ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTHPassing Reinstatement Order Pursuant To Quashing Of Earlier Suspension Not Necessary For Suspending An Employee Again: Allahabad High Court 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...
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
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.