause notice in proceedings arising out of same detention of goods.
While quashing the detention order and consequential proceedings, the bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“It is trite law, settled by a catena of Supreme Court judgments, that the Revenue cannot beat around the bush and keep changing the goal post at each stage. Once the Revenue had taken a particular stand, the same cannot be completely changed and/or supplemented by a different reason or ground.”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Dubey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42619 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to call for a police report regarding all fresh and pending applications for a license to practise law.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vinod Diwakar directed the State Government and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to “issue necessary directions and to ensure appropriate police report be called from the concerned Police Stations about all pending and fresh applications for issuance of license as is being done/followed for issuance of Passports.”
Case title - Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2869 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 511
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Islamic scholar Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi who was arrested in June 2021 by the Anti-Terrorist Squad of Uttar Pradesh Police on the charges of conspiring to run a mass religious conversion racket in the State and assisted in religious conversion of over 1000 people across the state.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted him the relief noting that in the same case, bail has been granted to as many as 12 accused many of whom have similar roles as that of the appellant herein and two of the bails have been granted by Supreme Court.
NOMINAL INDEX
Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257
Chandra Bhan vs. Union Of India And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 258
M/S Desai Brothers Limited Ratanpur vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Dr. Shailendranath Mishra vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources And Development India Govt.New Delhi And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 262
M/S M.L. Chains v. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263
Anand Agarwal And Another v. Dr. Narendra Malhotra And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Pawan Khera vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 265
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs. M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266
M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 267
M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Vidhu Shekhar Trivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Culture Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Mata Pher Rawat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Sunita Sharma and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Paltoo Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 272
M. Devaraj vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Vishwajeet vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Neha Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 277
Govardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Prabhat Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 279
Mahant Dinesh Das Disciple vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 280
M/S B L Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 281
Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282
Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283
M/s Hotel The Grand Tulsi and 15 Others v. State of U.P. And & others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Mahadev Enterprises Firm and 2 others vs. State of UP and 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 285
M/S Manoj Steel Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286
Abu Talib Husain And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Kusum Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Gurucharan Das vs. Tribhuvan Pal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 291
Pankaj Kumar Priyam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 292
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Milind Saxena And 15 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Mohd. Shakeel vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Supply Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Shraddha @ Jannat And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Ashish Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lokbhawan, Lucknow And 7 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Yaqoob Qureshi vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 306
Sunil Kumar Singh III vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 307
M/S Khan Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 309
Jose Papachen And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 310
X vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 311
Khalid Anwar Alias Anwar Khalid vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Branch Hear New Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 312
Amar Singh vs. State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Education And 3 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 313
Golu @ Arun Patel v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 314
Preeti Lata vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Smt. Prema Devi vs.Devi Deen (Since Deceased) And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 316
Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 317
India Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs. The Commercial Court And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Smt. Vidya Rawat v. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Sachin v. Sangeeta Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 320
Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 321
M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Rajender Kumar vs. Kunwar Bhartendra Singh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Rakesh Kumar Keshari vs. Union Of India And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Dinesh Kumar vs. District Caste Scrutiny Committee And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Santosh Kumar Dohrey vs. Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Km. Pratiksha vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Ibnul Hussain @ Babu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Ifrak Ali Khan vs. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 329
Kailash Chand Agarwal vs. Principal Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 330
M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj And Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Sonu @ Pinku vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Dr Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 333
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/S Ramway Foods Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of U.P. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Sushil Kumar And 2 Others vs. Legislative Council U.P. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 11 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Anita Devi And Another vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Santosh Kumar vs. Gayatri Devi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Amit Jaiswal v. Dr. Pankhuri Agarwal @ Dr. Pankhuri Jaiswal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Abhishek Singh v. Shashi Singh @ Bindu Singh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Chhote Lal Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Priti Yadav @ Pinki v. Ashwani Gwal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Union Of India And 3 Others vs. Yashpal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Western Carrier India Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Ram Komal and two others vs. State of U.P. and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 349
M/S Baba Construction Pvt.Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 350
Committee Of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Thru. Admin Shri Rakesh Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Syed Ishrat Hussain Jafri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Arun Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 354
M/S Gold Ripe International Private Limited vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 355
U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited through its Managing Director and Another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U. P. Lucknow and two others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Union Of India And 4 Others v. Ashutosh Kumar And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Legislative Council Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy And 2 Others vs. Sushil Kumar And 11 Others along with a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Sajjan Kumar vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Amethi Thru. Chief Operation Officer, Shri Avadhesh Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health, U.P. Lucknow And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Tannu Kumari and 10 Others vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Pooja Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 365
UP Congress Committee vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Divine Faith Fellowship Church And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 367
M/S World Solution vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Kaliya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Commissioner vs. Adani Wilmar 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 370
M/S Amrit Steels v. Commissioner Commercial Tax 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Jitendra Giri vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 372
M/S Purnagiri Rice Mill, Shahjahanpur Thru. Authorized Representative Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue, New Delhi And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 373
M/S Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Mehek Maheshwari vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Vivek Saran Agarwal vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 376
M/S Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 377
M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Rajendra Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 379
M/S Namo Narayan Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 380
M/S Ennkay Timbers And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Deepak Dewvedi And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lucknow And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Smt. Manorama Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 383
U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,Unnao Thru. Its Senior Project Officer/Regional Manager vs. Gurmeet Singh 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Surendra Koli vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Mahadev Singh Dal Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ( Revenue), Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Smt. Mobin And Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Rohit Chaturvedi v. Smt Neha Chaturvedi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Ramlala v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 458
M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and Ors v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko. and 3 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) And Another v. Lalitpur Power Generation Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Hindustan Paper Machinery Industries v. Commissioner Cgst And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 461
State of U.P. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Nishad and a connected case 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Banwari Lal Kanchhal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Umesh Garg v. Union Of India and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Smt. Monika Yadav v. Aakash Singh And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Hanuman Ram vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 466
State of U.P. vs. Zameel Alias Fauda And 5 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Smt. Sharda Singh v. Yashpal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473
National Highway Authority Of India vs. Parimal Bajpai And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 474
National Highways Authority Of India vs. Smt. Sudha And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Sahil Mehra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 476
M/S Maa Bhagwati Shiksha Samiti Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Two Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Amit Agarwal v. Atul Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited v. Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 479
2023 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 481
M/S Nutema Helth Care Pvt.Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Gyanendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Neelam Shukla And 3 Others vs. Balika Shukla And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Bhurangi and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Smt. Sonali Sharma v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Sanjay Kumar Nishad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Marsons Electrical Industries v. Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board) And Another
Manoj Kumar vs. Ziladhikari Distt. Mainpuri And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Takbeer Khan (Minor)Thru. His Mother Rehana vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Shakuntala Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Lalla vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Rajendra Bihari Lal And 6 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 497
Smt. Kalpana Karwariya vs. The State Of U P And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Pnc Infratech Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 499
U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Lalit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Amandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 503
M/S Wave Distilleries Breweries Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 504
M/S Zest Inc v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 505
C/M Smt. Vimala Devi Mahavidyalay Bhamai v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Hemsingh @ Tinchu vs. Smt. Bhawna 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 507
Jitendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 509
Pawan Kumar Dubey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 511
