Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: July – September 2024 [Citations 414 - 606]
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court 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...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER
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.
Also Read - Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 - October 13, 2024
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.
Also Read - Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 7 – October 13, 2024
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A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as far as it is permissible in law.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.
Also Read - Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 6 - October 13, 2024
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
Also Read - Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 7 – October 13, 2024
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.”
CITATION INDEX
Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Kailash vs state of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Ibne Haidar And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 417
State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418
M/S Abdul Rahman & Sons Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another v. Administrator General,Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
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
Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Rajit Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Dinesh Prasad v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Umapati vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Ram Sewak vs. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Prakhar Saxena vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 441
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 442
M/S Parthas Textiles And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Arun Mishra vs. Advocate General 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Priyanka Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Higher Edu.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 445
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
X (MINOR VICTIM) vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Manjusha Servesh Joshi vs. Sarvesh Kumar Joshi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Faiyaz Abbas vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 450
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 other 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 451
M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Propreitor, Seema Sarna v. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P., Commercial Tax Bhawan,Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Mohammad Umar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Mohammad Shahid And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 454
A.K. Construction Company v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Amitabh Thakur vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , India Govt. New Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Mohd. Rehan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and two connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Sadhna Sahu v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Mohd. Jamil vs. Managing Director Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (Kesco) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Bhagirath Prasad Sharma v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Suresh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Laxmi Prakash vs. Pooja Gangwar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 463
M/S Shakuntla Educational And Welfare Society vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Pramit vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 466
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Ramesh Yadav vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 468
State of U.P. vs. Rajdeo Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 469
C/M Kunwar Rukum Singh Vaidik Inter College And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Ravindra Singh Rathaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Ikrar And Another vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Ryen @ Ren Chao vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Dhanush Vir Singh v. Dr, Ila Sharma And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 474
AS v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services, U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Anwar Ahmad Siddqui v. State of U.P. and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 476
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
Credai Western Up At H-85 Ii Floor Sector 63 Noida v. State Of Up And 3 Others
Gyan Prakash Rastogi vs. Union of India
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Suman Mishra vs. The State Of U.P And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Huma @ Vasif vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Saleem alias Sambha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Rajendra Yogi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Jyoti Devi vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 486
M/S Bgr Energy Systems Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Satyendra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 488
State of UP Through Mahanideshak Chikitsalaya Medical Services v. M/S Supreme Electrical and Mechanical Works
Smt. Maya Devi v. Bhura Lal
State of U.P. vs. Raja Ram And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 491
State of U.P. vs. Ativeer Singh And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Purushottam Singh And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 493
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
M/S Standard Niwar Mills v. Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Procurement Wing Jaisalmer House 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 495
M/S Kaizen India And 2 Others v. M/S Rangoli Garments Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Manjesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 497
Ramu vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Rukhsana Khatoon vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
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
Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509
M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Gajendra Singh Negi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Geeta Devi vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Gulamuddin And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Jamna Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Bharti Devi vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 521
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
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax V. M/S Emami Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Ankit Punia vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 524
Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Mohd Shane Alam vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Harikishan vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 527
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 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Smt.Kiran Gupta And Another v. Shree Ramji Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Manish Kumar vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Heera vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 532
M/S Anil Rice Mill vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534
Anuj Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Abhilasha Shroti vs. Rajendra Prasad Shroti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Remo D Souza v.s State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others v. The State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Rajendra Singh Verma v. C.B.I 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Saurabh Sachan vs. Garima Sachan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540
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
Kishan Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Madhubala Jaiswal vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 544
Anupam Srivastava And 7 Others vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd and 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Ashok Kumar Katiyar v. Charan Jeet Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 546
Udai Narayan Sahu v. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 547
Vineeta Verma v. Brajnesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548
Ujala And Another vs State of UP and 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 549
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Sweta Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550
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
Randhir Kumar Pandey v. Sri Purushottam Das Maheshwari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 552
The Sinha Development Trust And Another vs. State Of Up And 15 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553
Shiv Sagar v. Smt. Poonam Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 554
M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555
Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta v. Vandana Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 556
Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 557
Basant Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 558
M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd v. State Of Up And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559
Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560
Gorelal Alias Shyam Narain And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 562
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 563
Mohd. Pervej And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 564
Gosh Mohammad vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565
Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 566
Avani Pandey v. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 567
Shalini Agrawal v. State Of Upand 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 568
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 569
Ramnath Singh v. Parshuram Singh (Deceased) And 13 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 570
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 571
Smt Hasina Bano v. Mohammad Ehsan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 572
M/s Bir Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 573
Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 574
Smt. Poonam v. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Pankaj 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 575
Khidmate Khalq Educational Welfare Society And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576
Pooja Gautam v. Neeraj Gautam 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 577
Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 578
Smt. Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 579
M/S R D Enterprises v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 580
Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 581
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 582
Kajal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583
Hafeez Khan vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584
Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP along with connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585
Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586
Arvind Singh Sengar v. Smt. Prabha Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5876
Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 588
Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Rabiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Arun Mishra vs. Honble Mrs Justice Sunita Agrawal, The Then Puine Judge Of This High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 592
Shahrukh Khan And Another vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 594
Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 595
Jitendra Kumar Keshwani v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 596
In Re v. Shri Yogendra Trivedi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 597
Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 598
'X' Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Asif vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Mahavir Prasad v. Balveer Singh And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Smt Kriti Goyal v. Dev Suman Goyal And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 602
Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 603
Manoj vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 604
The Catholic Diocese Of Gorakhpur Through Its President v. Bhola Deceased And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 605
Kavita v. Rohit Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 606