Citations 2024 LiveLaw (All) 391 – 2024 LiveLaw (All) 787Lawyers To Ensure Dignity Of Court Even When Challenging Its Order: Allahabad High Court Deprecates Disrespectful Drafting Of Review ApplicationCase Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391 [CIVIL MISC...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (All) 391 – 2024 LiveLaw (All) 787
Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of disrespectful drafting of review applications which lower the dignity of the Court.
While hearing a review application against his earlier order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,
“Although a litigant is well within its right to challenge the validity of any order in accordance with the law and in case the order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record, the litigant would be well within its right to say so, but while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”
Case title - Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the restrictions on the grant of bail contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) only apply to the special courts dealing with NDPS cases and do not apply to the Constitutional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court).
“I am of the considered view that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi concluded.
Case Title: Smt. Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393 [WRIT - A No. - 16849 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court, while examining the case of appointment of a principal, has held that if documents sent for approval to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) are not approved within a period of 30 days, then as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules, 1978, they shall be held to have been approved.
“It has not been disputed that the documents were sent for approval and after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication has been received, then as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of Rules, 1978, it will be deemed that the approval has been granted,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
Case Title: Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, emphasizing that while laws on sexual offences are rightly women-centric, it does not mean that the male partner is always at fault.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that the burden of proof in such cases lies with both the complainant and the accused.
The bench stated, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them. It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage.”
Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, and subsequent permission by the Magistrate cannot cure this illegality.
Referring to the provision under sub Section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature, and if such permission isn't taken, merely accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognisance of the offence does not validate the proceeding.
Case title - Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Anti-Conversion Law, enacted in 2021, will fail to achieve its intended purpose if the courts frequently interfere with prosecutions under the Act at their initial stage.
Emphasizing that such interferences, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, could undermine the effectiveness of the law, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:
“The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.”
Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398
While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”
The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.
“The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case title - Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED (being not pressed) a writ petition moved by a NEET aspirant (Ayushi Patel) after it was revealed that she submitted forged documents in her petition alleging the NTA failed to declare her result. In her plea, the candidate also claimed that her OMR answer sheet was torn.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan dismissed the petitioner's petition, deeming it a “really sorry state of affairs” that she filed the petition enclosing the forged and fictitious documents.
Case Title: Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401 [WRIT - A No. - 19131 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram as it is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no statue regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.
Justice J.J. Munir relied on the decisions in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P. and Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog & Others where the Allahabad High Court has held that Shri Gandhi Ashram, parent body of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not state within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against the Ashram.
Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Setting aside a conviction in a 25-year-old murder case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that only on the basis of the absconding of the accused, he cannot be held to be guilty.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.
Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.
Case title - Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2751 of 1980]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404
While underscoring the critical importance of robust and credible evidence in securing convictions, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man previously convicted of murder in a case dating back 46 years.
“We think it is highly dangerous to convict the appellant on this kind of evidence when there are strong circumstances to show that the testimony of the sole eyewitness needs corroboration, either from ocular testimony or documentary/scientific evidence,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.
Case title - Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the offences cannot be added or subtracted by the concerned Magistrate or Judge in the police report when they are being considered under Section 190 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj reasoned that at the stage of taking cognisance of offences based on the police report, no hearing is provided to the complainant or the accused and hence, adding the offences without hearing the accused “would certainly prejudice them”.
Case title - Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the use of blank printed proforma for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is unacceptable, being indicative of nonapplication of judicial mind in passing the order.
“While passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner,” a bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 42-year-old murder case, emphasising that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.
The Court also stressed that to attract the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove that a fact was especially in the knowledge of the accused, and it has to be seen whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Case title - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused's conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) if such testimony inspires confidence.
With this, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan upheld the conviction of 3 men who were found guilty of the offences under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Case title - Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit, who was held earlier this year for allegedly trying to manipulate a police constable examination and leaking the question papers.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him relief, noting that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and that the co-accused (Monu Kumar and Rajneesh Ranjan), who were also apprehended along with the applicant, have already been released on bail by the High Court.
Case title - Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man, a doctor by profession, who secretly took his daughter's blood sample for a private DNA test to challenge her paternity, avoid paying maintenance to her and to show that her wife was living in adultery.
Calling the said DNA report obtained by the applicant “nothing but trash”, which cannot be relied upon, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi dismissed the man's plea to order a fresh DNA test of the applicant and his daughters.
Case Title: Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411 [WRIT - C No. - 18388 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has held that order on miscellaneous application regarding the court fee is appealable under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Justice Ajit Kumar held that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for appeals, does not specify that appeals can only be filed against final orders and not interlocutory orders. Observing that order under Section 17 may be interlocutory in nature, the Court held that remedy of appeal under Section 18 ought to be availed against such orders.
Case Title: Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412 [WRIT - C No. - 12796 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisitions made under U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 prior to commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which have not been finalized till 01.01.2014 shall be governed by the Act of 2013 for the purposes of determination of compensation to the landowners.
Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 empowers the Board, thereunder, to acquire any land for any purpose under the Adhiniyam as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case title - Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court recently took exception to the routine and mechanical addition of Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) by trial court judges in the state to the cases already involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment without any supporting material.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that the mechanical addition of a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) to the cases involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment was making the situation “more grim and serious”.
Case Title: Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee.
Case title – Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
The Allahabad High Court observed that if the current trend of conversions during religious congregations is permitted to continue, the majority population of the country could eventually find itself in the minority one day.
With this observation, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated that the religious congregations, where conversions are occurring and where the religions of the citizens of India are being changed, should be immediately stopped.
Case title - S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as far as it is permissible in law.
Case title - Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7191 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court has noted a significant increase in the number of criminal cases lodged by members of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) community.
A bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai noted that this upsurge could be attributed to the heightened awareness among the SC/ST Community regarding their rights, powers, and duties, facilitated by the proliferation of electronic and social media, even in remote village areas.
Case Title: State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. – 425 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to take steps to avoid delays in filing arbitration appeals beyond statutory limitations by the State Government and submit a report on the actions taken in this regard within 6 months.
While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh with a delay of 224 days, beyond the statutory period of 120 days, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that government must not be given preferential treatment in litigation and must adhere strictly to the timelines provided in the statute, irrespective of their status or resources. Further, the Court held that the bureaucratic and procedural delays cited by the Government cannot be accepted as valid reasons for condoning delays beyond statutory prescriptions.
Case Title: M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419
The Allahabad High Court has admitted the writ petition stating that the IGST Act lacks provision for appeals provided against an order passed by the state GST Officer.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta while admitting the writ petition noted that order passed under the IGST Act, the appeal shall lie before the Central Tax Officer. However, Section 6(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the Central Tax Officers to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the UPGST Act. Therefore, the Central Tax Officer does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order passed by an officer appointed under the UPGST Act, 2017.
Case Title: Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 576 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court has held that a child has the right to know and meet his parents, including the father during the pendency of the custody case before the Trial Court.
The mother approached the High Court against the order of Family Court allowing the father to meet their son on one Sunday of every month in a public place for three hours. The mother challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Principal Judge.
Case title - Satish Alias Chand vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421
The Allahabad High Court raised concerns over the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly in consensual romantic relationships between teenagers.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal added that while dealing with such cases, the challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships, and this requires a "nuanced approach" and "careful judicial consideration" to ensure that justice is served appropriately.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Rani Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 422
The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage cannot be presumed irretrievably broken down just because there has been a long separation period between the parties. It has been held that voluntary desertion along with other circumstances need to be seen to conclude that divorce can be granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“The decisions of the Supreme Court do not lay down a rule of thumb that the marriage may be presumed to be irretrievably broken down if the parties have suffered separation for any length of time. Only where one of the parties is seen to have voluntarily deserted the other and parties have continued in that status for long period of time then in view of the other attending circumstances as may indicate to the Court that there is no substance in the marriage, a conclusion may be reached that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down.”
Case title - Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought to extend the benefits of schemes exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Minorities to Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholders of all other communities/castes.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, emphasising the limits of judicial review in policy matters, concluded that such decisions fall within the purview of the legislative and executive branches of government.
Case title - Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court last week commuted the death sentence of a 45-year-old convict who killed his wife's grandmother with a screwdriver in 2022 to life imprisonment as it noted that he has two children and a wife to support and that it was not a "rarest of rare" case.
While answering the death reference in negative, a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus:
“…the finding of the trial court on order of sentence is modified as it is not a “rarest of rare” case, even though the accused has committed a grave offence of murder, therefore, we are of the opinion that the death penalty awarded to the appellant should be commuted to the life imprisonment.”
Case title - Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the court within whose jurisdiction the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can try those offences.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus in view of the mandate of Section 182 (2)CrPC, which states that offences punishable under Sections 494 or 495 IPC can be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or where the offender last resided with their first spouse, or where the first spouse has taken up permanent residence after the offence.
Case Title: Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 181 of 2019]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere allegation of the wife ousting the husband from the matrimonial home is not sufficient to show 'desertion' by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the husband must show that he tried to return to the house.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“Except for making allegations that the respondent declared that she shall alone stay in the house, nothing has been indicated with regard to efforts made by the appellant to get back in the matrimonial home and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been desertion on the part of respondent so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act.”
Case title - Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has observed that while the Constitution of India grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not allow any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs; however, this personal freedom does not extend to a collective right to proselytise, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion.
Case Title: M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 782 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court has held that a registered dealer cannot withhold the tax realised by him from a purchasing dealer only because he had deposited an excess amount of tax at the time of the transaction.
The Court held that he cannot escape the liability of depositing the tax realized under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 because a refund is due to him from assessment proceedings.
“The registered dealer after realizing the tax cannot withhold the same on the pretext that some excess amount of tax was deposited. The amount realized on the strength of Act, must be deposited and in case any amount found excess, the same will be refunded to the actual person from whom the same amount was realized as tax. The revisionist cannot get the benefit of any refund of amount while passing the assessment order,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case title - Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of brutally beheading a Hindu woman and leaving her body in a drain in September 2020 after she refused to convert to Islam following her marriage with one Ejaj/Aijaj (co-accused).
Considering the gravity of the offence, the role assigned to the accused-applicant (Shoeb Akhtar) and the stage of the trial, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh did not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Case Title: Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. – 210 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors 2019, the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.”
For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the Land Acquisition Act would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The court also held that this ruling of the Supreme Court shall apply to all pending cases.
Case Title: Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another v. Administrator General,Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 115 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant cannot be held responsible for her/his counsel's inaction in filing the appeal within the statutory limitation period.
In the case at hand, the Appellants filed a special appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge in a Testamentary Suit rejecting the application by the second appellant seeking transposition as plaintiff in place of Administrator General. The special appeal was filed with a delay of 105 days and was barred by limitation.
Case title - Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
The Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government's order denying the benefit of premature release to a 79-year-old convict who had already served 25 years in jail, including remission.
Criticizing the government's order as "stereotyped" and lacking individual consideration, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi directed the government to take a fresh decision on the convict's plea for premature release within six weeks.
Case title - Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court made history by delivering its judgment in three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit—the first time this has been done by a High Court.
A bench of Justice Shiv Shankar Prasad authored the judgment in the three languages mentioned above concerning the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition seeking enforcement of an interim maintenance order made u/s 125 CrPC.
The single judge wrote a Single judgment in three languages merged into a single document.
Case Title: Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Financial Services Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434 [WRIT - C No. - 7725 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Chairman, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad to submit a preliminary report under Rule 9(1) of the Tribunal (Condition of Services) Rules, 2021 to the Central Government against the allegations of nepotism and corruption levelled against Mr. A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow.
Petitioner, Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, alleged that the Presiding Officer had been arbitrary and whimsical in passing orders. It was alleged that he was not following due procedure established in law while passing orders but was indulging in “nepotism and corruption”.
Case Title: Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435 [WRIT - A No. - 11668 of 2022]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court, while considering the case of a Judicial Officer, held that if procedural requirements were not followed at the stage of inquiry against a delinquent officer, the validity of the punishment order passed subsequently could be called into question.
“Failure to follow procedural requirements during inquiry stage raises a serious concern about the validity of the punishment order. It is imperative that the disciplinary process is carried out in a manner that allows the affected parties to present their case, respond to the allegations and have a fair opportunity to defend themselves,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh.
Case Title: Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir or the Registrar of Hindu Marriages does not by itself prove marriage between parties. It was held that the one claiming the factum of marriage must produce evidence/ witnesses showing that Saptapadi and other rites and customs of Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were performed.
Case Title: Rajit Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 437 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 31 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court has held the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 falls within the ambit of powers exercised under List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, special appeals filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules arising out exercise of powers by a single judge under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by appellate/revisional authority under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 are maintainable.
Case Title: Dinesh Prasad v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 438 [WRIT - A No. - 5033 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who has been fully exonerated of the charges against him and has been subsequently reinstated is entitled to full pay for the period he was out of service by virtue of Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II (Part II to IV).
Case title - Umapati vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court observed that under the Indian Passport Act 1967, a person seeking the issuance of a passport is not required to obtain prior permission from the competent court, even if such a person is facing criminal charges.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal explained that under the 1967 Act, the passport authority has to consider and decide on the application for issuance of passport, as per Section 5(2).
Case Title: Ram Sewak vs. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 440 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 557 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 440
While upholding the dismissal of Group "D" employee of District Court Judgeship, Etah, the Allahabad High Court held that any person seeking appointment in District Court Judgeship must have impeccable character and high integrity without criminal antecedents. The Court held that any person without clean antecedents can damage the organization.
The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“a candidate seeking an appointment in the District Court judgeship should be of impeccable character and high integrity, and his antecedents should be clean and if a person whose integrity is doubtful or his antecedents are not clean is appointed, that can damage the institution inasmuch as if the Court records are misplaced or tampered which would cause immense prejudice to the litigants and also shake the confidence of the public in the judicial system which would eventually result in serious damage to the prestige of the institution.”
Case Title: Prakhar Saxena vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 441 [WRIT - A No. - 5198 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the transfer order issued to a Junior Assistant who was posted in the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bareilly to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Bahraich on the same day as the complaint was lodged against him since no fact-finding inquiry was made against the complaint.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 442
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 4 accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act while imposing a condition requiring each accused to deposit ₹25,000 with the Uttar Pradesh Gau Sewa Ayog.
A bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar imposed this condition earlier this month while granting bail to 4 accused (Shabbir, Mohammad Alam, Mohammad Khalid and Asgar) booked under Sections 3/5/8 of State's Anti Cow Slaughter Act and arrested on the allegations of possessing 70 kg of cow beef.
Case title - M/S Parthas Textiles And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 443
In light of the provision contained under Section 65 of the recently introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Allahabad High Court earlier this month observed that summons of a company or corporation could now also be served through the Director, apart from the Manager, Secretary, and other Officers of the company, including the firm's partner.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus while comparing Section 63 (service of summons on corporate bodies and societies) of CrPC with its corresponding provision in the BNSS 2023 (Section 65/service of summons on corporate bodies, firms and societies).
Case title - Arun Mishra vs. Advocate General 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court has said that a writ plea challenging the Advocate General's refusal to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings is non-maintainable.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed this while referring to the Supreme Court's order in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Others, 1988, wherein it was held that in cases of refusal of consent by the Advocate General/Attorney General, no purpose would be served by the court spending its time finding out whether the Advocate General/Attorney General should have given a decision one way or the other.
Case Title: Priyanka Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Higher Edu.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 445 [WRIT - C No. - 1007064 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for passing arbitrary orders against the petitioner-student ruining her career.
Observing that the order of the cancellation of her examination of 2009 was passed in 2012 but was never communicated to the petitioner, Justice Alok Mathur held that
“The matter directly pertains to the educational future of the student, who was deprived from sitting in the examinations of the B.Sc. 3rd year and even pursuing further education, to which the candidate may have been entitled. The action of the Lucknow University in not only in violation of principle of nature justice but has deleterious effect on the future of the candidate and such an action is deplorable.”
Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Part Of Award Dealing With Non-Arbitrable Dispute
Case Title: M/S Shyam Lalit Dubey And Another vs. Union Of India Thru. Ganeral Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 446 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 66 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes regarding works undertaken by party independent of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement cannot be determined under such arbitration agreement.
Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that a party is bound to compensate the other party for the work done by the latter party when there was no intention to do the work gratuitously.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“wherein some extra work etc. pertaining to the same contract has been undertaken may form part of the arbitrable dispute, however, in an arbitral dispute with reference to quantum meruit or Section 70 of the Act, 1872, for a work undertaken which is wholly independent of the contract containing the arbitration clause, the same cannot become an arbitral dispute.”
Case title - X (MINOR VICTIM) vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 447
While dealing with a case of 15 years old pregnant rape victim, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is a woman's decision whether to continue pregnancy or go ahead with medical termination of pregnancy.
Allowing continuation of pregnancy after counselling the victim and her parents of the risks involved with medical termination at 32 weeks pregnant, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“This Court is also of the opinion that a woman's decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself. This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme.”
Case Title: Manjusha Servesh Joshi vs. Sarvesh Kumar Joshi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 448 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 472 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that unrebutted evidence of minor daughter substantiating allegations of cruelty made by the mother sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Parties got married in 1999 and had two children in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Before the Family Court, it was established that the parties cohabited till 2011. While living in South Africa, the respondent is said to have assaulted the appellant. Appellant also alleged adultery. Though appellant did not want to go back to South Africa, respondent persuaded her to come with him. Once the appellant returned to South Africa with her kids, it is alleged that the cruel behaviour continued.
Case title - Faiyaz Abbas vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 194 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court recently clarified that under Section 83 of the CrPC CrPC, only property directly belonging to an accused or owned by him can be attached.
The court emphasized that properties where the accused resides but does not own, such as rented residences, are excluded from such attachments.
With this observation, a bench of Justice Abdul Moin set aside an order passed by the Court under 83 CrPC, in which the property belonging to the father of the accused booked under the POCSO Act was attached.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 165 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Single Judge order by which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was granted to respondent-petitioner for non-admission to M.A. in Women Studies since the admission criteria were changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the new criteria suggested by the Admissions Committee once approved the minutes of the meeting of the Admission Committee, came into force. It was held that there no statutory provision shown which necessitated notifying the changed eligibility criteria prior to the date of closure of admission forms.
Case Title: C/M Pratibha Inter College , Barabanki Thru. Manager Sri Indra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 115 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Recently, the Allahabad High Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against termination order passed by an unaided institution which is recognized under Section 7-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Distinguishing the judgment of Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that since appeal was provided to District Inspector Of Schools against termination order of the petitioner, and actions for non-compliance of the order of DIOS were also provided under Section 16D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the petitioner could file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the termination had an element of “public law” involved to make it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Propreitor, Seema Sarna v. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P., Commercial Tax Bhawan,Lucknow [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 31 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court has held that the term “ex-parte” in Rule 63(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 can be interpreted as for want of representation of the defendant after service of notice, the case may be decided on merits. However, when the appellant or his counsel is not present, the case may only be dismissed in default.
The Court held that in cases where the appellant is not present, the Tribunal must dismiss appeals “for want of prosecution” instead of deciding them on merits ex-parte.
Case Title: Mohammad Umar v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 20480 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, it is not mandatory for the passport authority to impound passport of a person against whom criminal case(s) are pending. It has been held that the word “may” in Section 10(3) gives discretion to the passport authority to consider the case on its merits and record its satisfaction in writing if passport needs to be impounded.
Case Title: Mohammad Shahid And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 16025 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 3-H(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 requiring compensation to be deposited with the competent authority before taking possession of acquired land is meant for safeguarding the land owners.
It was held that the provision is not for the Government to delay payment of compensation and to pay the amount only when possession is taken.
Section 3-H(1) provides that for the declaration of acquisition made under Section 3-D of the Act, the Central Government must deposit the amount of compensation determined under Section 3-G with the competent authority before taking possession of the notified land.
Case Title: A.K. Construction Company v. Union of India and others [WRIT - C No. - 20223 of 2024
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction have the power to examine blacklisting order to ensure that principles of natural justice and doctrine of proportionality are followed.
The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held State instrumentalities though vested with the power of blacklisting must conform to fairness and reasonableness.
Case title - Amitabh Thakur vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , India Govt. New Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday disposed of former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Amitabh Thakur's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Central government's recent notification declaring June 25, the day Emergency was imposed in the country in 1975, as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'.
A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh said that the Court cannot delve into political matters or question the government's political wisdom in issuing the notification.
"This Court, having heard the counsel for the petitioner at some length, is of the considered opinion that it is the lookout of the Government for declaration to be made with regard to the excesses caused by the proclamation of Emergency on 25.06.1975. The Court cannot enter into the political thicket and cannot question the political wisdom of the Government in issuing such a notification, as has been challenged in this writ petition," the Court observed in its order made public today.
Case title - Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court invoked the Rigveda, the Bible, and the Quran to emphasise the prohibition of harassment and oppression of innocent individuals, underscoring that such actions are a great sin.
This statement came as the Court sharply criticised the Uttar Pradesh Government officials for invoking the Gangsters Act in several cases without following due procedure.
Case title - Mohd. Rehan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and two connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 458
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 3 alleged leaders of the Popular Front of India (PFI) who were arrested in September 2022 by the UP STF (Special Task Force) on the allegations of planning to infiltrate the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
A bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar granted bail to the accused (Sufiyan, Mohd. Faizan, and Mohd. Rehan) as it noted that they have been in jail since September 27, 2022. However, to date, the trial in the case against them has not commenced.
Case Title: Sadhna Sahu v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 459 [WRIT - C No. - 20071 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that ward boy working in OPD across COVID ward during the pandemic will be covered under 'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19' and the benefits of the scheme were directed to be given to his widow.
Petitioner's claim under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 was rejected on grounds that her husband had died after the expiry of three months period from 28.03.2020 and that he was not directly working in the COVID ward.
Case Title: Mohd. Jamil vs. Managing Director Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (Kesco) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 460 [WRIT - A No. - 3143 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has held that in absence of a medical officer specialising in orthopaedics on the Committee, medical certificate stating 60% disability issued the Chief Medical Officer cannot be disbelieved.
“Certificate issued by a Chief Medical Officer could have been questioned only by the penal of medical officers in the field of orthopaedics, otherwise one could not say that merely because someone ran a business in the past, maybe he was a disabled, he would not be entitled for family pension,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: Bhagirath Prasad Sharma v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 461 [WRIT - A No. - 9709 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though Article 226 of the Constitution does not contemplate laches, merely obtaining a direction to decide representation after significant delay in making the claim (and in submitting representation) would not give rise to a new cause of action or revive a stale claim of salary dues by the petitioner.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi relied on State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others where the Supreme Court held that “it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.”
Case Title: Suresh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 462 [WRIT - A No. - 61181 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee cannot be retired prior to his date of retirement unless the date of birth of such employee is changed in the original service records to enable the authority to retire the employee.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar held that “without changing the date of birth originally recorded in the service book, an employee cannot be made to retire. The basic philosophy behind the service jurisprudence is that there is contract of employment between employer and employee. The service book maintained by employer is a part of the contract of employment and any change therein has to first take place as it would be altering the condition of employment.”
Case Title: Laxmi Prakash vs. Pooja Gangwar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 463 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 314 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 463
While modifying the order the Family Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that a police station is not a place for child visitation as the transactions happing in a police station may add to the emotional stress of parents separating.
Appeal was filed against the order the Family Court allowing visitation rights at a police station.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that
“A police station can never be described as an appropriate place where visitation right may be allowed. Visit by any child to a police station may not be a desirable event in his life. Unwittingly, he may become witness to occurrences and transactions that may not be conducive for his upbringing. He may be confronted with different sights which may not be pleasant to a child's mind.”
Case Title: M/S Shakuntla Educational And Welfare Society vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 464 [WRIT - C No. - 38069 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 464
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the levy of penal interest by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority on additional compensation which was not paid by the petitioner during the pendency of litigation.
The Court held that “The interest acts as compensation for the period during which the petitioner was unjustly enriched by withholding the lawful dues owed to YEIDA. Interest on the additional compensation can be claimed by YEIDA as part of equitable restitution, given that the petitioner benefited from the interim relief granted during the litigation. The Principle of restitution is founded on the ideal of complete justice, entitling the successful party to compensation, including interest, for the period it was deprived of its lawful dues.”
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 465 [WRIT - A No. - 52949 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court has upheld judicial review of answer key which is “palpably and demonstrably erroneous” and is contrary to the published material which is read by students across the State. It has been held that students cannot be made to suffer for faults of the University in publishing wrong answer keys.
“When the answers run contrary to the material published in a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in the State, it leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. The key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the Selection Board and it calls for interference by this Court in exercise of the Writ jurisdiction so that the error is rectified and the wrong answers do not adversely affect the fate of the candidates and their merit is tested in a proper manner,” held Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
Case Title: Pramit vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6929 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court has held that Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle during pendency of confiscation proceedings before the District Magistrate under Section 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910.
Section 72 provides things which are liable for confiscation including any intoxicant in respect of which any offence has been committed. Section 72(1)(e) provides that any conveyance in which such intoxicant is being carried is liable to be confiscated. Section 72 further empowers the Collector to carry out confiscation proceedings in respect of such conveyance and inform the owner or the person from who such conveyance is seized in writing.
Allahabad High Court Allows SP MP Afzal Ansari's Appeal Challenging Conviction In Gangster Act Case
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court ALLOWED the appeal of Samajwadi Party MP Afzal Ansari, who had moved the Court challenging his conviction in the Gangster Act case, in which the Ghazipur MP/MLA Court sentenced him to 4 years in prison. His conviction was linked to the 2005 murder of BJP MLA Krishnanand Rai.
Case title - Ramesh Yadav vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted three men who were sentenced to life imprisonment for committing the offence of murder after noting that there were significant contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses and police witnesses.
“Considering the evidence and other material on record in its entirety, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has erred in convicting the accused-appellants, overlooking the fact that there are serious and major contradictions and omissions not only in the statement of eyewitnesses but in the statement of police witnesses which makes the entire story doubtful and benefit thereof will go to the appellants,” a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi concluded while allowing the appeals filed by the 3 convicts.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Rajdeo Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused in a 1985 dacoity case after finding several loopholes in the prosecution's case.
“…when we take a holistic view of the evidence adduced during the course of trial and test the veracity of the prosecution story as mentioned by the witnesses, we find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents,” a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed in its 44-page judgment.
Case Title: C/M Kunwar Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter College And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7795 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 470
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no statutory provision in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or elsewhere empowering the District Inspector of Schools to interfere with the seniority list issued by the Committee of Management of any institution.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar held,
“the District Inspector of Schools has no authority under provisions of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or under any other statutory provision to interfere with the seniority list issued by the committee of management of the college or to issue a direction to the committee of management to issue a fresh seniority list and to appoint officiating principal as per the modified seniority list to be issued as per the directions of the District Inspector of Schools.”
Case Title: Ravindra Singh Rathaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 471 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24630 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Relying on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition (Student Edition), the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man who has been accused of raping a woman after allegedly making her unconscious with the use of chloroform.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal noted that as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, it is impossible to anaesthetise a woman against her will while she is awake.
Case title - Ikrar And Another vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court acquitted an accused in a 33-year-old case under the NDPS Act. It noted that Section 50 of the Act was violated and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“(Section 50 of the NDPS Act) is a crucial safeguard to ensure the fairness of the search process and to protect the rights of the accused. In this case, there is clear non-compliance with this mandatory provision, rendering the search and subsequent seizure legally flawed. The prosecution's failure to adhere to this statutory requirement further weakens its case,” a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted in its 17-page order.
Case title - Ryen @ Ren Chao vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 473
While denying bail to a Chinese official accused of operating an international criminal network in India while overstaying his visa and engaging in various unlawful activities, the Allahabad High Court underscored the need for an international legal framework to address the criminal trials of foreign nationals engaged in business in India.
"International criminal networks which are managed by Chinese nationals with Indian accomplices as in the instant case significantly impact the national security...What aggravates the crime further is that many beneficiaries of the crime proceeds are foreigners living abroad who are not even amenable to Indian law and whose identities are effectively concealed," a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed as it denied bail to Chinese national Ryen @ Ren Chao.
Case Title: Dhanush Vir Singh v. Dr, Ila Sharma And 3 Others [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 19 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has held that civil imprisonment of a company official cannot be sought in order to enforce a money decree against the judgment-debtor company.
The Court observed that Order 21 Rule 50 permits execution of money decree from the assets of partners, but not from an employee/representative/director.
“Order 21 Rule 50 does provide for execution of a money decree against a firm from the assets of the partners of the said firm mentioned in the Rule but there is no provision with respect to the Employee/Representative/Director of a Company. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and can execute the same as per the form only,” held Justice Ashutosh Srivastava.
Case Title: AS v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services, U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 9427 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court has directed reconsideration of an employee's application for voluntary retirement on grounds of severe depression with seven anxiety neurosis. The Court held that forcing the petitioner to continue working in her situation where her life may be endangered is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner was serving at Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh on the post of Head Assistant. Since she is suffering from physical and mental ailment severely, she was not able to discharge her duties. Therefore, after completing 30 years in service, petitioner requested for voluntary retirement.
Case Title: Anwar Ahmad Siddqui v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 50923 of 2008]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court has held that in cases of retrospective regularization, the employee shall be entitled to benefits such as time scale, selection pay, ACP benefits, etc. retrospectively, unless the order regularizing him specifically bars the time period mentioned therein from being counted.
It was further held that even otherwise, if retrospective regularization restores seniority, fixation of the petitioner at a lower pay scale than those of his junior, it will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman At Katra Keshav Dev Khewat No. 255 And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 477
In a significant ruling with potential implications for the pending suits before the Allahabad High Court regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in Mathura, the High Court DISMISSED the plea of Shahi Idgah Masjid filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This plea challenged the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the deity and Hindu worshippers.
With this decision, a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found all 18 suits to be MAINTAINABLE, paving the way for them to be heard on their merits.
Case Title: Credai Western Up At H-85 Ii Floor Sector 63 Noida v. State Of Up And 3 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1368 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 478
On Monday, Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) withdrew its public interest litigation from the Allahabad High Court seeking direction to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for safe egress and ingress to public at large in their offices and to demarcate a place for protesting farmers after obtaining permission from the competent authority.
Case Title: Gyan Prakash Rastogi vs. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. - 195 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the assesee has asked for opportunity of personal hearing and relevant documents, both should be provided prior to passing orders under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax, 1961.
Petitioner and his brother run separate businesses, however they acquired a shop together. The shop was subjected to search and seizure under the Income Tax Act where certain loose documents and sheets were seized. Subsequently, petitioner was issued notice under Section 148A(b) based on certain Audit Objections.
Case title - Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Case title - 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court said that cheating in government exams undermines the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunities. Thus, such acts must be dealt with sternly, as their effects are not limited to an individual but impact society as a whole.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed this while denying bail to Amit Kumar, who has been accused of impersonating another candidate during the UP Police Recruitment Examination in February this year.
Case title - Suman Mishra vs. The State Of U.P And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Case title - 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has said that a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is not maintainable.
A bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla held thus, heavily relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court (in Kamatchi vs Laxmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370) and the Madras High Court (in Arul Daniel vs Suganya and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467).
Case title - Huma @ Vasif vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a trans woman who had approached the Court alleging that other transgender community members were harassing her in the city of Saharanpur.
Hearing her writ petition, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh directed the District Magistrate of Saharanpur to ensure that the petitioner is not illegally restrained from enjoying her fundamental rights to life and liberty with dignity.
Case title - Saleem alias Sambha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court modified the conviction of a man, who stabbed the deceased in the abdomen with a chhuri (dagger), from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part II (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder) of the IPC.
The court observed that the accused's intention was to intimidate the deceased by brandishing the chhuri, and not to inflict bodily harm. However, in a moment of sudden provocation, the single blow turned out to be fatal.
Case title - Rajendra Yogi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court set aside an accused's conviction under Section 304 (I) IPC based on the martial inconsistency between witnesses' oral testimony and medical evidence on record.
Relying upon the Supreme Court's 2021 Judgment in Viram @ Virma v The State of Madhya Pradesh LL 2021 SC 677, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary observed that the material contradiction in the medical evidence viz-a-viz the eyewitness account creates doubt on the prosecution's case.
“We have already observed that the ocular version of the incident is irreconcilable with the medical evidence on record and the inconsistency remains unexplained by the prosecution. Once that be so, it cannot be said that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt,” the Court said as it acquitted accused Rajendra Yogi in connection with a 2015 Murder case.
Case title - Jyoti Devi vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court came to the rescue of a woman who was unfairly denied an LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) connection under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY).
A bench consisting of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla issued a directive on July 3 requiring the authorities to provide the woman with an LPG connection within seven days.
Case Title: M/S Bgr Energy Systems Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1026 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has held that order Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be passed a company which is under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 empowers a proper officer to initiate proceedings if he is satisfied that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax by any assesee.
Case title - Satyendra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 488
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (husband of the deceased/victim) accused of committing the offence of dowry death, noting that it was doubtful that any dowry was demanded in the case since the parties got married under the Chief Minister Mass Marriage Scheme.
“…the marriage of deceased was solemnized with applicant under the scheme launched by the State Government as noted above, therefore, prima-facie, it cannot be said that demand of dowry was ever raised by the applicant or any of his family members…”, a bench of Justice Rajeev Misra observed as it granted bail to accused husband who was arrested in June 2023.
Case Title: State of UP Through Mahanideshak Chikitsalaya Medical Services v. M/S Supreme Electrical and Mechanical Works [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 216 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary / Additional Chief Secretary, Medical and Health Services, U.P. to conduct an inquiry against the erring officers due to which appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed with a delay of 1191 days.
An arbitral award of Rs.34,21,423/- as principal and Rs.1,67,16,033/- as interest up to was passed in favour of M/S Supreme Electrical and Mechanical Works, respondent. The same was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the appeal under Section 34 was rejected on grounds on non-compliance of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Case Title: Smt. Maya Devi v. Bhura Lal [FIRST APPEAL No. - 808 of 2003]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 490
While upholding a decree of dissolution of marriage for a couple who had lived separately for 40 years, the Allahabad High Court held that even if the husband had sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, upon failure to cohabit for a period of one year after the grant of such decree, the husband could seek dissolution of marriage.
Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the grant of divorce if there has been no cohabitation after one year or upwards after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Raja Ram And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 491 [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1851 of 1983]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 1978 murder case, noting that many circumstances alleged against the accused had not been proved satisfactorily by the prosecution.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I also noted that direct evidence of murder in the form of a statement of PW4 was not reliable, the Motive had not been satisfactorily proved, and there was a 'vital' delay in lodging the first information report, which had not been satisfactorily proved.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Ativeer Singh And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 492
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused in the 1993 alleged dowry death case, citing concerns over the reliability of the viscera examination report. The court found the report 'suspicious', leading to doubts about the prosecution's evidence.
Upholding the trial court's 1997 Judgment and order acquitting the accused, a bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the evidence regarding the alleged demand of dowry and matrimonial cruelty meted out to had rightly been found to be suffering from discrepancy and untrustworthiness.
Case title - Purushottam Singh And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 493
The Allahabad High Court encountered an unusual case involving cheating and forgery, wherein an FIR was supposedly filed by a dead person in 2014, almost three years after his death.
The case perplexed a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery as it noted that the police had even investigated the case based on the dead person's statement. Expressing shock over the same, the Court observed thus:
“It is very strange that a dead person has not only lodged an FIR, but has recorded his statement before Investigating Officer and thereafter a vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of him in the present case. It appears that all the proceedings are undertaken by a ghost.”
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Singh And Others vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman, Prayagraj And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 494
The Allahabad High Court has directed the UP Bar Council to decide whether to hold elections in all district bar associations in the state on the same day in the greater interest of the advocates.
“…(it) will prevent many disputes pertaining to elections then it should consider issuing necessary orders/ resolutions in this regard making it binding upon all district bar associations,” a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed while directing the state bar council to take a decision in the matter in within three months.
Case Title: M/S Standard Niwar Mills v. Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Procurement Wing Jaisalmer House 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 495 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 146 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court held that if the claim under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is not filed within limitation, the same cannot be raised upon acknowledgment of the liability by the other party after expiry of limitation.
Section 18 of the Limitation Act provides that where a party acknowledges its liability within the period prescribed for filing a suit or application in respect of the liability, then fresh period of limitation starts from the date when such liability is acknowledged in writing.
Case Title: M/S Kaizen India And 2 Others v. M/S Rangoli Garments Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 496 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 496
The Allahabad High Court has held that a certified copy of a Lease Rent Agreement is admissible evidence in proceedings before the Small Causes Court as it is a 'public document' under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that “certified copy of the Lease Agreement is a Public Document, as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and in terms of the 3rd Proviso to Section 65(e) or 65(f) the certified copy is admissible in evidence.”
Case title - Manjesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 497 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1454 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a direction to the state government to clarify that it not working under the commands of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The PIL Plea, filed by Advocate Manjesh Kumar Yadav, referred to a statement the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Keshav Prasad Maurya, made last month during a one-day state working committee meeting of the BJP.
Case title - Ramu vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court took note of the lack of legal aid, particularly for impoverished/indigent prisoners, observing that the denial of the same results in prolonged detention and a significant deprivation of liberties for those unable to access legal assistance.
Expressive concern over the situation, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot remarked “that while the nation celebrates the Amrit Kaal of Azaadi, there is a class of Indian citizens who lead 'anonymized' lives in the 'dark walls of prisons' where the 'light of Constitutional liberties does not penetrate”.
Case title - Rukhsana Khatoon vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court permitted a woman accused in a cheating and forgery case to travel to Saudi to perform the Umrah pilgrimage.
“Umrah is a journey to Muslim's most sacred place. 'Umrah' is known as minor pilgrimage while 'Hajj' is the main pilgrimage. 'Umrah' is considered as a journey to holiest place of Muslim's and a journey of devotion to Allah,” a bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed in its order.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court.
Case Title: Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 [CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 4 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner sought a declaration that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other criminal laws were violative of Article 13 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner appearing in person argued that the laws were non-reformative and more punishment oriented.
Case title - Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court observed that the purpose of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is to guarantee religious freedom to all persons, reflecting India's social harmony and spirit. The objective of this Act is to sustain the spirit of secularism in India.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further said that while the Constitution guarantees each person the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, however, this individual right does not translate into a collective right to proselytize, as religious freedom equally belongs to both the person converting and the individual being converted.
Allahabad High Court Rejects An Advocate's PIL Against Centre's Mandatory FASTag Policy
Case title - Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea moved by an advocate challenging the central government's decision to declare all the lanes in the Fee Plaza at Highways as FASTag lanes.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed thus:
“…(this) decision apparently cannot be faulted in view of fast changing scenario of the National Highways wherein in absence of FASTag facility, commuters used to line up for long hours at a particular Toll Plaza for passing through them.”
Case Title: Ram Niwas Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504 [WRIT - A No. - 341 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the application of doctrine of relation back in service disputes where subsequent orders have been passed in favour of the employee relates to initial disputes.
While directing payment of salary arrears from year 1998 (date of stop order) to 2021(date when petitioners appointments were held valid), Justice Manish Mathur held that “doctrine of relation back would be applicable in service matters particularly when subsequent exoneration or order passed in favour of an employee relates to the initial dispute.”
Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505 [WRIT - C No. - 1213 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has held that after completing 5 years of PhD course, a student cannot be denied completion merely due to some alleged irregularity during the admission process.
While granting relief to the petitioner student, Justice Alok Mathur observed,
“the country is making its best efforts to grow from a developing nation to a developed one. Repeatedly, it is said that to become a developed nation huge research work is required to be conducted within the Country. Now, when the students are pursuing their research work and are at the verge of completion it is highly improper to restrain them from completing their research on legal technicalities.”
Case Title: Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506 [WRIT - C No. - 41137 of 2010]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court has held that oral gift under the Mohammedan Law which is reduced in writing on an unregistered document cannot be subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings for deficiency in stamp duty on any instrument under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A provides that where in any instrument presented for registration under the Registration Act, 1908, it is found that the market value mentioned is less than the value determined under the Stamp Act, such document shall be referred to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector proceeds to determine the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty to be paid by the party as per the conditions set in Section 47-A.
Allahabad High Court Holds Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Guilty Of Contempt
Case Title: Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507 [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 562 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has held Retired Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 guilty of contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for assuming jurisdiction in respect of the assesee-applicant in respect of a different assessment year when the Writ Court had directed that he has no jurisdiction in respect of the assesee.
While directing one-week simple imprisonment along with file of Rs. 25,000/- against the opposite party, Justice Irshad Ali held that
“Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State.”
Case Title: M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508 [WRIT TAX No. - 577 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the goods in transit are not accompanied by proper documentation, including e-way bill, the authorities can survey the business premises of the assesee to determine the correctness of the transaction. However, it was held that if the e-way bill was produced before passing of seizure order under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, then contravention of the Act or Rules thereunder could not be claimed by the Department.
Case Title: Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509 [WRIT - A No. - 5951 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court has held that no notification transferring an employee involved in elections can be passed during the period where election notification is active except with prior permission of the State Election Commission. It was held that such transfer order is non est in law.
Petitioner was serving as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), when his transfer order issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda transferring him from Vikas Khand Wazirganj to Vikas Khand Mujehna, District-Gonda. The transfer was made pursuant to the election notification dated 15.07.2024 which notified the elections of the Panchayat.
Reply Not Considered In Totality: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Blacklisting Order
Case Title: M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510 [WRIT - C No. - 11037 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of blacklisting for indefinite period as the reply of the petitioner company was not considered in its totality but was rejected as being not satisfactory.
Observing that blacklisting has civil consequences for a company, the bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held that “an order of blacklisting is accordingly required to be passed taking into consideration all aspects and should not be passed in a casual and cavalier manner as the same has an impact on the person for which such blacklisting is done.”
Case title – Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
While acquitting an accused in a 2006 Murder case, the Allahabad High Court observed that motive occupies a back seat where there is direct and credible evidence; however, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected, the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was essentially hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Sunil, a convict in the 2006 murder case of a woman. The Court determined that the case against the accused was not proven due to unreliable ocular testimony and a lack of a justifiable motive.
Case title – Gajendra Singh Negi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court ordered an inquiry against a judicial officer who issued a summons against two accused to face trial for the offence under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters Act, despite the officer being purportedly on leave that day.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to inquire under which circumstances the summoning order was passed and, if necessary, to call the then Presiding Officer for an explanation.
Case title – Geeta Devi vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court directed an investigation by a Senior IPC Officer into the 'mysterious' death of a 54-year-old police sub-inspector (S-I), who died in April this year after he allegedly shot himself with his service weapon at the Machhrehta police station in Sitapur.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari directed the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the case's investigation is carried out by a senior IPS Officer of any other district after ensuring compliance with the top court's Lalita Kumari Judgment concerning lodging of FIR.
Case title - Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu man to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.
“Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property,” a bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam remarked.
Case title - Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) DISMISSED a plea moved by Senior BJP leader, former MP and Cabinet Minister Maneka Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy found the election plea to be barred by limitation, holding that Gandhi's election plea had been filed in contravention of Section 81 r/w S. 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It may be noted that Gandhi had moved the election petition with a seven-day delay.
Case title – Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Emphasizing that an accused has no right at the investigation stage, the Allahabad High Court last week said that an accused does not have the right to seek further/reinvestigation of a case by filing a plea under Section 173(8) CrPC.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed thus while relying upon the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in the case of State vs Hemendhra Reddy | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 wherein it was held that a court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation u/S. 173(8) CrPC.
Case title – Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in a particular case, if the FIR is lodged on or after July 1, 2024 (the date of commencement of 3 New Criminal Laws), for an offence committed before that date, it would be registered under the provisions of the IPC. Still, the investigation will continue as per Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court also held that in a particular case, if the investigation is pending on July 1, 2024, the investigation will continue as per the CrPC; however, the cognizance of the police report will be taken as per the procedure laid down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title – Gulamuddin And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against 6 Muslim men who had allegedly carried a Tiranga in their hands in a religious procession, on which Quranic verses (Ayat and Kalma) were inscribed.
In a prima facie observation, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the applicants' act was punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002, and there was a violation of Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by the applicants.
Case Title: Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Referring to the decision in case of Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1082 of 2022], the Allahabad High Court reiterated that even if excess stock is found at the business premises of the manufacturer, the proceedings u/s 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated.
As per Section 130 of the UPGST Act, the Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. This provision lays down guidelines for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty.
Case title – Jamna Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a Pujari (Priest) who has been booked under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing unnatural sex with a 12-year-old orphan near a temple in February this year.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the victim's statements deposing as to how the alleged act had been performed by the accused, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal denied bail to the accused-applicant (Jamuna Giri).
Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Against ECI For 'Inaction' On Congress' 'Ghar Ghar Guarantee' Campaign
Case title - Bharti Devi vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 521 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1541 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 521
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed against the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its alleged inaction to act against the Indian National Congress (INC) for launching its much debated 'Ghar Ghar Guarantee' scheme/campaign [colloquially also referred to as the 'Khatakhat Scheme'] ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam declined to entertain the petition, noting that it "was not satisfied in regard to the bona fides and credentials of the petitioner".
"The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition after making required disclosures, if so advised," the Court observed in its order.
Case Title: Aakarsh Matta Thru. His Father Manoj Kumar Matta vs. Consortium Of National Law Universities, National Law School Of India Uni. Thru. Secy. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 522 [WRIT - C No. - 3647 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow (RMLNLU) to admit the student-petitioner who is suffering from "Specific Learning Disability in Writing Only” and has a certificate from the Department of Psychiatry And National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC), AIIMS in B.A. L.L.B. batch of 2024.
Justice Abdul Moin held that being 17 years of age, the petitioner could not have held a permanent disability certificate as per Clause 22.6 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 dated 05.01.2018. It was held that once the petitioner turned 18 years of age, he could apply for a fresh PWD certificate, which would be valid for life.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax V. M/S Emami Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 523 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. – 274 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow's finding that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is a 'medicated ointment' and not an 'antiseptic cream'. It was held that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is taxable at 5% under Entry 41 Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Heading “Drugs and Medicines” in Entry 41, with effective from October 11, 2012, excludes medicated soap, shampoo, antiseptic cream, face cream, massage cream, eye jel and hair oil but includes vaccines, syringes and dressings, medicated ointments, light liquid paraffin of IP grade; Chooran; sugar pills for medicinal use in homeopathy; human blood components; C.A.P.D. Fluid; Cyclosporin.
Case title – Ankit Punia vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 524
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man accused of murdering and attempting to rape a 100-year-old woman in 2017 after noting that the evidence indicated that the deceased died due to 'septic shock' and not due to any blow or injury.
The Court also considered the fact that the trial court itself had expressed its opinion that no sperm or semen was found on any object, nor was there any sign of external injury on the genitals in the medical report of the victim, and that no evidence or signs of penetration by the accused were found.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2510 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 525
The Allahabad High Court imposed cost of Rs. 40,000, which was subsequently recalled, on a practising Advocate who had filed a public interest litigation seeking action against Larsen & Tubro involved in the construction of the new parking and lawyer chambers block coming up in the HC premises.
The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed,
“now it has become a trend to file frivolous PILs just to put undue pressure on the contractors/builders. Time and again in catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated this practice and directed for imposing exemplary cost on such kind of busybodies, who file PIL for extraneous considerations and ulterior motives. To curb such kind of frivolous petitions, it is mandatory to impose cost to discourage such kind of litigation. Such kind of vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to continue and if anybody engages in doing so, such activities have to curbed down. This is a perfect case where exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner.”
Case title – Mohd Shane Alam vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person of any religion and by whatever name he is called, such as Father, Karmkandi, Maulvi or Mulla, etc., would be liable under the UP 'Anti Conversion' Act if he converts any person by force, misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion and allurement.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed this while denying bail to a 'Maulana' (Religious Priest) who has been accused of forcibly converting a victim to 'Islam' and performing her Nikaah with a Muslim man.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Committing Unnatural Sex With Cows
Case title – Harikishan vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 527
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of committing unnatural acts with cows.
Accused-Harikishan was arrested in June 2023 after an FIR was lodged against him under Section 377 IPC, alleging that he had been seen committing unnatural acts with the cows.
Case Title: Mahendra Pal and others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Basic Edu. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 172 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has held that reservation under Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 in the selection of Assistant Teachers in the State shall be applicable at the stage of preparation of merit list after including the result of the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination (ATRE) along with other qualification.
Courts May Not Look At Pay Package Of Parties Alone For Determining Alimony: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Smt.Kiran Gupta And Another v. Shree Ramji Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 34 of 2009]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court has held that pay package alone must not be considered for determining the alimony to be awarded. Other circumstances like the duration of marriage, period of separation, remarriage of parties and further financial responsibilities must also be considered while determining the alimony amount.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“While money may always short to fulfill all human needs, the Courts may not look at the pay package of the parties alone to determine the amount of alimony that would be awarded.”
Case title – Manish Kumar vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 530
The Allahabad High Court observed that a counsel can only argue a fact pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application and is not authorized to make a statement of fact that has not been specifically pleaded.
A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed this while dealing with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Manish Kumar, booked under Sections 408 and 409 IPC.
Case title – Heera vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 531
The Allahabad High Court acquitted an accused who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court (in 2002) for allegedly raping a 6-year-old girl in 2001 as it noted that the medical evidence did not show any injury caused to the victim girl.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary noted that at the tender age of six years if the victim is subjected to rape, some injury is bound to occur and be reflected in the medical papers or the testimony of the doctor.
Case Title: Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 532 [WRIT - C No. - 5577 of 2015]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 532
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding disputes of the workman of Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories whose working conditions are governed by the Standing Orders issued by the State Government from time to time.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that
“Industrial Dispute under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be raised by workmen of the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., whose service conditions are governed by Standing Orders covering the condition of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in Uttar Pradesh.”
Case Title: M/S Anil Rice Mill vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 533 [WRIT TAX No. - 886 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court has held that production of tax invoice, e-way bill, GR or payment details is not sufficient to show the actual physical movement of the transaction for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 provides for the conditions and eligibility for claiming input tax credit. Section 16(2) provides that an assesee is not entitled any input tax credit unless he possesses tax invoices or debit note issued by supplier and any other tax paying documents as may be prescribed.
Case Title: Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 702 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the husband choses to live away from his parent, mere failure in taking care of his parents does not amount to cruelty.
Appellant-Husband approached the High Court against the rejection of the divorce petition by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad. Husband had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by the respondent-wife as she was not taking care of his parents.
Officers Should Not Pass Such Orders Which Highlight Their Incompetence: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Anuj Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 535 [WRIT - A No. - 11572 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure at the decision of the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the transfer application of an Assistant Teacher despite meeting the criteria for transfer. The application was rejected on grounds that the Headmaster was busy in official work of the DIOS and District Magistrate.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed, “this Court records displeasure against the officer concerned for not entertaining the application despite the criteria laid down by the State Government has been fulfilled and the application has been returned on the ground that the Headmaster is busy in the official work of District Inspector of Schools and District Magistrate. This Court would like to further record that the officer concerned should not pass such orders which highlights his incompetence.”
Case Title: Smt. Abhilasha Shroti vs. Rajendra Prasad Shroti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 71 of 2012]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court has held that leaving a spouse in a Hindu Marriage without any justifiable reason amounts to cruelty towards the spouse who has been left alone.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body. Thus to a third party the form may be visible and they may continue to visualize the marriage as exist at the same time to the spouse the sacrament may remain dead. That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence.”
Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Choreographer Remo D'Souza In 2016 Cheating Case
Case title – Remo D Souza v.s State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a quashing petition filed by Bollywood choreographer and Film Director Remo D'Souza in connection with a 2016 cheating case.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra dismissed his plea, noting that since D'souza had failed to challenge the chargesheet filed against him in the matter, no relief, as he had prayed for, could be granted.
“Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the charge sheet dated 25.9.2020 submitted against applicant has not been challenged in the present application. In the absence of any challenge to the charge sheet, no relief as prayed for by means of present application can be granted,” the Court observed in its order as it dismissed his plea.
Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others v. The State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 538 [WRIT - A No. - 18956 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 538
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the title of a retired judge's name remains “Mr. Justice..”. It has been observed that the word “Retired” must not be used as a part of the name of a retired High Court judge.
“A retired Judge is not supposed to be referred to as "Hon'ble Mr. Justice ..... (Retired)". The word "Retired" is not to be appended as if it were to the name of the Judge. A Judge of the High Court, after he retires, still carries with his name, the title "Mr. Justice ...". All that is to be done in case of a retired Judge is that after a reference to his name as "Mr. Justice ....", the words "Retired Judge" or "Retired Judge of the High Court of ..." may be mentioned. It is not that after the name "Mr. Justice...." the word "Retired" is to be suffixed. This is a fallacy, of which the Government must take note,” observed Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Rajendra Singh Verma v. C.B.I 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38496 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539
The Allahabad High Court has held that order sanctioning criminal prosecution of a government employee under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be challenged at any stage in the Trial proceedings and the bar placed under Section 19(3) on superior courts overturning the findings of the Special Judge shall not apply in such cases.
Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a non-obstante clause which provides the circumstances under which a finding, sentence or order of a Special Judge under the Act can be overturned or altered in appeal, revision, etc. by a superior court. Section 19(3)(b) provides that proceedings under the Act cannot be stayed on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless the Court is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.
Case title - Saurabh Sachan vs. Garima Sachan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court observed that making an effort for reconciliation is not a condition precedent for decreeing a suit for divorce and that the Family Court is merely required to satisfy itself whether any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are made out.
The Court, however, added that if the Court prefers to examine the parties' conduct regarding reconciliation efforts, the conduct of both parties should be considered.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Observing that a 13year old child may not be able to make the right choice between medical termination of pregnancy and continuing the pregnancy full term, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the medical termination of pregnancy will not be possible as it involves greater risk to the life of the 13year old than carrying on the pregnancy.
Petitioner, a 13 years old child, was sexually assaulted by her aged relative with whom she was residing. After the FIR was lodged, petitioner was subjected to medical examination where it was found that she was 28 weeks pregnant. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court at almost 32 weeks of pregnancy.
Case Title: Ascent Education Trust,Kanpur Thru. Chairman Mr. Gurusharan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 542 [WRIT - C No. - 7092 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court has that the decision of the lawyer to restrict the prayer to waiver of penalty when the court is not inclined to grant any relief cannot be said to be without any authority.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that,
“if the lawyer assessed that there was no chance of success of the entire appeal and he decided to restrict his prayer for waiver of the penalty, it cannot be said that he acted absolutely without any authority and that might be the reason as to why the petitioner did not initiate any proceedings against his Advocate who had given the concession.”
Case title - Kishan Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543
The Allahabad High Court observed that an extrajudicial confession is, by its very nature, a weak piece of evidence and unless the attending circumstances are such that the confession is found convincing, not much weight can be accorded to it.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary observed this while acquitting a convict in connection with a 2010 murder, noting that the trial court had not carefully scrutinised the evidence of extra-judicial confession as well as the testimony of a child witness.
Case Title: Smt. Madhubala Jaiswal vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 544 [WRIT - C No. - 15996 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 544
While granting relief to a 75-year-old woman, the Allahabad High Court has held that when the delay in executing the conveyance deed was due to issues between the State Government and the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA), interest on payment of the remaining premium amount cannot be imposed on the allotee.
Seniority Of Employees Must Not Be Compromised While Making Transfers: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Anupam Srivastava And 7 Others vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd and 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 545 [WRIT - A No. - 10189 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 545
The Allahabad High Court has observed that where transfer is permissible, the employees must be transferred at the same post which they were originally serving at. It has been held that the seniority of employees must not be compromised.
Justice Ajit Kumar observed that “transfer though is permissible within the distribution company but in no circumstances, seniority of employees should be compromised nor, the employees can be directed to be posted in an inferior office to the one they have been serving at, from where they are sought to be transferred. Thus, if an employee is working in the office of Chief Engineer, he should be transferred in the office of Chief Engineer. Likewise employees working in the office of Superintendent Engineer or Executive Engineer should be transferred to the office of Superintendent Engineer or Executive Engineer only.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Katiyar v. Charan Jeet Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 546 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 52 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 546
The Allahabad High Court has held that pre-institution mediation as provided in Section 12A(1) of Commercial Court Act, 2015 can be bypassed when there is interference with the functioning of a petrol pump.
Section 12A(1) of the of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that where in a suit no urgent relief is contemplated, such suit may not be instituted unless remedy of pre-institution mediation has been exhausted by the plaintiff.
Case Title: Udai Narayan Sahu v. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 547 [WRIT - A No. - 8170 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 547
In a case where an employee did not make any contribution to the General Provident Fund because he was not allotted a GPF number by the employer, the Allahabad High Court has held that the employee cannot be denied pension due to the fault of the employer.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held: “Firstly, the deduction toward General Provident Fund is not a condition precedent for eligibility to receive pension. Secondly, the petitioner was not at fault for non-deduction of the contribution by the authorities. Thirdly, having been retired, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the amount of General Provident Fund and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount merely for the amount being refund to him immediately thereafter, would not serve any purpose.”
Case Title: Vineeta Verma v. Brajnesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 107 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548
The Allahabad High Court has held that evidence for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be led at the stage of deciding the application itself. The decision on the application need not wait for evidence to be led in the main case.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that in proceedings under the Act if it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband has no separate income and needs expenses for the proceedings, the Court upon the application made by such party awards certain sums towards expenses. The income of the parties needs to be considered while awarding such expenses.
Case title - Ujala And Another vs State of UP and 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 549
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 549
The Allahabad High Court directed the trial courts not to issue certified copies of the victims' statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC (now section 183 BNSS) to any person until cognizance is taken on the chargesheet/police report.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed this while noting that in many cases, the accused, while challenging the First Information Report, filed statements of the victims, and even lower courts are issuing certified copies of the statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC, which is legally not permissible.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Sweta Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that wife denying cohabitation to the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty and therefore, is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,
“Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The plaintiff's allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication.”
Case title - Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue ,Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 551
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 551
The Allahabad High Court observed that since records of cases are not handed over to the standing counsels prior to the hearing of the case, they are unable to provide proper assistance to the court. The court observed that despite various orders of the court that records summoned should be provided to the standing counsels a day prior to the hearing, the same was not being done. Rather, the records were being handed to them in court on the morning of the hearing.
Case Title: Randhir Kumar Pandey v. Sri Purushottam Das Maheshwari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 552 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 313 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 552
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the review applicant who levelled serious allegations against the lawyers of the High Court and judges of Kanpur District Judgeship. The Court however restrained itself from initiating criminal contempt against the applicant as he is 77 years old.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed that
“Considering the serious health issues of petitioner and his age i.e. 77 years, this Court restrains itself to initiate criminal contempt proceeding against him, but ground so taken by him in the review application is very vague and filing of such review application is gross misuse of process of law, therefore, review application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh, which the petitioner shall deposit before the Registrar General of the High Court within a period of 15 days from today.”
Case Title: The Sinha Development Trust And Another vs. State Of Up And 15 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9021 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was inserted vide 2002 amendment will not apply to suits instituted prior to 2002.
Case Title: Shiv Sagar v. Smt. Poonam Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 455 of 2013]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 554
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case dissolution of marriage is sought due to the insanity of a spouse, the spouse seeking dissolution of marriage must prove the existence of such insanity in the case of the other spouse.
Marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005 and they have lived separately since January 2012. Appellant-husband instituted a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging insanity and cruelty by the wife. Appellant provided medical test reports and prescriptions from Dr. S.B. Joshi as documentary evidence for proving their wife's alleged insanity. Respondent-wife provided her educational qualifications along with other documentary and oral evidence to show that she is well educated.
Case Title: M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 196 of 2013]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Commercial Tax Tribunal holding that "vitamins and minerals pre-mix" are unclassified goods, do not fall under "ores and minerals", "drugs and medicines" or "chemicals” under Schedule II of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta v. Vandana Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 11 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 556
The Allahabad High Court has held that where there is long period of separation, a decade in this case, the Family Court cannot refuse to grant decree of divorce and disregard the emotions and feelings of the parties who are no longer affectionate towards each.
The bench comprising of Justice Rajan Roy Singh and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held
“By refusing to severe the tie between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Family Court has not served the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it has shown disregard for the feelings and emotions of the parties, which are not affectionate towards each other.”
Case Title: Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 696 of 2013]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 557
The Allahabad High Court has observed that agreeing to live in a matrimonial home is not a condition precedent for a widowed daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her father-in-law. It was observed that a widowed woman choosing to live with her parents will not lead to the conclusion that she separated from her matrimonial home.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed
“it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home. In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances. Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive of her own.”
Case Title: Basant Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 480 of 2010]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 558
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) a spouse cannot be expected to continue a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution as it may lead to loss of dignity and reputation, apart from other consequences like being arrested.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“For the purpose of Section 13 of the Act, as amended by the U.P. Amendment, legally, no spouse whether male or female may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise, if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged.”
Case Title: M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd v. State Of Up And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559 [WRIT - C No. - 3880 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that “Poker and Rummy are absolutely a game of skill and not gambling.”
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the office of the D.C.P. City Commissionerate, Agra by which it was denied permission to establish a gaming unit for rummy and poker.
Case Title: Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that once working capital adjustment is granted to assessee, there is no need for further imputation of interest on outstanding receivables at the end of the year, as the same gets subsumed in working capital adjustment.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla reiterated that “In respect of bills raised on or after Apr 01, 2010 to its AEs, what was the date of realization and whether the same has been realized within the credit period allowed of 70 days. If not, interest is to be imputed on those bills also”
Case title - Gorelal Alias Shyam Narain And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561
The Allahabad High Court has observed that when the other co-accused were not present at the scene and when there was no meeting of mind concerning any common object, the co-accused could not be implicated under Section 149 IPC.
For context, Section 149 IPC makes every person who is a member of unlawful assembly at the time of committing the offence guilty of that offence.
Case Title: Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17736 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 562
While dismissing challenge to 2019 Senior Designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court on various advocates, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that 236 applications for senior designation are pending before the High Court which are to be processed.
Observing that even though Supreme Court has held that Senior Designations should be conferred at least once a year, in the Allahabad High Court the same had not been done since 2019.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 1064 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 563
The Allahabad High Court, while entertaining the writ petition of a retired teacher, has held that public employment secured by providing a forged educational certificate would be null and void to begin with, disentitling such an employee from post-retiral benefits.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,
“….a person who secures an appointment by submitting a forged educational certificate, is not entitled to claim any opportunity of hearing…”
Case Title: Mohd. Pervej And 2 Others v. State Of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 564
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakh each on three petitioners who falsely stated on affidavit that their previous counsel refused to give a no objection certificate for engaging another counsel.
The petitioners field an affidavit in Court stating that they are not satisfied with the work of their earlier counsel and they had approached him to obtain No Objection, but he refused to do the same. Petitioners therefore filed an affidavit and engaged another counsel.
Case title - Gosh Mohammad vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man who allegedly expressed his support for 'Hamas' on the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) while showing his resentment towards the Indian government for backing Israel.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted bail to accused Gosh Mohammad, is in jail in the present matter since October 2023, and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class with a maximum punishment of three years coupled with the fact that he does not have any criminal history to his name.
Case Title: Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others [WRIT- C NO. 22963 OF 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 566
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'Sal' Purchase Committee choosing to waive inspection for all applicants during the tender process cannot be said to be mala fide or arbitrary. It was held that such waiver was not amenable to challenge under the writ jurisdiction.
Clause 6(g) of the tender document provides that “The technical bids will be evaluated on the basis of scrutiny of submitted documents and physical inspection of the stock of the bidders.” However, Clause 6(h) provided that physical inspection shall be carried out only of those vendors whose technical bids are in order.
Great Grandchild Not A 'Dependent' Of Freedom Fighters: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Avani Pandey v. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another [WRIT - C No. - 7708 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 567
The Allahabad High Court has held that a great grandchild is not a 'dependent of freedom fighters' under Section 2 (b) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993.
The Court relied on Krishna Nand Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others where the Allahabad High Court held that a great grandson is not included within the definition of 'dependent of freedom fighters'.
Case Title: Smt Shalini Agrawal v. State Of Upand 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1058 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 568
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Taekwondo, Judo Karate Course as regular course for girls in class 1 to 8.
Petitioner approached the High Court claiming that introduction of the aforesaid as regular courses would help the girls in becoming independent, self-confident and help them in facing all difficulties they may encounter in their life.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 569
The Allahabad High Court imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for wasting the Court's precious time by filing a writ petition concerning the authentication, integrity, security, and verifiability of videography in the electoral process.
The Court also took exception to his conduct of appearing in the (through Video Conferencing) wearing his coat and band and arguing the matter without informing the Court that he was appearing in person. The Court directed him to be 'cautious' in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court.
Case Title: Ramnath Singh v. Parshuram Singh (Deceased) And 13 Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 507 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 570
The Allahabad High Court has held that when different appeals are filed from a decree passed in a single suit, the decree of the suit determines the rights of the parties. It has been held that there is no necessity to file two separate second appeals in such cases only because there were two appeals against the decree.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that
“if a single suit gives rise to different first appeals, without there being any counter-claim or another consolidated suit, the decree drawn in the said single suit would conclusively determine rights of the parties and irrespective of two first appeals arising from the single judgment/ decree, necessity to file two separate second appeals would not arise.”
Case Title: Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 715 of 2004]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 571
While dismissing a divorce appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that it does not possess power similar to that of the Supreme Court under Article 142 for dissolving marriages as it is only a court of appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree/order which it may deem necessary “for doing complete justice” in any pending case before it. Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides for appeals against the order of the Family Court to the High Court, provided the order is not an interlocutory order.
Case Title: Smt Hasina Bano v. Mohammad Ehsan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 495 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 572
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no limitation under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for filing suit for declaration of divorce.
Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Explanation (b) provides that a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person can be filed before the Family Court.
Case Title: M/s Bir Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 23248 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 573
The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisition proceedings initiated under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 cannot be held to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“While Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would not apply and the acquisition would not lapse but the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the New Act, 2013 and the date of reference for determining the compensation would be 01.01.2014 on which the New Act, 2013 was enforced.”
Case Title: Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari [FIRST APPEAL No. - 137 of 2011]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 574
The Allahabad High Court has held that long separation coupled with criminal prosecution and harsh words without any desire to retrieve the matrimonial relationship shows an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
While dealing with a matrimonial case of 21 years of separation, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Desertion suffered over long years in a young marriage, accompanied with harsh words spoken and complete lack of desire and effort on part of the deserting spouse to cohabit as also lodging of criminal case alleging demand of dowry only after institution of divorce case proceeding by the other spouse and pursuing it in appeal to secure conviction (after initial acquittal) does indicate in any case, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down.”
Case Title: Smt. Poonam v. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Pankaj [FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2009]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 575
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if no cohabitation occurs between the parties in the year after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights or decree of judicial separation, the decree of separation would be upheld.
Parties married on 08.12.2001. Respondent-husband alleged that the appellant-wife deserted him in 2002. Since the appellant did not revive the matrimonial relationship between the parties, he initiated proceedings seeking restitution of his conjugal rights.
Case title - Khidmate Khalq Educational Welfare Society And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is the job of the State Authority to ensure peace and tranquillity when peaceful processions are carried out.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus while directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Najibabad (District Bijnor), to pass a reasoned order by September 15 on an application seeking permission to carry out the procession of “Eid Miladun-nabi (PBUH)/Barawafat” on September 16.
Case Title: Pooja Gautam v. Neeraj Gautam [FIRST APPEAL No. - 803 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 577
The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court calling for expert opinion on the wife's mental health at the stage of evidence in divorce proceedings.
Appellant-wife approached the High Court challenging the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras allowing respondent-husband's application for her medical examination in divorce proceedings instituted by the husband.
Case Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 356 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 578
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not override Section 92 as Section 92 is a specific provision dealing with disputes regarding Trusts.
Case Title: Smt. Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 155 of 2011]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 579
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Family Court cannot grant divorce based only on earlier consent given at the time of filing the divorce petition if the consent was withdrawn at a later stage in the divorce proceedings.
Parties were married in 2006. After the appellant disserted her husband, he instituted the divorce proceedings on grounds of infertility attributable to appellant-wife. In her written statement, appellant disputed the fact, and the case was referred to mediation which failed.
Second Provisional Attachment Notice Lacking Fresh Reasons Is Arbitrary: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S R D Enterprises v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 580
The Allahabad High Court stated that issuing a second provisional attachment notice without providing new or fresh reasons is considered arbitrary.
The Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla observed that “the department cannot be allowed simpliciter to issue a second notice, and thereafter, third and fourth and continue with the provisional attachment for four to five years without giving any fresh reason for the said provisional attachment. If the same was allowed, Sub-section 2 of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would become otiose and have no relevance whatsoever.”
Case Title: Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 8 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 581
The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.
The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if the words 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used to mean that service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It was, thus, held that this definition is not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act as it uses the phrase 'receipt of award by the party'.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 582
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that a “material fact” for declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would include any fact, which would be relevant to the consent given for a marriage and which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage.
It further said that such a material fact must pertain to the character of the person.
Case title - Kajal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is the investigating agency's prerogative to sponsor the witness whose statement they want to record under Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [Recording of confessions and statements] and that an IO could not be forced to get the statement of any witness recorded under the said provision.
Section 183 of BNSS is almost in pari materia with Section 164 of CrPC 1973, which also deals with Recording confessions and statements.
Case title - Hafeez Khan vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584
The Allahabad High Court acquitted one Hafeez Khan, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court in March 2019 in a murder case of a woman, as it noted that there was absolutely no evidence against him.
The Court also granted him Rs. 1 Lakh as a 'token of compensation' for the 'injustice' done to him since he had to spend more than 7.5 years in jail.
“Now that this Court has found that there was absolutely no evidence against him, it is a fit case for awarding costs of litigation as also to order payment of compensation for the confinement of the appellant for a period exceeding 7½ years without any evidence to prove his guilt cannot be fully compensated in terms of money but as a token of compensation for the injustice done to the appellant, we order that the State shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards compensation for the period spent by him in custody,” a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed in its 22-page judgment.
Case title – Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP along with connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585
The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, presiding officers in trial court pass a judgment of conviction just because they want to avoid the issuance of notice and action by the High Court.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made this observation while dealing with certain criminal appeals filed against a 2010 judgment and order passed by a Sessions Court in Aligarh in a dowry death case.
Case title - Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Sandeep Tiwari, who has been accused of making certain abusive posts on Facebook against former president of India Ram Nath Kovind.
In its order, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan emphasised the importance of restraint and respect when discussing individuals holding high constitutional positions, particularly on social media.
Case Title: Arvind Singh Sengar v. Smt. Prabha Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 141 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 587
The Allahabad High Court has held that parties staying separately for jobs does not prove desertion.
The parties got married in 1999 and had a child in 2000. The husband was posted in Jhansi, whereas the wife was posted in Auraiya. Since the parties were living separately, the appellant-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed ex-parte in 2004. Later when the ex-parte order was recalled at the instance of the respondent-wife in 2006. The appellant withdrew the proceedings and instituted divorce proceedings in 2007 alleging desertion and cruelty.
The Court observed that the respondent-wife had led evidence regarding the husband visiting her when she was ill in June 2003 and going to her school for applying for medical leave thereafter. The Court held that the allegation that the respondent had deserted the appellant in June 2003 was rightly disbelieved by the Family Court.
Case Title: Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5133 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 588
The Allahabad High Court has held that Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to hear suits for perpetual injunction filed by a tenant against their landlord when it comes to matters of eviction. The Court held that the same would not be barred by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
By an order passed on 15.11.2022, the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner for grant of perpetual injunction, attempting to restrain the landlord from evicting him. The said suit was not admitted on the ground that as per Section 38(1) of the Act, no civil court could entertain any proceedings if they were related to the provisions of the Act of 2021. The petitioner challenged the validity of the above order and the subsequent order dated 07.08.2023, whereby the First Additional District Judge, Raebareli, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.
Case title - Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589
The Allahabad High Court reiterated its concerns over the misuse of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The court observed that the 1989Act, which was designed to provide immediate relief to victims of atrocities, is being misused by some individuals to obtain compensation.
The Court underscored that the misuse of the 1989 law not only harms the credibility of the justice system but also hinders the progress toward achieving genuine equality for those who continue to face prejudice and marginalisation.
Case title - Rabiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590
The Allahabad High Court noted a 'trend' in which fresh FIRs/complaints are filed against an accused after he has been granted anticipatory/regular bail to create grounds for the cancellation of the bail.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused (by the HC in August 2023) booked in a 2023 FIR lodged under Sections 493, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
Case title - Arun Mishra vs. Honble Mrs Justice Sunita Agrawal, The Then Puine Judge Of This High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED a petition filed by an advocate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Justice Sunita Agrawal (former Judge, Allahabad HC; presently, Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court).
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I termed the petition as 'frivolous', 'vexatious', 'irresponsible', 'merit-less' and 'misconceived' and added that in the interest of proper functioning of the Institution, such applications should be discouraged by all means.
Case Title: Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4898 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 592
The Allahabad High Court has held that a company is juristic person can be summoned through the person in-charge of its affairs and if such a juristic person summoned through the person in-charge, it cannot be said that the company has not been summoned for trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court held that once company is also made a party to the proceedings under Section 138 and 141 of the Act, if the signing Director signing the cheque is summoned, then it must be presumed that the company has been summoned.
Case title - Shahrukh Khan And Another vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prosecution cannot rely on a dying declaration unless an accused is confronted with its contents.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while acquitting a husband and mother-in-law in connection with a dowry death case.
Case Title: Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 600 of 2020 ]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 594
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a Doctor couple– who are also owners of a hospital in Rajepur–in a case where the deceased who had accompanied his mother in the hospital, was allegedly removed and later died in a road accident thereafter.
The high court passed the order while hearing a plea moved by the doctor couple against the summoning order of the magisterial court as well as the sessions court order which had rejected their revision plea against the summoning order.
Case Title: Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru [FIRST APPEAL No. - 251 of 2013]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 595
The Allahabad High Court has held that false criminal prosecution case by wife against the husband and his family may create reasonable apprehension in mind of the husband regarding the safety of his family and himself if he were to stay in the matrimonial relationship.
It was held that such false criminal prosecution is sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Keshwani v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION under Section 482 No. - 27298 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 596
The Allahabad High Court has held that that by virtue of Section 26 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which bars Court from taking cognizance regarding offences under the Act, the Trial Court cannot take cognizance of a case where broker is alleged to have misappropriated money of the investor. It was held that the SEBI Act being a special act will override IPC and CrPC.
Advocates Can't Be Discourteous Or Use Intemperate Language Against Judges: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: In Re v. Shri Yogendra Trivedi [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 7 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 597
In suo moto contempt proceedings against a lawyer, the Allahabad High Court has held that Advocates, being officers of the court must be courteous towards the Judges.
Case Title: Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others [Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 598
The Allahabad High Court has held that Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are maintainable against order of the Single Judge in Contempt jurisdiction only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction and enters into merits of the original dispute between the parties.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh sitting at Lucknow held,
“Special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute, ensuring that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. The interpretation of each case must consider the specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and provide appropriate remedies for aggrieved parties.”
Case title – 'X' Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Case citation: : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Observing that often the Chief Medical Officers and doctors in the State of Uttar Pradesh are not aware of the procedure to be followed in cases of medical termination of pregnancy while examining the female, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh to issue Standard Operating Procedure for the same which is to be followed by all Chief Medical Officers and the Boards constituted by them.
Case title - Asif vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600
The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it has transferred the District Magistrate of Amroha, Mr Rajesh Kumar Tyagi, from the district and attached him to the secretariat, and has not been given any field posting.
This decision came after HC flagged that the DM concerned had approved gang charts against the accused in several cases without signing the documents or recording any justification for his approval, which was contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, as well as guidelines issued by the HC in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs State of UP.
Case Title: Mahavir Prasad v. Balveer Singh And Anr. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 540 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that reappreciation of evidence by a Second Appellate Court is impermissible.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that
“…even when two views are possible, out of which one view has been taken by the courts after appreciating evidence on record, second Appellate Court would not substitute that view by its own view. Re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion is quite restricted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure…”
Case Title: Smt Kriti Goyal v. Dev Suman Goyal And 3 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 716 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 602
The Allahabad High Court has held that the divorce proceedings (matrimonial disputes) are only between the parties to the marriage, no third person can seek impleadment in proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“Piquant as it may be, the impleadment sought may never be justified. A matrimonial dispute remains a dispute interse between the couple in question who may be finding difficulties in their matrimonial relationship. All other persons remain strangers to that dispute.”
Case Title: Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17005 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 603
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate that has the required educational qualification deserves to be promoted upon satisfying all other criteria. It was held that it is immaterial whether such criteria were fulfilled prior to the service or during it.
“….. a candidate if is already having qualification to his credit prior to entering into the service and, he is equally entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer within 5% quota provided within the rules,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case title - Manoj vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 604
The Allahabad High Court recently expressed concerns over the prosecution's non-production of witnesses before the trial court, even in cases of heinous crime, leading to indefinite detention without trials.
The Court emphasised that a person cannot be detained for an indefinite period if the prosecution is not making sincere efforts to produce the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
Case Title: The Catholic Diocese Of Gorakhpur Through Its President v. Bhola Deceased And 4 Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 461 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 605
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur and the UP government, for illegally depriving a man of his property for more than 32 years.
The Court held that the transfer of immovable property cannot be done by way of an application or an affidavit under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 otherwise it will create chaos regarding rights in properties as guaranteed under various laws.
Case Title: Kavita v. Rohit Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 543 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 606
The Allahabad High Court has held that Courts can uphold the allegations of cruelty only based on proven facts and evidence. It is not for the Court to imagine ideal family or relations to determine infliction of cruelty, held the Court.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“We may stay reminded of the principle that while administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether the act complained is one that may amount to cruelty. Unless proven facts are such as may lead the Courts to the inference that the aggrieved parties are entitled to construe the act of cruelty committed on them, the Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to the conduct that may have been offered by the parties in the situation in which they existed.”
Case Title: The Catholic Diocese Of Gorakhpur Through Its President v. Bhola Deceased And 4 Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 461 of 2014]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 607
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur and the UP government, for illegally depriving a man of his property for more than 32 years.
The Court held that the transfer of immovable property cannot be done by way of an application or an affidavit under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 otherwise it will create chaos regarding rights in properties as guaranteed under various laws.
Case Title: Kavita v. Rohit Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 543 of 2015]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 608
The Allahabad High Court has held that Courts can uphold the allegations of cruelty only based on proven facts and evidence. It is not for the Court to imagine ideal family or relations to determine infliction of cruelty, held the Court.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“We may stay reminded of the principle that while administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether the act complained is one that may amount to cruelty. Unless proven facts are such as may lead the Courts to the inference that the aggrieved parties are entitled to construe the act of cruelty committed on them, the Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to the conduct that may have been offered by the parties in the situation in which they existed.”
Case Title: Jyantri Prasad And 9 Others v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir,Pratapgarh Thru. Ram Shiromani Pandey And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4294 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 609
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Civil Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92, C.P.C. or under the Religious Endowment Act, 1863.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that,
“a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of the District Judge, and not in any other Court. The District Judge can decide the Suit himself or he may transfer it to an Additional District Judge.”
Case Title: Smt. Poonam Shukla & Others v. State of U.P. & Others [WRIT - A No. - 32670 of 2007]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 610
The Allahabad High Court has held that the part-time teachers who possess requisite qualifications cannot be denied benefit of the services after 15-16 years of service because of procedural lapses on part of the Nagar Nigam in following in appointment of such-teachers.
“Once the candidates had requisite qualification and were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, whether advertisement was made in one newspaper or not, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the default, if any, committed by the officials of the Nigam,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Another v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 27185 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 611
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 interest cannot be imposed on interest award, it is only payable on the principal sum.
Case Title: Ram Babu Vishkarma v. M/S Shriram Finance Ltd and Anr.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 612
The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise.
Case Title: Km Sakshi v. Govt Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 445 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 613
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order which had upheld a school's decision to deny admission to a female student in class 6 based on a report which allegedly indicated that she was about 15 years.
Noting the authenticity of the student's birth certificate which was questioned by the school to deny admission, the court said that subjecting the student to medical examination was "wholly unjustified and high-handed".
Case title - Prahlad Singh vs. Yogesh Chaudhary [- ELECTION PETITION No. - 11 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 614
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it does not possess the power to extend the limitation period or condone delays in filing election petitions.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal also said that the 1951 Act is a code in itself and thus, the Limitation Act, 1963 provisions do not apply to election petitions, and the filing/presentation of the election petition is strictly governed by Section 81 of the Act, 1951.
Case Title: Somansh Prakash And 8 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 5229 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 615
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed held that if family members looking to partition their property/land, cease to be co-sharers prior to the execution of the partition document, then the stamp duty levied under Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act is inapplicable on them.
Referring to the provision a single judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal in its order said:
“From bare reading of the afore-quoted Sections, it clearly shows that if an instrument of partition is executed, duly signed by the coowners, on previous terms of partition without possession, stamp duty is liable to be paid on the said instrument. In other words, Section 2 (15) (iii) of the Act will be applicable, if an instrument of partition is executed by co-owners of the property, on a declaration of terms of a previous partition by co-owners, then it should be without possession.”
Case Title: Sintu And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2410 of 2020]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 616
The Allahabad High Court has held that the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be taken as the sole evidence for convicting accused in absence of any examination of the scribe who had taken down the statement as it prejudiced the rights of the accused.
Setting aside the conviction order, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held that since the scribe had translated the version given by the deceased in her local dialect, it was necessary for him to be produced as witness to cross-examine the scribe as to the exact statements made by the deceased.
Case title - Zulfikar Abbasi vs. State Of U.P.And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 617
The Allahabad High Court commuted the death penalty imposed upon three men to 25 years of imprisonment without remission for the gang rape and murder of a 17-year-old (offence committed in January 2018 in the Bulandshahr district of the state).
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi noted that it was not a 'rarest of the rare' case where the death penalty could be awarded. The Court also added that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts in the society cannot be ruled.
Case title - Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 618
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations are found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same/identical set of accusations cannot be permitted to continue.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania reasoned that the standard of proceedings in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far higher than a preponderance of probability, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
Case title - Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 619
In a special sitting of Allahabad High Court on Saturday, a bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vipin Chandra Dixit set aside an order of the district administration, Bareilly denying permission to the followers of a Sufi scholar to observe 'Urs' on 8th and 9th October 2024.
The court was essentially dealing with a plea filed by Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya and another, who wanted to observe Urs in the memory of Hazrat Shah Mohammad Saqlain Miyan Huzoor, the grandson of Hazrat Shah Sharafat Ali, who died in October last year.
Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - C No. - 16616 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 620
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 30-day period prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for deciding applications for registration of real estate projects is mandatory in nature as upon failure to accept or reject the application within 30 days, the project shall be deemed to be registered.
Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides for applications for all real estate projects. Section 5 of the Act provides a 30 day period to the Authority to either accept the application for registration or reject it. Section 5(2) provides if the Authority fails to decide the application within a period of 30 days, the application shall be deemed to be approved and a registration ID and password must be provided to the applicant within 7 days after the expiry of the 30 day period.
Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Spent 17 Years In Jail By According Benefit Of Doubt
Case title - Mahfooz vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 180 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 621
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man convicted for the offence of murder by a Sessions Court in May 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as it noted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the informant and the eye-witness. The acquittal has been granted based on the benefit of the doubt.
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi also considered the fact that the appellant-accused was in judicial custody for 17 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence with remission, and despite this, his case was not considered for premature release.
Case title - Kalpana Maheshwari vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 622
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not required to seek the consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act 1946 to investigate an offence committed outside the country by an Indian citizen; in such cases, only the sanction of the Central Government is required.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that, as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the consent of the State Government is required for investigation in any area of the State Government. Still, if the investigation is to be conducted for an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen, then there is no requirement to seek the consent of the State Government.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Gupta v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Chemical And Fertilizer Deptt. Chemical Petro Chemical And Ors [WRIT - A No. - 3089 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 623
The Allahabad High Court observed that Central Administrative Tribunals are substitutes to Civil Courts as the jurisdiction earlier vested in Civil Courts was transferred to Tribunals who have the same powers and procedures as that prescribed for the Civil Court.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“Prior to constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act, 1985, the remedy was before the Civil Court, and therefore, an alternative forum has been provided under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. It can take evidence, evaluate it and record findings of fact.”
Trial Court Records Missing: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In 1982 Case
Case title - Shri Ram Singh vs. State
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 624
The Allahabad High Court acquitted the sole surviving appellant/accused in a 42-year-old case after it received a report from the District Judge, Ballia, that the entire record of the case had been weeded out and the reconstruction of the same was impossible.
A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Shri Ram Singh against the conviction judgment and four-year imprisonment passed by a session court of Ballia in September 1982.
Case Title: Km. Cheenu v. Bishambhar Singh And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 625
Enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,08,875 to Rs.23,69,971, the Allahabad High Court while dealing with a 17-year-old plea observed that the 100% disability of the claimant/appellant–who was a minor at the time, had substantially damaged her marriage prospects subjecting her to frustration and depression.
A single judge bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit while awarding Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for loss of marriage prospects held, “The Claims Tribunal had also failed to consider that on account of 100% disability the marriage prospects of claimant-appellant was substantially damaged and the claimant-appellant is subjected to frustration, disappointment, discomfort and inconvenience but nothing has been awarded in the aforesaid account to the claimant-appellant".
Case title - Sanjeev Chaddha vs. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 626
The Allahabad High Court recently criticised a man for filing a criminal case against his elder brother (regarding a dispute that was essentially civil in nature) solely to harass him and seek vengeance.
Calling the younger brother/complainant a 'Kalyugi Bharat' (कलयुगी भरत), a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery quashed the entire case proceedings as well as summoning order in connection with an FIR lodged against the elder brother/Applicant under Section 406 IPC (Punishment for criminal breach of trust).
Case title - Adarsh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 627
The Allahabad High Court endorsed the view that to attract provisions of Sections 304-B (Dowry Death) and 498-A of IPC (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a man challenging a Prayagraj sessions court order that rejected his plea for discharge in a dowry death case of his alleged live-in partner.
Case title - Mukesh Kharwar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 628
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely because the facts of an alleged crime are in the knowledge of the applicant, who moves an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, a magistrate can't refuse a direction to the Police to lodge an FIR.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan added that the gravity/seriousness of the offence, the requirement of the evidence to launch a successful prosecution, and the interest of justice, depending on the facts of each case, are factors that must be considered in passing an order under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Case title - Moid Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 629
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of Samajwadi Party leader Moid Ahmad in connection with the case of an alleged gang-rape of a minor girl in UP's Ayodhya in which Ahmad and his helper, Raju Khan, have been named as accused.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia noted that although the FSL report on record confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused and not with the SP Leader, the paternity test alone is not conclusive for determining whether the offence had been committed (as per Section 3 POCSO Act and the definition of rape u/s 375 IPC).
Case Title: Pranjal Shukla And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27067 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 630
While dealing with allegations regarding assault due to unmet demands of dowry, the Allahabad High Court observed that the allegation in the FIR against the husband arose from sexual incompatibility between the parties rather than any actual demand for dowry.
“If man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where they will go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society,” observed Justice Anish Kumar Gupta.
Case title - Parul Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected matter
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 631
While refraining to pass adverse orders against a young magistrate, the Allahabad High Court ordered inquiry against his staff for uploading two copies of draft unsigned order on the website.
Applicant approached the High Court against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the defamation suit filed by the opposite party, one Ankur Garg. Other than arguments on merits of the defamation suit, it was argued that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad passed two orders in the defamation case, one dismissing the suit and the other one issuing summons to the applicant.
Case Title: Hcl Infotech Ltd v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1396 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 632
The Allahabad High Court has held that for initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the assessee having wrongfully availed input tax credit (ITC) by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
The Court held that once the proceedings under Section 73 have been closed regarding wrongful availment of ITC, proceedings for the same cannot be initiated under Section 74 without recording prima facie satisfaction regarding wrongful availment of ITC by either fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Case title - Shrey Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 633
The Allahabad High Court observed that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship wouldn't amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed this while quashing entire criminal proceedings against a man who had been accused of raping a woman on the pretext of a promise to marry her.
Case title - Shankh Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 634
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC would be maintainable even though the first plea was dismissed without providing the liberty to file fresh.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavani also added that a man's refusal to support his wife and children, whom he is bound to support under the law, would be covered under the maxim "de die in diem," which means "doing something every day” as it is his 'continuing duty'.
Proceedings U/S 498A IPC By Second Wife Are Not Maintainable, Reiterates Allahabad High Court
Case title – Maan Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 635
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC by the second wife are not maintainable.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed thus while relying upon the Top Court's rulings in the cases of Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P 2002, Shivakumar and others Vs. State and Allahabad High Court's recent decision in the case of Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208.
Case title - Kanika Dhingra vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 636
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a mother-son duo who are accused of creating several fake companies on paper (by collecting citizens' PAN and Aadhaar card details) to fraudulently claim input tax credit (ITC) and thereby cause the government massive losses.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that bail could be denied in cases relating to economic offences that affect the economic fabric of society, especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power.
Case Title: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Thru. Housing Commissioner and Others v. Universal Contractors and Engineers Ltd., Thru. Authorized Signatory
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 637
The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was filed against orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Second FIR Permissible For Same Incident With Different Version Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court
Case title – Sangeeta Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 638
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second FIR for the same incident is permissible where there is a different version of evidence and discovery is made on the factual foundation.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed this while relying upon the Top Court's judgment in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab 2008. In the Nirmal Singh case (supra), referring to an earlier decision in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn) 1979, the Supreme Court had opined that the second FIR would be maintainable where new discovery is made on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy.
Case title – XXX through her mother YYY vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. Of Home And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 639
The Allahabad High Court rejected a woman's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to her husband, who she has accused of raping their minor daughter.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia also imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on her as it prima facie noted that in the order granting bail to her husband/accused, the lower court had observed that the allegations levelled by the applicant-wife were bald and reckless.
“This court has no hesitation in holding that the present applicant has from the very inception misused the process of law in making reckless allegations,” the Court observed.
Case title - Arif Hussain @ Sonu Singh And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 640
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man (Arif Hussain @ Sonu Singh) who has been accused of enticing away a Hindu woman (informant), raping her after concealing his real name and religion, and after that, forcing her to get married to him.
Though it was the case of the accused that he adopted 'Sanatan Dharma' 15 years ago while marrying the victim in an Arya Samaj temple in 2009, a division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari noted that after he purportedly converted his religion from Islam to Sanatan in 2009, he applied for Aadhar in the year 2012, showing himself to be a follower of Islam in the name of Arif Hussain.
Case Title: Niraj Kumar Dhakre Alias Pintu v. Smt Karishma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 839 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 641
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training under the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India and Principal Secretary, Department of Appointment and Personnel, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to frame appropriate Rules/Norms/Guidelines for the purpose payment of maintenance allowance to estranged spouses of their employees.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 'Minor' On Condition Of Marrying Her
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 642
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a girl, allegedly a minor, on the pretext of marriage and impregnating her, on the condition that within three months of his release, he would marry the girl and also take care of their newborn.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal also directed him to deposit (in the form of FD) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/—in the name of the newborn baby, a girl, until she attains the age of majority. He has to comply with this condition within six months of his release.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision on multiple deductions towards maintenance amount, the Allahabad High Court has said that in matrimonial disputes if there are multiplicity of maintenance proceedings under different legislations, the plea claiming the highest maintenance must be decided first by the concerned court.
The observation came in an army personnel's plea who claimed that though money was being directly deducted towards maintenance from his salary under an army order, however the wife had gone on to again seek maintenance under two separate proceedings–one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under the Domestic Violence Act. As this was allowed by the family court through two different orders, the man approached the high court.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 644
The Allahabad High Court rejected the third bail plea moved by now-dismissed UP Police official Krishna Kumar Sharma, who is facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which Gangster Vikas Dubey gunned down eight policemen.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that though he has been in jail for the last four years, however, considering the role assigned to him, the court's observation while denying two of his earlier bail pleas, and the fact that there are very serious charges against the applicant, he was not liable to be released on bail.
Case title – Shahrukh vs. State Of UP
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 645
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of destroying the idols of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and attempting to kill the priest of a Temple in the Bareilly district of the state.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that such offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by “adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community and to the sentiments of the people.”
Case title - Poonam Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 646
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed the appeal of Smt. Poonam Tyagi, holding that her husband's death from poisoning did not qualify for extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961.
The court ruled that the cause of death was unrelated to the performance of any hazardous or perilous duties. Applying the ejusdem generis rule, the court held that the death must occur while the officer is engaged in dangerous duties such as fighting criminals, and mere death while on duty does not qualify.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 647
The Allahabad High Court rejected an election plea filed by a Janhit Kisan Party (JKP) leader, who intended to contest the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from Varanasi against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. JKP Leader Vijay Nandan had moved the HC to challenge the returning officer's rejection of his nomination form.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh dismissed Nandan's plea on merits, noting that he had approached the Court with a 19-day delay.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 937 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 648
The Allahabad High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a 35 year old law student who was granted admission in Law College against the rules of the brochure and was cancelled after being successful in first semester examination.
Observing that the student had not played fraud on the College, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed,
“It is rather amazing that the Law College has acted not only in a careless and reckless manner but also exhibited a conduct other than bona fide just in order to enrol and admit students in order to charge fees playing with their future.”
Case Title: Vivek Nayak (Died) And Another v. The Arbitrator / Collector Aligarh And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 649
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. Expecting them to foresee and apply future judicial decisions is unreasonable and impractical.
Case Title: Bindu Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 8666 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 650
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which empowers the Collector or other stamp authorities to recover deficiency in registration fees.
Besides recovery of deficiency in Stamp Duty, recovery was ordered against the petitioner regarding deficiency in registration fees on Document No. 1549/2022 & 1548/2022. Further, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed on the petitioner regarding deficiency in registration fees. Petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which was dismissed.
Case Title: Yogendra Kumar Kushwaha v. Collector And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 4772 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 651
The Allahabad High Court has held that for being a conveyance deed, the recital of the deed transferring the immovable property must convey the same otherwise no right over the land is vested in the tenure holder. It has been held that a dee transferring part of enhanced compensation is not a 'conveyance deed' unless it specifically records transfer of rights in its recital.
“So as to form a deed of transfer of conveyance, whether it is a notional or effective one, a deed of transfer must convey in its recital that the immovable property is being transferred to fall within the definition of conveyance, otherwise any interest of transfer arising out of a property which does not vest any right in the tenure holder such case would not fall within the definition of conveyance and will certainly go out of the mischief of Entry 23 of the Schedule-I of the Stamp Act,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: - Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Sudhir Mohan Agrawal
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 652
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated.
Case title - Rajendra Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 653
Noting that the child victims of sexual abuse are the most vulnerable class of citizens, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of supporting such victims of sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that since these victims face numerous challenges, including trauma, social marginalisation, and lack of resources, which hinder their ability to seek justice, the statutory support systems, such as legal aid, medical care, and counselling, become essential for empowering these children to navigate the legal process effectively.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Govt School Principal Accused Of Sexually Abusing Girl Students
Case title - Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 654
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to the principal of a government primary school in Bulandshahr district of the state who was arrested in March this year on the allegations of sexually abusing female students and showing them 'indecent' on his mobile phone.
Considering the victims' tender age, which ranged from 9 to 13 years, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal did not find it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant (Pratap Singh).
Case title - State of UP vs. Balwan Singh And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 655
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of 4 men in connection with an alleged rape case dating back to the year 2009, as it concurred with the view of the trial court that the victim appeared to be a consenting party.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
Case title - Ankur Agarwal Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 656
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no 'absolute prohibition' against considering an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused against whom a warrant of arrest or a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been issued. It added that the court is empowered to consider the merits of the case in extremely exceptional cases in the interest of justice.
This ruling by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi assumes significance as recently the Supreme Court, in Srikant Upadhyay vs State Of Bihar 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232 [Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar], ruled that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC is pending against him.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 657
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an extortion complaint filed by a woman against her brother's wife (Bhabhi), noting that the parties had come to an agreement and that no dispute remained between them.
While doing so, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery's bench also referred to the unique dynamics of the 'Nanad-Bhabhi' relationship in Indian society. The Court remarked that the Nanad-Bhabhi relationship is a very interesting relationship in our society.
Case Title: M/S Jai Shree Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1731 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 658
The Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief in a writ petition challenging the order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was transporting Arecanuts, when the shipment was intercepted by the Mobile Squad. Due to alleged reuse of bill and e-way bills, physical verification of the goods was ordered. Though no discrepancies were found upon physical verification, an order of detention of goods was passed. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, (Mobile Squad)-10, State Tax Kanpur passed and order under Section 129(3) of the Act imposing penalty on the petitioner.
Case Title: Justice Vinod Chandra Misra v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7743 of 2019]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 659
The Allahabad High Court has held that “family pension” rules under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder will be applicable to the pension awarded to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission under the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that though the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 and the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 did not specifically provide for 'Family pension' for the Chairperson, the Legislature had read in the Judges Act of 1954 for the purpose of the same.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 660
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea moved by the Shahi Eidgah Mosque side to recall the HC's January 11, 2024, order consolidating all suits filed in connection with the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute at Mathura,
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain dismissed the plea at 3:50 pm today. A detailed order is awaited.
It may be noted that in January this year, a single judge directed the consolidation of 15 suits related to Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute. The order was passed 'in the interest of justice' on an application filed by the Hindu plaintiffs under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
Case title - Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 661
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the bail application of an 'unconvicted' person should not be rejected for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson or as a mark of disapproval of his conduct.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that while considering the bail application, apart from the seriousness of the charges and severity of punishment, paramount consideration should be given to whether there are chances of absconding or tampering with the witnesses or intimidation to the victim or witnesses on the part of the accused.
Case Title: Wasi Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru . Additional Cheif Secy. Prin. Secy. Election Anubhag,Lko. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3827 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 662
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh as a senior State Officer acted as an Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in case of disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
Single bench of Justice Alok Mathur noted,
“Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla [Secretary Election Anubhag, Lucknow], have acted himself in all the three capacities in the present case as lead to miscarriage of justice and accordingly the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. The entire exercise will have to be carried out afresh in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. Chaurasiya Enterprises and 2 others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 305 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 663
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of extension of limitation during COVID-19, as per In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, cannot be granted to a party merely for the asking, especially when there is default on the part of the party seeking such extension.
While dismissing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“The benefit of the judgment in the case of cognizance of extension and limitation, IN RE (supra) cannot be granted on mere asking particularly when it is not the case of the BSNL that they were not aware about the pendency of the proceedings as rather to the contrary we find from the order sheet that on certain dates, the BSNL through its counsel stood represented and on other dates remained absent.”
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri Ram Prakash And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 664
The Allahabad High Court Bench comprising of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai heard a petition revolving around the dismissal of a bus conductor by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“UPRTC”). Here, the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the respondent's dismissal for allegedly allowing passengers to travel without tickets.
Case Title: Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 665
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Additionally, the court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 and 11 of the Act is identical, but extremely limited and restricted with little interference from court.
Case Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Proprietor, Smt. Shayaka Khan v. Smt. Suman Devi And Another [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 666
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a First Appeal From Order (FAFO) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed with a delay of 3107 days as the appellant, sole proprietor of the transport company, failed to inquire about the status of the case.
Justice Rajnish Kumar held that
“A litigant, who is such negligent that he/she would not inquire for the status of case for such a long period in which the allegations are against him/her and he/she has put in appearance and filed written statement and documents, cannot be said to was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring appeal in time because if he/she has not pursued the case diligently and has been negligent in doing so cannot be said to have been prevented, therefore the grounds taken are nothing but excuses for such a long delay. Such a litigant is not entitled for any discretion of Court.”
Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 667
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Niyukti Anubhag- 4,Lko.And Another [WRIT - A No. - 1382 of 2022]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 668
The Allahabad High Court has recently upheld the compulsory retirement of an Additional District Judge who after the approval of the State Government on compulsory retirement was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. It was held that after the order of the State Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the inquiry officer had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings.
Holding that the orders to compulsorily retire the petitioner were based on his consideration of his entire service records, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“Deadwood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest.”
Case Title: Ambika Yadav v. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1050 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 669
The Allahabad High Court has directed the concerned department of the State to initiate training programmes to make the Pradhans in the State aware about their rights and duties under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Several public interest litigations were filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the construction of water tanks and RCC centres on the land reserved for public purpose. It was argued that the land reserved for a specific purpose could not be used for any other purpose except in exceptional circumstances.
Case Title: S/S J.H.V. Steels Ltd v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 808 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 670
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be initiated where stock is found excess at the time of survey.
Section 130 of the UPGST Act provides for confiscation of goods and penalty in cases where supply, transport of goods has been made in contravention to the provisions of the Act with the intention to evade tax. It also includes penalty when an assesee does not account for the goods on which tax is to be paid.
Case title - Anjani Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 671
The Allahabad High Court directed a magistrate to pass an appropriate order under Sections 203 or 204 CrPC (as the case may be) in a complaint case pending before a Court in Ballia for the last 7 years.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that such a direction was being given to the magistrate concerned to secure the ends of justice and to curb the culture of 'Tareekh Pe Tareekh'.
Teachers' Absenteeism In Primary Schools 'Bane' Of UP's Education System: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Draupadi Devi vs. District Basic Education Officer And 4 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 672
The Allahabad High Court observed that teacher absenteeism in primary schools is the bane of the state's educational system, and it must be curbed by taking appropriate measures in accordance with the law.
The Court also sought an affidavit from the Principal Secretary of the State Department of Basic Education explaining the steps taken by the UP Government in the past in this regard and the proposed measures to ensure regular teacher attendance and curb teacher absenteeism.
Every Arrest & Detention Doesn't Amount To Custodial Torture: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shah Faisal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 673
Underscoring that every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture, the Allahabad High Court observed that when custodial torture allegations are not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court ought not to entertain such kind of proceeding.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added that while protecting the fundamental rights of those who are subjected to any torture in custody, the Court should also stand guard against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of society and enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively.
Case title - Ahsan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 674
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl child, noting that the victim has supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
In its order, the Court also observed that Rape is a heinous crime and that these types of cases are increasing day by day in our society, even though little girls are worshipped in our country.
Case title - Upendra @ Balveer vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 675
The Allahabad High Court observed that trial court judges often convict the accused in cases of heinous offences despite a clear case of acquittal due to their fear of higher courts.
“…they are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases, and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects, such judgment and order of conviction are passed,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.
Case Title: Dr. Virender Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6106 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 676
The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of adultery against wife must be decided before the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Revisionist-husband approached the High Court against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- to the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC. It was argued that the wife being adulterous was not entitled to any relief by virtue of Section 125(4) CrPC.
Case Title: Smt. Alka Saxena v. Sri Pankaj Saxena [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2015]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 677
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bars presentation of a petition for divorce cannot be filed within a period of 1 year from the date of marriage and can only be entertained in case of exceptional hardship caused to the spouse.
It was held that an application under Section 14 must be filed by the spouse seeking divorce within a year of marriage and the same must be allowed with reasons for entertaining divorce within 12 months of marriage.
Case title - Kamare Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 678
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the 'arbitrary' confiscation of a vehicle that a person might be using for his trade, profession, or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
“The confiscation, by its very connotation, implies depriving a person of his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business,” the Court remarked.
Case title - Ram Babu vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2163 of 1983]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 679
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted in 1982 murder caa, as it noted that two eye-witnesses and the first informant had ganged together to implicate the accused.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also observed that the prosecution story contained many lapses, which made the case doubtful, and the case against the accused-appellant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case title – XXX vs State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 680
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is neither desirable nor lawful for a Magistrate, dealing with a Section 156 (3) plea containing sexual assault allegations, to direct a preliminary investigation/inquiry by police and to place reliance on the police report submitted in favour of the proposed accused.
The Court observed that such an approach of the magistrate is not in accordance with the Apex Court's Judgment in the case of 'XYZ' vs the State of MP and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676.
Case title - Jitendra Pratap Singh Alias Jeetu vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 681
The Allahabad High Court has held that since the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 bars the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where the offence is punishable by a death sentence, the Courts cannot entertain pre-arrest bail pleas concerning such cases.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari held thus while answering a reference made by a single judge of the HC in April this year. The question referred for the consideration of the larger bench was:
“Whether Section 438 (6) (b) CrPC, as it applies to the State of UP, puts an absolute bar against applicability of Section 438 CrPC to offences, in which death sentence can be awarded or the aforesaid bar would apply only where the Court comes to a conclusion after examining the facts of the case, that the case warrants imposition of the death sentence.”
Case title - Sangeeta Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 682
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an order for the removal of a Pradhan by the District Magistrate can't be passed only based on a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officer without complying with the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that while the District Magistrate has the power to either cease the financial and administrative powers or oust the democratically elected Gram Pradhan, the power is to be exercised only in exceptional and extraordinary cases.
Case title - Pundrik Kumar Pandey Alias Pundrik Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others, along with a connected matter
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 683
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash an FIR, lodged on the complaint of Mahasi MLA Sureshwar Singh against a relative of the Bahraich violence victim Ram Gopal Mishra, the BJYM City Chief, and others.
For the uninitiated, on October 13, the final day of Durga Puja celebrations, communal violence broke out in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of District Bahraich after some local members of a particular community objected to the playing of loud music. The altercation further resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 684
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of denial of sexual intercourse, it must be demonstrated that this denial has been a consistent and ongoing issue over a prolonged period of time.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also added that the issue of what type of physical intimacy the parties may be able to maintain is not subject to judicial determination.
Case title - In Re: Restoration Of Community Health Centre vs. State Of UP And 7 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 685
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the vacant land of Abadi may be used for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, but it cannot be at the cost of any other building for public utility.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while dealing with a suo moto matter concerning the restoration of a community health centre in Village Panchayat Alauddinpur, Block and Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau.
Case title - Mahendra Singh vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. And 5 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 686
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a suit filed under Section 144 of the UP-Revenue Code 2006 on the basis of an oral sale deed and alleged possession must include findings of the proceedings under Section 38 (1) of the code regarding the sale deed.
Allahabad High Court Acquits Convict In 1981 Murder Case By According Benefit Of Doubt
Case title - Ram Krishna vs. State of U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 687
The Allahabad High Court acquitted one Ram Krishna, who was convicted for the offence of murder (incident dates back to August 1981) by a Sessions Court in March 1983 and sentenced to life imprisonment by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar found that PW1's testimony, based on which the accused was convicted by the trial court, was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Thus, it concluded that a conviction based on his testimony would be unsafe.
Case title: M/S Ashish Traders v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 688
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee is entitled to fresh notices demanding unpaid tax or short tax under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, if the initial notices were not duly communicated to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2024) whereby “benefit of doubt” was given to the assessee since notices issued to it did not show up on the assessee's portal under the tab "view notices and orders".
Case title: Ankur Vikram Singh Respondent v. State of UP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 689
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of an electric vehicle which was purchased prior to October 14, 2022 cannot seek refund of tax citing a subsequent notification exempting the payment of One Time Tax.
Petitioner had sought refund of One Time Tax paid in respect of his Hybrid Vehicle purchased on October 13, 2022.
Case title - State of UP vs. Bholu Qureshi And 5 Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 690
While upholding the acquittal of 6 men accused of rioting and assaulting police personnel in Jhansi's Babina district in 2008, the Allahabad High Court observed that it is a well-established principle that the prosecution's case 'must be proved beyond reasonable doubts' and not merely 'may be proved'.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I also observed that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
Case title - Chetram @ Mintu and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 691
The Allahabad High Court observed that a review is permissible only when an error is apparent on the face of the record without requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning and reappraisal of the entire evidence to find the error, as doing so would amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Explaining the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if a mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Rajbhar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 692
The Allahabad High Court has observed that any statute/rules/instructions that empower an employer to deny appointment to a candidate only because of non-disclosure of criminal cases would be unjust and unreasonable.
A bench of Justice Salil Rai also opined that any decision by the employer denying appointment only because of such non-disclosure would also be contrary to the constitutional principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.
Case title - Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Through Its General Manager vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Karmchari Sabha Throu Its G.S.And Ors. and connected matters
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 693
A single bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi declared that the canteen workers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) were direct employees of the company, despite the existence of a contract with a third-party canteen operator.
However, the court ruled that the question of whether the contract between HAL and the canteen operator was a “sham” was beyond the tribunal's mandate, as it was not mentioned in the reference.
Additionally, the court held that the Central Government was the “appropriate government” for HAL, but in this case, the State Government had the power to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal under the Central Act.
Case title - Nandan Singh Bisht vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 694
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 12 accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident related to the killings of five persons in October 2021, noting that their case is on a better footing than the case of Ashish Mishra, who was granted bail by Top Court in July this year.
The court also factored in that there is a cross-version to the present case, the Supreme Court has made absolute the interim bail granted to four accused persons in the cross-version, a significant number of witnesses remain to be examined, there is no likelihood that the trial will conclude in the near future, and there is no indication that the applicants have misused the interim bail previously granted.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 695
The Allahabad High Court observed that members of the Bar should be more responsible when their actions may malign or, to some extent, question a judge's image in the eyes of the public at large.
The Court added that the advocates should not act in a manner which gives the public an occasion to say that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES WHICH THEY WERE PURSUING FOR THEIR CLIENTS.
Case title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs. Sudha [FIRST APPEAL No. - 174 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 696
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as it must be proven that the 'mental disorder' if of such a kind and degree that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with partner.
Noting that Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus:
“The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.”
Case title - Daya Prasad @ Vyas Ji vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 697
The Allahabad High Court directed the State DGP to issue directives to investigating authorities to ensure they comply with the mandatory safeguards relating to recoveries to be read in evidence under Section 27.
Expressing concerns over courts frequently discarding prosecution cases due to IOs' lapses in following legal procedures during evidence recovery, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary underscored that failure to adhere to these safeguards could not be dismissed as a minor flaw in the investigation, as it directly impacts the admissibility of crucial evidence.
Case title: M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 698
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the demand and penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 against a trader whose GST registration came to be suspended, after it found that the goods in transit were accompanied with proper tax invoice and e-way bill.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 wherein a coordinate bench had held that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill, the consignee will be deemed owner and goods will have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
Case title - Amardeep Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Msme Lko. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 699
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a civil court's declaration of civil death of a person under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would not lead to a presumption about the date and time of his death.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla further observed that the presumption of Section 108 is not the only mechanism for declaring death and that a party is within his/her right to prove by convincing evidence that the date and time of death are before seven years.
Case title - Irfan Solanki And Another vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 700
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Irfan Solanki, a now disqualified MLA of the Samajwadi Party, in a 2022 house arson case in which he was sentenced by a Special Court in Kanpur to seven years' rigorous imprisonment in June this year.
However, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh refused to stay his conviction, clearing the way for the scheduled bye-election for the Sisamau seat on November 20. A detailed order in the matter is awaited.
Case title - Irfan Solanki And Another vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 701
Refusing to stay the conviction of Irfan Solanki, a now disqualified MLA of the Samajwadi Party, in a 2022 house arson, the Allahabad High Court observed that the 'wider' opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices.
The Court also observed that it has often been seen that a large number of persons with criminal antecedents or who are charged with heinous crimes stand for and are elected to Legislative Assemblies and Parliaments.
Case title - Padam Singhee vs Directorate Of Enforcement
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 702
The Allahabad High Court took exception to the actions of the accused's counsels, who had sent emails to Enforcement Directorate officers requesting them to file a counter affidavit, as directed by the court, in a case involving their client.
Noting that counsels' sending emails directly to the Investigating Officer was not proper and could not be appreciated, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that reminding the authorities of the court's order and requesting them to comply with it is not in the realm of the duties of counsel appearing in the matter.
Case title - Umesh Singh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 703
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that every error in a Gram Panchayat's inventory purchase bill cannot be grounds for proceeding against the Gram Pradhan under the UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947, specifically when such an error does not result in any property loss.
“It is to be seen that Gram Pradhan is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat and his removal from the office of the Gram Panchayat required under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, then it is necessary that unless there is material to indicate removal, otherwise the same cannot be accepted against the elected representative as the same itself hits the basic tenets of democracy,” a bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
Case title - Javed Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 704
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Javed Alam, who was booked in an FIR lodged by a Bajrang Dal member accusing him of abducting a Hindu minor girl and having physical relations with her.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that in her Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements, the victim girl stated that she was more than 17 years of age when the FIR was lodged and that she performed marriage with the accused and willingly accompanied him.
Case title - Arun Pandey vs. Neha Pandey
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 705
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in matrimonial proceedings, wives and children often face financial crises compared to husbands, as they have limited support from family or income and their situation is frequently exploited by husbands, which makes it difficult for them to face such proceedings.
“In a matrimonial proceeding, the wife and children are pitted against the husband or the father, as the case may be and in most of the cases they are not on equal footing. Some gets financial support from their parents, brothers and sisters and also some work and earn, in exceptional cases. However, in all cases, the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands,” a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed.
Case title - Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 706
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an error apparent on the face of the record, such as the non-availability of the specific date and timing in an FIR, cannot be rectified at the investigation stage.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava termed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur's act of taking cognizance of the charge sheet (on December 1, 2023)—despite the FIR lacking crucial details such as the specific date, time, and witnesses—as "highly shocking".
Case title – Kaniz Fatima vs Imran Khan
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 707
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a suit filed wherein relief is claimed for adjudging a gift deed as null, void, forged, and fabricated ad valorem Court Fees would be payable as per Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) and not as per residuary Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the 1870 Act.
For context, residuary Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II applies to cases where a declaratory decree is sought to be obtained without claiming any consequential relief. The provision explicitly states that it would apply to such suits “not otherwise provided for by this Act”.
Case title - Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Union Of India And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 708
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that while a nominee has a right to obtain money from the bank after the account holder's death, the money received would be subject to succession laws, and the deceased's heirs would have a right to the said amount in accordance with the law.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed this while dealing with a writ plea filed by Manoj Kumar Sharma, who claimed that, as the nominee, he was entitled to receive the money from the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of his late mother in accordance with Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Nomination for payment of depositors' money].
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India And Another Versus Jagpal Singh And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 709
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari affirmed that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Ram Taulan Yadav And Another versus Himanshu Kesarwani And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 710
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta affirmed that referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act stage cannot examine as to whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement or not. Such an issue requires factual determination which can be decided by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title – Shivika Upadhayay vs. Pushpendra Trivedi
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 711
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the transfer applications concerning cases pending in Family Courts which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court must be filed before the Lucknow Bench itself, not the principal seat at Allahabad.
A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra emphasised that the Lucknow Bench is the appellate court competent to hear appeals against orders passed by Family Courts falling within its territorial jurisdiction, so transfer applications related to such matters would have to be filed before the Lucknow bench only and not before the principal seat at Allahabad, where such an appeal would be incompetent.
Case title - Pnb Housing Finance Ltd. Lko. Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 8 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 712
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is the statutory obligation of the District Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to take possession of secured assets and documents and to forward such assets & documents to the secured creditor.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Brij Raj Singh clarified that the secured creditor is not supposed to run from pillar to post or to the police personnel to get the order executed after obtaining an order under Section 14 of the 2002 Act; instead, it is the obligation of the DM/CJM to get the same executed.
Case title - Manbodh @ Manoj And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 713
The Allahabad High Court has observed that when all the accused persons have been found guilty of committing the same offences, granting benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one and denying the same benefit to other “keeping in view the nature of the offence” is unreasonable.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while dealing with a criminal revision plea filed by three accused challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gonda, in criminal appeal and the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda, convicting them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing them to one-year simple imprisonment.
Case title: M/S Batra Henlay Cables v. State Of U.P. and 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 714
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition claiming exemption from payment of road tax on an electric vehicle purchased from Jammu.
The Petitioner had claimed that since road tax is levied for operating the vehicle within the State, no distinction can be made on the basis that the vehicle in question has been purchased within the State or from outside.
Case title - Krishnawati vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 715
The Allahabad High Court directed state authorities to pay interest (fixed at 8 per cent) on the 14-year delayed disbursement of retiral dues to the wife of a state government employee, who died in harness in the year 2005.
Noting that the state authorities had adopted a callous attitude to the plight of the petitioner-wife, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot underscored that the deceased employee's family cannot be harassed for her entitlements by overbearing officials.
Case title - Irfan Qureshi vs. Up State Industrial Development Authority And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 716
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that in the State of UP, an agreement to sell immovable property (situated within the state) would also require compulsory registration to create any right, title, or interest in it.
The Court arrived at this conclusion through a combined reading of the state amendments made to Sections 17 (Documents of which registration is compulsory) and 49 (Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered) of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 (Sale) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Mrs. Jayashree Kailash Vani v. Official Liquidator [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 963 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 717
In a case concerning delay in payment pursuant to auction of a property, the Allahabad High Court said that where a bidder had the opportunity to inspect a property prior to bidding on it and the auction was to proceed on an 'as is where is and whatever there is basis', then they cannot question the results on discovering obstructions to the property post such bid.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 718
The Allahabad High Court last week granted a 4-month interim bail to a Hindu man booked under the POCSO Act to marry a Muslim girl (alleged victim) and get the same registered after getting her custody.
Provisions Of CPC Applicable In Proceedings Before Family Court: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Nagendra Sharma and Anr. v. Court of Prin. Judge Family Court Gonda and Anr. [WRIT - C No. - 6354 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 719
While examining a divorce case, the Allahabad High Court has held that in light of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable before the Family Court and therefore, a writ petition seeking Writ of Prohibition could not be entertained by the High Court in presence of remedy of appeal.
“It would be pertinent to observe here that provisions encoded in Civil Procedure Code are based on principle of natural justice and fair play, hence all the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are made applicable to the proceedings before Family Courts within the meaning of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act,” held Justice Manish Kumar Nigam.
Case Title: Baba Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 12055 OF 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 720
While considering a case of an appointment to a government post, the Allahabad High Court has held that merely being implicated in a criminal case does not de facto form a basis for rejecting the candidate.
Case title - Punita Bhatt Alias Punita Dhawan vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 721
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajan Roy, and Om Prakash Shukla granted relief to a widowed daughter seeking appointment to the post her deceased father based on compassionate grounds.
The Court held that even after marriage or widowhood, a woman would continue to be a daughter. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would for all legal and practical purposes be included in the definition of 'daughter', although widowed, on the date of her father's death.
Case title - Alishan vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 722
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two sons of Hazi Iqbal, also known as Balla, an alleged mining mafia in the Meerut region, in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Hazi Iqbal, along with his sons (bail applicants), is accused of running an interstate criminal gang involved in various financial and corporeal crimes.
Case title - Shahjahan And Others vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 723
The Allahabad High Court acquitted seven accused, convicted in connection with a July 2004 minor girl's kidnapping and rape case, as it observed that the allegations made against the accused were fabricated, intended to serve as a cover-up and create a defence for the victim, who was herself implicated in a separate kidnapping case involving a minor boy.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary refused to accord the status of a sterling witness to a victim, finding that neither her statement was credible nor the same was supported by medical evidence on record.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 423 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 724
The Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts.
National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation granted to the respondent was not in accordance with law.
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, Through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Hem Singh and 5 Ors. with 17 Others [WRIT – C No. - 38900 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 725
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the award granted by the Industrial Tribunal to the workmen of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority regularizing their services in the Authority establishment.
“The Industrial Tribunal while deciding the 16 misc. cases, under Section 16-F of the Act of 1947 has recorded finding of fact that petitioner-authority has violated the provisions of Section 6-E(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and terminated the services of the workmen w.e.f. 6.2.2003 which is illegal, as such, workmen shall be deemed to be in employment of petitioner-authority which is proper exercise of jurisdiction by Tribunal,” held Justice Chandra Kumar Rai.
Case Title: Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra [FIRST APPEAL No. - 55 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 726
The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of wife quarreling with the husband are not sufficient to show acute mental agony suffered by him so as to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Observing that the allegations made by the husband against the wife inflicting cruelty on him were vague in nature, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife.”
Case Title: Dr. Prabhanshu Shrivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 31358 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 727
While deciding a case of termination of services of a government employee, the Allahabad High Court has held that mentioning that the employee “absconded” from service will cast a stigma on the employee as the word suggests that the employee deliberately fled from his work. It was held that such a remarks adversely affects the employee.
The Court held that an order casting stigma on such an employee cannot be passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Case title - M/S Kewal Dairy vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 728
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the date of commission of an offence is determined by the receipt of the food analyst's report about unfit/unsafe food and not by the date when the sample of food is collected.
The High Court clarified that in the case of the sale of unsafe or substandard milk, the date of commission of the offence would be when the Food Analyst's report about its quality is received, not the date when the sample was collected.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 729
While hearing a case where a man had moved a second divorce plea after dismissal of the first divorce case, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that a second divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty is maintainable where fresh cause of action arises after the dismissal of the first divorce petition.
In doing so the court observed that the second divorce plea is not hit by the principle of res judicata.
Case title - Mirza Iqrar Beg vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 730
The Allahabad High Court observed that as per the law laid down by the Constitutional Courts, there is no permission for the initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on a petitioner to discourage his conduct of filing a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Shiksha Mitra, his relative (respondent No. 4) on the ground that the appointment was illegally appointed and that he had embezzled money.
Case Title: M/s A.V. Pharma Thru. Its Prop. Smt. Madhu Vohra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 731
The Allahabad High Court has held the time extension notification dated 24.04.2023 extending time period for passing orders under Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 will apply only from 31.03.2023 and not before that.
Section 73 empowers the proper officer to pass orders imposing penalty or interest where any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, after following due procedure laid down in the Section.
Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 732
The Allahabad High Court has observed that when a challenge lies to the entire proceeding of a case registered under the SC/ST Act, the High Court could entertain the case under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the end of justice.
The Court held that there could be no hard and fast rule regarding the interference of the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction, and it may if it finds that by interfering in a particular case, it can prevent the misuse or abuse of the Court or law, always so interfere.
Case Title: Smt. Krishnawati v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 12642 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 733
While deciding a case related to retiral dues of a deceased government employee, the Allahabad High Court has held that no cause had been given by the state for an inordinate delay from 2005 in making the payment and that this was actually caused by the “apathy” of the respondents.
The Court held that the state is liable to pay an interest of 8% per annum on such dues which had not been disbursed due to its own .
Case Title: Shahid Hussain v. Board of Revenue U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - B No. - 2398 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 734
While deciding a case under the U.P. Abolition of Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Allahabad High Court has held that where possession of land was acquired by an agreement of sale, adverse possession cannot not be availed to claim ownership of the property.
Case Title: Agmotech Fabrics Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1757 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 735
While deciding a case relating to Input Tax Credit, the Allahabad High Court has held that a quasi-judicial body must provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before imposing liability on them.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that as per the doctrine of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well), such orders cannot be passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to make present their case. It was held that documents relied upon by the authorities while passing orders must be provided to party who is being held liable.
Case Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sec. Edu. Lko. And Others [WRIT - A No. - 11061 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 736
While hearing a principal's plea–whose earlier suspension was quashed in a writ petition, and who was subsequently suspended again, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that non-passing of a formal order of reinstatement after quashing of suspension order does not disentitle the employer from placing the employee under suspension again.
The Court held that suspension does not remove the employer-employee relationship between the parties. Consequently, the act of passing a formal order of reinstatement would amount to an empty formality. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel had neither in the arguments nor in the plea had indicated anywhere as to the prejudice that may have been caused to the petitioner on account of non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement after the earlier suspension order was quashed.
Case Title: M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 737
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the High Court has directed the assesee to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.
Counsel for petitioner argued that notice and demand under Section 79 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which it approached the High Court. The then Division Bench relegated the petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 85 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 738
While entertaining an Income Tax Appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained without establishing a perversity with the fact finding of the Tribunal.
“In the instant appeal the department has only challenged the fact finding off the Tribunal. A catena of Supreme Court judgments have concluded that in relation to facts, no substantial question of law would arise unless the finding of fact is perverse,” held the division bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit.
Case Title: M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Goods and Service Tax Authorities to not take action for any assessment year in which the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities have already taken action.
Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the actions taken by the State and Central GST Authorities for the same assessment year, 2017-18. It was argued that once State GST Authorities had completed assessment proceedings under Section 74, the Central GST Authorities could not have issued notice for the assessment year.
Case title - Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 532 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 740
The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case, noting that he had not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents before the trial court, which granted him the relief.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized that one of the crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be carefully evaluated. Therefore, if the accused has a history of criminal behaviour, whether explained or not, it could significantly impact the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr. [WRIT - C No. - 28196 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 741
The Allahabad High Court directed the District of Jaunpur to pay an ex-panel advocate the outstanding fees they owed him. A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the district was required to compensate the advocate for all the cases where he received notices and appeared before the Court.
By letter dated 16.05.2013, the petitioner was engaged as a panel advocate for Gaon Sabhas in the Varanasi Division of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The said division includes the districts of Varanasi, Ghazipur, Jaunpur and Chandauli. Upon removal from the panel on 27.12.2019, the petitioner raised his professional bills for the cases in which he represented the Gaon Sabhas.
Allahabad High Court Flags Trend Of Filing PILs Without Due Research, Upholds 75K Cost On Litigant
Case Title: Ashish Kumar v. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj and 6 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1024 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 742
While upholding the cost of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the Single Judge in a PIL under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that more Public Interest Litigations are being filed to wreck vengeance on parties rather than for public cause.
In doing so the Court also observed that the PILs were being filed without due research and based on incomplete facts.
Case Title: Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari vs State of UP and others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 743
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a PIL plea seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe under the chairmanship of a retired HC judge into the alleged involvement of the Uttar Pradesh government, its administrative officials, including the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP), in the violence that erupted in Sambhal earlier this week.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary allowed the withdrawal of the PIL plea filed by Varanasi-based Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari, noting that the State Government has already formed a judicial inquiry commission to probe into the incident of violence.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To IIT-BHU Student Gangrape Accused In UP Gangsters Act Case
Case Title: Saksham Patel vs State of UP
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 744
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man booked under the UP Gangsters Act, who is one of the accused in the notorious gangrape case involving a 20-year-old student from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Banaras Hindu University (BHU).
The accused, Saksham Patel, an alleged member of the BJP IT Cell, was arrested in December last year, and he has been in jail since then.
Case title - Mohd Haroon vs. State of U.P
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 745
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a practising advocate from Hamirpur district, who had been convicted earlier this year by a trial court and sentenced to four years in prison for 'stalking' a woman judge and making inappropriate comments about her.
While hearing his revision plea against the judgment of conviction, a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted bail to Mohd. Haroon, considering the nature of the offence, his imprisonment since July 2023, and the fact that his plea is not likely to be decided early due to the pendency of backlog cases.
Case Title: Utkarsh Tripathi v. United Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Thru. Vice Chancellor And Others [WRIT - C No. - 10105 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 746
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a 5th year law student who was suspended without being informed the charges or allegations against him, by permitting him to appear in the end semester examination.
Stating that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct of The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Justice Manish Mathur held,
“In the present, since no specific charge or allegation has even been served upon the petitioner, there obviously cannot be any reply submitted by petitioner in the absence of any specific charge or allegation. Students cannot be expected to imagine a charge and then subsequently, reply to same.”
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 747
The Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings in a rape case involving allegations against an Indian Army Naik. The Court noted that the victim, a major and prudent woman who is a journalist, had initially come into contact with the accused through a matrimonial site and subsequently entered into a relationship with him.
The Court also factored in the statement of a hotel manager, who categorically stated that the victim and the accused had visited a hotel together, introducing themselves as friends.
Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Thomas T. Kurian [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 748
While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.
“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case title - Tripta Tyagi vs State of UP
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 749
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to a 60-year-old teacher and principal of Muzaffarnagar's Neha Public School (Tripta Tyagi), who has been accused of asking her students to slap a Muslim student and uttering communal slurs against him.
A bench of Justice Deepak Verma, however, directed no coercive action against her for two weeks or until she surrenders before the concerned Court seeking regular bail, whichever is earlier.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawab, Noida and Anr. v. M/s Sampark Management Consultancy LLP [INCOME TAX APPEAL
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Allahabad High Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in a case where no perversity can be shown in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for an appeal to be filed before the High Court against the decision of an Appellate Tribunal.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v Sushil Kumar Sharma [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 86 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 751
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that only on account of purported infraction of the Agreement between the FRB and the assessee, without there being any dispute regarding the amount collected by the assessee which, in turn, has been deposited with the FRB, the deposits in the bank account of assessee cannot be termed as unexplained cash deposits by the assessee,” held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Case Title: Rama Kant and Ors. v. Smt. Prema Devi and Ors. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 112 of 2023]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 752
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in a suit for Specific Performance, the party filing has to necessarily show that they are, or have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract before pursuing such a direction.
“...a decree of specific performance of contract can not be passed unless the person, who prays for a decree for specific performance of contact, proves that he has performed or always ready and willing to perform the essential terms and conditions of the contract, which were to be performed by him, therefore, it is sine qua non for grant of a decree of specific performance of contract.It has to be determined on the basis of entirety of facts, relevant circumstances and the intention and conduct of the parties and financial capacity of the party,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar while referring to Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Case title - Piyush Shyamdasani vs. State of U.P along with connected cases
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 753
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of 5 accused persons, who were found guilty by trial court and sentenced to Life imprisonment in connection with the 2014 Kanpur's Jyoti Shyamdasani murder case. The persons convicted included the deceased's husband.
The Court, however, acquitted the 6th accused, the alleged lover of the deceased's husband, who was accused of being a part of the entire murder conspiracy.
Case title - Halkaee Ahirwar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 754
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to one Halkaee Ahirwar, who has been accused of committing gang rape against a 14-year-old girl in April this year and making viral a video of the entire incident.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected his bail plea, emphasizing that the victim is an 'innocent' 14-year-old girl and that the alleged offence committed by the applicant is of a very serious and heinous nature towards the society.
Alternative Remedy Precludes Writ Petition In Gratuity Dispute: Allahabad HC
Case Name: Mahendra Singh Kanwal v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 755
A single judge consisting of Justice Abdul Moin dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226. The writ petitioner disputed an order that denied him gratuity for his years of work as a daily wager.
The Court noted that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act') is statutorily designated to resolve such gratuity related disputes that require factual enquiries.
Holding that such remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ court, the high court refused to intervene. Instead, it directed the petitioner move the Controlling Authority.
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 756
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the filing party.
Case title - Pradeep Kumar vs. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 757
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the appointment of a man as a judge (HJS Cadre), nearly seven years after he was initially denied the position due to allegations of espionage.
Petitioner Pradeep Kumar, who had been accused of spying for Pakistan in 2002, was acquitted in a trial in 2014 (the trial started in 2004); however, despite his final selection in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination in 2016, he was denied the appointment letter.
Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 19382 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 758
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court expressed concern that litigants are being deprived of relief in courts due to ongoing lawyer strikes, despite the availability of statutory remedies for their grievances.
“I am afraid to know that the litigants are not getting justice from courts of law despite there being statutory remedy available and are compelled to apply to this Court only for the reason that there is strike by the lawyers in the concerned district,” a bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed.
Case Title: Janhvi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 3887 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 759
The Allahabad High Court ordered the appointment of a woman as Civil Judge, after it found that she was denied the post in UPPSC (J) Examination 2018, due to calculation error in her marks.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also took into account her young age (33 years) and directed that her appointment shall operate at the seniority position on which she would have been, had she been awarded the marks at the time of examination.
Case Title: Rafat Naaz and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 6031 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 760
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not necessary for an applicant to provide a succession certificate if a nomination exists to their name, while making an application for death-cum-retiral benefits of a deceased government employee.
“…once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reasons for the respondents or any employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records. It is for the other person, not so nominated to establish his/her claim through suit,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Dish TV India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1953 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 761
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assesse claiming refund of excess TDS (tax deduction at source) is not required to fill Form 26B under the Income Tax Rules once Form 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been issued to them.
“A perusal of the Rules would reveal that Form 26B is required to filled up if the assessee claims refund paid under Chapter XXVII-B of the Act, 1961. The Stage of requirement of filling up the Form 26B was long over in the year 2008-09 itself and the present refund was being sought by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020, which did not require filling up any form, as claimed by the respondents, and as such, the demand made has no sanction in law”, held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.
Case title - Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 762
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle-class family to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while partly allowing a wife's criminal revision plea challenging an order passed by a Family court under Section 125 CrPC, directing her husband (opposite party) to grant her interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month.
Case Title: Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 18692 of 2022]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 763
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Neeraj Tiwari of the Allahabad High Court has held that a government employee cannot be removed from service for not disclosing that an F.I.R. was filed against them, if they themselves were not aware of the fact.
“This Court is also of the same view that in case at the time of filing of affidavit before submission of joining, candidate is having no knowledge of pendency of any criminal case ad at any point of time, case is found registered against him, he cannot be held guilty for concealment of fact, no action for termination or dismissal of service can be taken against him”, held Justice Neeraj Tiwari.
Case title - Nikita Singhania And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 764
The Allahabad High Court allowed transit anticipatory bail for 4 weeks to Sushil Singhania, the uncle of the estranged wife of 34-year-old Bangalore techie Atul Subhash, in connection with the abetment to suicide case.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava noted that denying interim protection to enable him to make a pre-arrest bail application before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction would result in irremediable and irreversible prejudices to him.
Case title - Anaya Health Centre And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 765
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur for defying the earlier order of the High Court and denying renewal of license of running medical establishment despite a temporary injunction by the Civil Court.
Observing that the CMO had overreached the earlier order passed by the High Court in the same dispute, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“What is inexcusable in the facts of the present case is that the impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order (passed by this Court), but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner, prior to that judicial order. Once, the order of the writ Court had been served on the CMO, Saharanpur, it was his bounden duty to make firm compliance of the same. It was not for him to look the other way or to abide by a wrong administrative command, given by a superior administrative authority.”
Case Title: Arshad Hussain v. Shahneela Nishat
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 766
The Allahabad High Court granted a decree of divorce to a Muslim couple who had filed for divorce by mutual agreement through a Mubaarat.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Asbi K.N. v Hashim M.U. to hold that where the authenticity of the mutual nature of the Mubaarat had been verified, the Courts were not to investigate further and simply grant the divorce.
Case Title: Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu and Anr. v. District Magistrate and 2 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 33687 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 767
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction sought under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would be subject to the outcome of a suit pertaining to larger issues between the family members, if such suit is filed prior to the application made for eviction under the Act of 2007.
The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that while the order for eviction was subject to the outcome of the previous suit, the protection granted under it must not be defeated.
Case title - Mohammad Kashif vs. Directorate Enforcement Special Task Force Government Of India Pravartan Bhawan Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 768
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to one Mohammad Kashif, booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, on the allegations that he duped people financially by flaunting on social media morphed images with ministers, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Denying him the relief, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal noted that the alleged recovery of huge amount of money and other related documents and articles corroborate his deeds and that there is nothing credible to overcome the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002.
Case title - Pathan Rashid Ahmad vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 769
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man, in jail since October 2019, who allegedly conspired to kill Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari in 2019 over his alleged remark made against Prophet Muhammad.
Granting bail to Accused-Pathan Rashid Ahmad, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that he has no criminal history apart from the instant case and that he always cooperated with the investigation and undertook to join the trial proceedings. The court also noted that there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Case title - Association Of Protection Of Civil Rights vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 770
The Allahabad High Court consigned to record a PIL plea seeking an independent probe into the alleged police atrocities during the Sambhal violence, noting that the State Government had already formed a judicial inquiry commission to investigate the incident, which is currently handling the matter.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal that any person conversant with relevant facts can submit his evidence before the Enquiry Commission.
Case Title: M/S NS Papers Limited And Another v. Union Of India Through Secretary And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 408 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 771
The Allahabad High Court has held that the resolution applicant cannot be burdened with new claims after approval of a resolution plan.
The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the principle underlying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to give a fresh start to the successful resolution applicant. It held that any action obstructing the aforementioned principle is illegal and beyond the 'Lakshman Rekha' of the Code.
Case Title: Kajal Kumari v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 7793 OF 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 772
The Allahabad High Court has held if an application for compassionate appointment is made beyond the permissible limit of 5 years, it is not up to the appointing authority to consider the matter.
Justice J.J. Munir held that as per Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the application was to be placed before the State, who would then adjudicate on it.
Case Title: The Yog Satsanga Samiti Through Its Director/ General v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41969 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 773
Noting the increase in since of Kumbh Mela, the Allahabad High Court has held that there is no vested right to allotment of a particular land in the Maha Kumbh Mela area only because they may have been allotted the same in previous years.
Case title - Vikas Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 774
The Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict in an appeal filed against the acquittal of rebel Samajwadi Party MLA Abhay Singh in connection with the 2010 attempt-to-murder case. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for nomination of a fresh bench.
While Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi sentenced five of the accused, including Abhay Singh, to three years of imprisonment in connection with the 2010 case, Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, on the other hand, dismissed the appeal and upheld the sessions court's 2023 Judgment acquitting all the accused.
Case Title: Shivansh Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1076 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 775
The Allahabad High Court, relying on its earlier decisions, has held that medical evaluation carried out by experts should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction solely on the basis of the subsequent reports brought forth by the parties.
The bench Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that
“where recruitment process has been carried out as per the prescribed procedure whereunder the medical fitness of candidates has been tested by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by the appellant- petitioner on the basis of some subsequent report procured by him from another medical practitioner.”
Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal, ED Proceedings Initiated Against Indiabulls & Its Officials
Case Title: Niraj Tyagi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10893 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 776
The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the borrower, Shipra Group, and the Enforcement Directorate against the Indiabulls Group and its officials as arbitral proceedings pursuant to the loan agreements are already underway, a fact which was suppressed by the informant.
Case Title: Jagdish v. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari and Ors. [WRIT – B No. 9423 of 1984]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 777
While allowing a 40 year old writ petition, the Allahabad High Court has held that consolidation proceedings in the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be overruled on the ground of non-registration of adoption deed when such deed was executed prior to 01.01.1977.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held that the same could not be countenanced, especially when the adoption papers were already verified by the Consolidation Officer.
Case Title: Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 16406 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 778
The Allahabad High Court has held that an application for compassionate employment cannot be decided by the management of the institution where the deceased government employee worked. It was held that such application must be placed before District Inspector of Schools for decision.
Justice J.J. Munir referred to Regulations of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 to hold that
“The Regulations aforesaid envisage a complete scheme for compassionate appointment and the power to select a candidate on compassionate ground does not at all vest with the Management of the Institution, where the deceased employee was serving.”
Case Title: Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 43025 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 779
The Allahabad High Court has held that remedies under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall continue to be available to an applicant wishing to file a revision against a decree in a suit filed prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
“Any repealing law which repeals an earlier law shall not affect the remedies available to a party which were available to the party on the date when the suit was filed. It would continue to be in existence for the litigant just as it was available to him or her on the date of filing the lis. A vested right to go to a higher Court can be taken away by a subsequent enactment if the latter expressly provides or a bare reading of it shows that the right of going to a higher Court as per the earlier law had been by a necessary intendment taken away”, held the division bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar.
Case Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Shri Askari Hussain and 6 Ors. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 901 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 780
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a matter is placed for reference before a third member, it is the job of the referring member to just opine on the issues raised for reference. Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that in such a case, it was not up to the referring member to resolve the entire matter themselves.
Referring to the Consumer Protection Act, the Court held that
“In terms of the proviso of Section 58(3), the powers of the President or the other member to whom the points have been referred for opinion can only delve and decide on those questions alone, he cannot act as a 3rd member to decide the lis.”
Case Title: Smt. Munni Devi v. Smt. Shashikala Pandey [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15798 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 781
While dealing with a case under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court has observed a judge of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge is expected not only to apply his judicial mind but also deal with the arguments of the parties before returning any findings.
Holding that revision is to be treated as an appeal where remedy of appeal is not specifically available, Justice Ajit Kumar held
“From a judge in the rank of Addl. District and Sessions Judge it is expected that he would not only apply his judicial mind to issues raised but also be dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties very meticulously to arrive at findings which would be reflecting a sound judicial approach of a varied and wide experience of such a judicial officer.”
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra And 3 Others v. State Of U. P. And 10 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1020 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 782
Discussing Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal is remanded back to the original Court for any reason, the Appellate Court ought to grant a certificate of authorization to the appellant to receive back the full court fees paid along with the memorandum of appeal.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“Section 13 casts an obligation upon the appellate court to grant a certificate to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fees paid on the memorandum of appeal and the proviso restricts such right to the extent of the amount originally paid.”
Case title - State of U.P. through Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow and ors vs. Vashistha Muni Mishra
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 783
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali & Justice Jaspreet Singh held that an employee appointed under the Special Sugar Fund cannot be regarded as a government servant, as the appointment was not made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984.
Case Title: Jai Bhagwan v. State Of Up And 6 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1911 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 784
While disposing of a public interest litigation pertaining to illegal leasing of land belonging to schools, the Allahabad High Court has directed that school's farm land cannot be leased out without a reasoned decision by the Committee of the concerned school.
The Committee to be constituted must include Gram Pradhan or Nagar Palika Adhyaksha as President and a person nominated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, above the rank of Naib Tehsildar and Principal of concerned School as its Members, the court said.
Case title - Ramesh Yadav vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 785
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a relationship between brother-in-law and sister-in-law (jija and sali) is immoral; however, if the woman is a major, the said relationship doesn't attract the offence of rape.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while granting bail to an accused (Jija) who was booked under Sections 366, 376, 506 IPC on the allegation that he enticed away his sister-in-law (wife's sister/saali) under the false promise to perform marriage with her.
Case Title: Samrah Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7076 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 786
While dealing with dispute regarding appointment on various posts in U.P. Jal Nigam, the Allahabad High Court has held that Associate Professors of Institutes of Technology are not experts recognized under the Information and Technology Act, 2000 for the purposes of examination of electronic evidence.
Case title - Mahendra Prasad vs. Smt. Bindu Devi
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 787
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a 'free-willed' wife's acts of travelling alone or interacting with members of civil society without engaging in any illegal or immoral relationships cannot be considered an act of cruelty against her husband.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, however, added that a wife's conduct of only seeking to keep alive a legal fiction of her marriage, without any reason to keep alive that relationship, and refusing to cohabit with her husband may amount to cruelty against the husband.