ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [OCTOBER 2024-DECEMBER 2024]Civil Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Suit Filed U/S 92 CPC Or Under Section 2 Of Religious Endowment Act, 1863: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Jyantri Prasad And 9 Others v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir,Pratapgarh Thru. Ram Shiromani Pandey And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. -...
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [OCTOBER 2024-DECEMBER 2024]
Case Title: Jyantri Prasad And 9 Others v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir,Pratapgarh Thru. Ram Shiromani Pandey And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4294 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 609
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Civil Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92, C.P.C. or under the Religious Endowment Act, 1863.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that,
“a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of the District Judge, and not in any other Court. The District Judge can decide the Suit himself or he may transfer it to an Additional District Judge.”
Case Title: Smt. Poonam Shukla & Others v. State of U.P. & Others [WRIT - A No. - 32670 of 2007]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 610
The Allahabad High Court has held that the part-time teachers who possess requisite qualifications cannot be denied benefit of the services after 15-16 years of service because of procedural lapses on part of the Nagar Nigam in following in appointment of such-teachers.
“Once the candidates had requisite qualification and were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, whether advertisement was made in one newspaper or not, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the default, if any, committed by the officials of the Nigam,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Another v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 27185 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 611
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 interest cannot be imposed on interest award, it is only payable on the principal sum.
Case Title: Ram Babu Vishkarma v. M/S Shriram Finance Ltd and Anr.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 612
The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise.
Case Title: Km Sakshi v. Govt Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 445 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 613
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order which had upheld a school's decision to deny admission to a female student in class 6 based on a report which allegedly indicated that she was about 15 years.
Noting the authenticity of the student's birth certificate which was questioned by the school to deny admission, the court said that subjecting the student to medical examination was "wholly unjustified and high-handed".
Case title - Prahlad Singh vs. Yogesh Chaudhary [- ELECTION PETITION No. - 11 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 614
The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it does not possess the power to extend the limitation period or condone delays in filing election petitions.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal also said that the 1951 Act is a code in itself and thus, the Limitation Act, 1963 provisions do not apply to election petitions, and the filing/presentation of the election petition is strictly governed by Section 81 of the Act, 1951.
Case Title: Somansh Prakash And 8 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 5229 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 615
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed held that if family members looking to partition their property/land, cease to be co-sharers prior to the execution of the partition document, then the stamp duty levied under Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act is inapplicable on them.
Referring to the provision a single judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal in its order said:
“From bare reading of the afore-quoted Sections, it clearly shows that if an instrument of partition is executed, duly signed by the coowners, on previous terms of partition without possession, stamp duty is liable to be paid on the said instrument. In other words, Section 2 (15) (iii) of the Act will be applicable, if an instrument of partition is executed by co-owners of the property, on a declaration of terms of a previous partition by co-owners, then it should be without possession.”
Case Title: Sintu And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2410 of 2020]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 616
The Allahabad High Court has held that the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be taken as the sole evidence for convicting accused in absence of any examination of the scribe who had taken down the statement as it prejudiced the rights of the accused.
Setting aside the conviction order, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held that since the scribe had translated the version given by the deceased in her local dialect, it was necessary for him to be produced as witness to cross-examine the scribe as to the exact statements made by the deceased.
Case title - Zulfikar Abbasi vs. State Of U.P.And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 617
The Allahabad High Court commuted the death penalty imposed upon three men to 25 years of imprisonment without remission for the gang rape and murder of a 17-year-old (offence committed in January 2018 in the Bulandshahr district of the state).
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi noted that it was not a 'rarest of the rare' case where the death penalty could be awarded. The Court also added that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts in the society cannot be ruled.
Case title - Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 618
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations are found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same/identical set of accusations cannot be permitted to continue.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania reasoned that the standard of proceedings in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far higher than a preponderance of probability, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
Case title - Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 619
In a special sitting of Allahabad High Court on Saturday, a bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vipin Chandra Dixit set aside an order of the district administration, Bareilly denying permission to the followers of a Sufi scholar to observe 'Urs' on 8th and 9th October 2024.
The court was essentially dealing with a plea filed by Aastan-E-Aaliyah Saqlainiya Sharafatiya and another, who wanted to observe Urs in the memory of Hazrat Shah Mohammad Saqlain Miyan Huzoor, the grandson of Hazrat Shah Sharafat Ali, who died in October last year.
Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - C No. - 16616 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 620
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 30-day period prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for deciding applications for registration of real estate projects is mandatory in nature as upon failure to accept or reject the application within 30 days, the project shall be deemed to be registered.
Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides for applications for all real estate projects. Section 5 of the Act provides a 30 day period to the Authority to either accept the application for registration or reject it. Section 5(2) provides if the Authority fails to decide the application within a period of 30 days, the application shall be deemed to be approved and a registration ID and password must be provided to the applicant within 7 days after the expiry of the 30 day period.
Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Spent 17 Years In Jail By According Benefit Of Doubt
Case title - Mahfooz vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 180 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 621
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man convicted for the offence of murder by a Sessions Court in May 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as it noted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the informant and the eye-witness. The acquittal has been granted based on the benefit of the doubt.
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi also considered the fact that the appellant-accused was in judicial custody for 17 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence with remission, and despite this, his case was not considered for premature release.
Case title - Kalpana Maheshwari vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 622
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not required to seek the consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act 1946 to investigate an offence committed outside the country by an Indian citizen; in such cases, only the sanction of the Central Government is required.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that, as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the consent of the State Government is required for investigation in any area of the State Government. Still, if the investigation is to be conducted for an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen, then there is no requirement to seek the consent of the State Government.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Gupta v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Chemical And Fertilizer Deptt. Chemical Petro Chemical And Ors [WRIT - A No. - 3089 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 623
The Allahabad High Court observed that Central Administrative Tribunals are substitutes to Civil Courts as the jurisdiction earlier vested in Civil Courts was transferred to Tribunals who have the same powers and procedures as that prescribed for the Civil Court.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“Prior to constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act, 1985, the remedy was before the Civil Court, and therefore, an alternative forum has been provided under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. It can take evidence, evaluate it and record findings of fact.”
Trial Court Records Missing: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In 1982 Case
Case title - Shri Ram Singh vs. State
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 624
The Allahabad High Court acquitted the sole surviving appellant/accused in a 42-year-old case after it received a report from the District Judge, Ballia, that the entire record of the case had been weeded out and the reconstruction of the same was impossible.
A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Shri Ram Singh against the conviction judgment and four-year imprisonment passed by a session court of Ballia in September 1982.
Case Title: Km. Cheenu v. Bishambhar Singh And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 625
Enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,08,875 to Rs.23,69,971, the Allahabad High Court while dealing with a 17-year-old plea observed that the 100% disability of the claimant/appellant–who was a minor at the time, had substantially damaged her marriage prospects subjecting her to frustration and depression.
A single judge bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit while awarding Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for loss of marriage prospects held, “The Claims Tribunal had also failed to consider that on account of 100% disability the marriage prospects of claimant-appellant was substantially damaged and the claimant-appellant is subjected to frustration, disappointment, discomfort and inconvenience but nothing has been awarded in the aforesaid account to the claimant-appellant".
Case title - Sanjeev Chaddha vs. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 626
The Allahabad High Court recently criticised a man for filing a criminal case against his elder brother (regarding a dispute that was essentially civil in nature) solely to harass him and seek vengeance.
Calling the younger brother/complainant a 'Kalyugi Bharat' (कलयुगी भरत), a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery quashed the entire case proceedings as well as summoning order in connection with an FIR lodged against the elder brother/Applicant under Section 406 IPC (Punishment for criminal breach of trust).
Case title - Adarsh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 627
The Allahabad High Court endorsed the view that to attract provisions of Sections 304-B (Dowry Death) and 498-A of IPC (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a man challenging a Prayagraj sessions court order that rejected his plea for discharge in a dowry death case of his alleged live-in partner.
Case title - Mukesh Kharwar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 628
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely because the facts of an alleged crime are in the knowledge of the applicant, who moves an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, a magistrate can't refuse a direction to the Police to lodge an FIR.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan added that the gravity/seriousness of the offence, the requirement of the evidence to launch a successful prosecution, and the interest of justice, depending on the facts of each case, are factors that must be considered in passing an order under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Case title - Moid Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 629
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of Samajwadi Party leader Moid Ahmad in connection with the case of an alleged gang-rape of a minor girl in UP's Ayodhya in which Ahmad and his helper, Raju Khan, have been named as accused.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia noted that although the FSL report on record confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused and not with the SP Leader, the paternity test alone is not conclusive for determining whether the offence had been committed (as per Section 3 POCSO Act and the definition of rape u/s 375 IPC).
Case Title: Pranjal Shukla And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27067 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 630
While dealing with allegations regarding assault due to unmet demands of dowry, the Allahabad High Court observed that the allegation in the FIR against the husband arose from sexual incompatibility between the parties rather than any actual demand for dowry.
“If man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where they will go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society,” observed Justice Anish Kumar Gupta.
Case title - Parul Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected matter
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 631
While refraining to pass adverse orders against a young magistrate, the Allahabad High Court ordered inquiry against his staff for uploading two copies of draft unsigned order on the website.
Applicant approached the High Court against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the defamation suit filed by the opposite party, one Ankur Garg. Other than arguments on merits of the defamation suit, it was argued that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad passed two orders in the defamation case, one dismissing the suit and the other one issuing summons to the applicant.
Case Title: Hcl Infotech Ltd v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1396 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 632
The Allahabad High Court has held that for initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the assessee having wrongfully availed input tax credit (ITC) by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
The Court held that once the proceedings under Section 73 have been closed regarding wrongful availment of ITC, proceedings for the same cannot be initiated under Section 74 without recording prima facie satisfaction regarding wrongful availment of ITC by either fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Case title - Shrey Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 633
The Allahabad High Court observed that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship wouldn't amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed this while quashing entire criminal proceedings against a man who had been accused of raping a woman on the pretext of a promise to marry her.
Case title - Shankh Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 634
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC would be maintainable even though the first plea was dismissed without providing the liberty to file fresh.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavani also added that a man's refusal to support his wife and children, whom he is bound to support under the law, would be covered under the maxim "de die in diem," which means "doing something every day” as it is his 'continuing duty'.
Proceedings U/S 498A IPC By Second Wife Are Not Maintainable, Reiterates Allahabad High Court
Case title – Maan Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 635
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC by the second wife are not maintainable.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed thus while relying upon the Top Court's rulings in the cases of Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P 2002, Shivakumar and others Vs. State and Allahabad High Court's recent decision in the case of Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208.
Case title - Kanika Dhingra vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 636
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a mother-son duo who are accused of creating several fake companies on paper (by collecting citizens' PAN and Aadhaar card details) to fraudulently claim input tax credit (ITC) and thereby cause the government massive losses.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that bail could be denied in cases relating to economic offences that affect the economic fabric of society, especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power.
Case Title: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Thru. Housing Commissioner and Others v. Universal Contractors and Engineers Ltd., Thru. Authorized Signatory
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 637
The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was filed against orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Second FIR Permissible For Same Incident With Different Version Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court
Case title – Sangeeta Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 638
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second FIR for the same incident is permissible where there is a different version of evidence and discovery is made on the factual foundation.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed this while relying upon the Top Court's judgment in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab 2008. In the Nirmal Singh case (supra), referring to an earlier decision in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn) 1979, the Supreme Court had opined that the second FIR would be maintainable where new discovery is made on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy.
Case title – XXX through her mother YYY vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. Of Home And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 639
The Allahabad High Court rejected a woman's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to her husband, who she has accused of raping their minor daughter.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia also imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on her as it prima facie noted that in the order granting bail to her husband/accused, the lower court had observed that the allegations levelled by the applicant-wife were bald and reckless.
“This court has no hesitation in holding that the present applicant has from the very inception misused the process of law in making reckless allegations,” the Court observed.
Case title - Arif Hussain @ Sonu Singh And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 640
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man (Arif Hussain @ Sonu Singh) who has been accused of enticing away a Hindu woman (informant), raping her after concealing his real name and religion, and after that, forcing her to get married to him.
Though it was the case of the accused that he adopted 'Sanatan Dharma' 15 years ago while marrying the victim in an Arya Samaj temple in 2009, a division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari noted that after he purportedly converted his religion from Islam to Sanatan in 2009, he applied for Aadhar in the year 2012, showing himself to be a follower of Islam in the name of Arif Hussain.
Case Title: Niraj Kumar Dhakre Alias Pintu v. Smt Karishma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 839 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 641
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training under the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India and Principal Secretary, Department of Appointment and Personnel, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to frame appropriate Rules/Norms/Guidelines for the purpose payment of maintenance allowance to estranged spouses of their employees.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 'Minor' On Condition Of Marrying Her
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 642
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a girl, allegedly a minor, on the pretext of marriage and impregnating her, on the condition that within three months of his release, he would marry the girl and also take care of their newborn.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal also directed him to deposit (in the form of FD) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/—in the name of the newborn baby, a girl, until she attains the age of majority. He has to comply with this condition within six months of his release.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision on multiple deductions towards maintenance amount, the Allahabad High Court has said that in matrimonial disputes if there are multiplicity of maintenance proceedings under different legislations, the plea claiming the highest maintenance must be decided first by the concerned court.
The observation came in an army personnel's plea who claimed that though money was being directly deducted towards maintenance from his salary under an army order, however the wife had gone on to again seek maintenance under two separate proceedings–one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under the Domestic Violence Act. As this was allowed by the family court through two different orders, the man approached the high court.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 644
The Allahabad High Court rejected the third bail plea moved by now-dismissed UP Police official Krishna Kumar Sharma, who is facing conspiring charges in connection with the ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, in which Gangster Vikas Dubey gunned down eight policemen.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that though he has been in jail for the last four years, however, considering the role assigned to him, the court's observation while denying two of his earlier bail pleas, and the fact that there are very serious charges against the applicant, he was not liable to be released on bail.
Case title – Shahrukh vs. State Of UP
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 645
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of destroying the idols of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and attempting to kill the priest of a Temple in the Bareilly district of the state.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that such offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by “adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community and to the sentiments of the people.”
Case title - Poonam Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 646
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed the appeal of Smt. Poonam Tyagi, holding that her husband's death from poisoning did not qualify for extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961.
The court ruled that the cause of death was unrelated to the performance of any hazardous or perilous duties. Applying the ejusdem generis rule, the court held that the death must occur while the officer is engaged in dangerous duties such as fighting criminals, and mere death while on duty does not qualify.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 647
The Allahabad High Court rejected an election plea filed by a Janhit Kisan Party (JKP) leader, who intended to contest the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from Varanasi against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. JKP Leader Vijay Nandan had moved the HC to challenge the returning officer's rejection of his nomination form.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh dismissed Nandan's plea on merits, noting that he had approached the Court with a 19-day delay.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 937 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 648
The Allahabad High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a 35 year old law student who was granted admission in Law College against the rules of the brochure and was cancelled after being successful in first semester examination.
Observing that the student had not played fraud on the College, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed,
“It is rather amazing that the Law College has acted not only in a careless and reckless manner but also exhibited a conduct other than bona fide just in order to enrol and admit students in order to charge fees playing with their future.”
Case Title: Vivek Nayak (Died) And Another v. The Arbitrator / Collector Aligarh And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 649
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. Expecting them to foresee and apply future judicial decisions is unreasonable and impractical.
Case Title: Bindu Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 8666 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 650
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which empowers the Collector or other stamp authorities to recover deficiency in registration fees.
Besides recovery of deficiency in Stamp Duty, recovery was ordered against the petitioner regarding deficiency in registration fees on Document No. 1549/2022 & 1548/2022. Further, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed on the petitioner regarding deficiency in registration fees. Petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which was dismissed.
Case Title: Yogendra Kumar Kushwaha v. Collector And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 4772 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 651
The Allahabad High Court has held that for being a conveyance deed, the recital of the deed transferring the immovable property must convey the same otherwise no right over the land is vested in the tenure holder. It has been held that a dee transferring part of enhanced compensation is not a 'conveyance deed' unless it specifically records transfer of rights in its recital.
“So as to form a deed of transfer of conveyance, whether it is a notional or effective one, a deed of transfer must convey in its recital that the immovable property is being transferred to fall within the definition of conveyance, otherwise any interest of transfer arising out of a property which does not vest any right in the tenure holder such case would not fall within the definition of conveyance and will certainly go out of the mischief of Entry 23 of the Schedule-I of the Stamp Act,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: - Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Sudhir Mohan Agrawal
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 652
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated.
Case title - Rajendra Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 653
Noting that the child victims of sexual abuse are the most vulnerable class of citizens, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of supporting such victims of sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that since these victims face numerous challenges, including trauma, social marginalisation, and lack of resources, which hinder their ability to seek justice, the statutory support systems, such as legal aid, medical care, and counselling, become essential for empowering these children to navigate the legal process effectively.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Govt School Principal Accused Of Sexually Abusing Girl Students
Case title - Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 654
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to the principal of a government primary school in Bulandshahr district of the state who was arrested in March this year on the allegations of sexually abusing female students and showing them 'indecent' on his mobile phone.
Considering the victims' tender age, which ranged from 9 to 13 years, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal did not find it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant (Pratap Singh).
Case title - State of UP vs. Balwan Singh And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 655
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of 4 men in connection with an alleged rape case dating back to the year 2009, as it concurred with the view of the trial court that the victim appeared to be a consenting party.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
Case title - Ankur Agarwal Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 656
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no 'absolute prohibition' against considering an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused against whom a warrant of arrest or a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been issued. It added that the court is empowered to consider the merits of the case in extremely exceptional cases in the interest of justice.
This ruling by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi assumes significance as recently the Supreme Court, in Srikant Upadhyay vs State Of Bihar 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232 [Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar], ruled that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC is pending against him.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 657
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an extortion complaint filed by a woman against her brother's wife (Bhabhi), noting that the parties had come to an agreement and that no dispute remained between them.
While doing so, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery's bench also referred to the unique dynamics of the 'Nanad-Bhabhi' relationship in Indian society. The Court remarked that the Nanad-Bhabhi relationship is a very interesting relationship in our society.
Case Title: M/S Jai Shree Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1731 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 658
The Allahabad High Court has granted interim relief in a writ petition challenging the order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was transporting Arecanuts, when the shipment was intercepted by the Mobile Squad. Due to alleged reuse of bill and e-way bills, physical verification of the goods was ordered. Though no discrepancies were found upon physical verification, an order of detention of goods was passed. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3, (Mobile Squad)-10, State Tax Kanpur passed and order under Section 129(3) of the Act imposing penalty on the petitioner.
Case Title: Justice Vinod Chandra Misra v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7743 of 2019]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 659
The Allahabad High Court has held that “family pension” rules under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder will be applicable to the pension awarded to the Chairperson of the State Law Commission under the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that though the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission Act, 2010 and the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson) Rules, 2011 did not specifically provide for 'Family pension' for the Chairperson, the Legislature had read in the Judges Act of 1954 for the purpose of the same.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 660
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea moved by the Shahi Eidgah Mosque side to recall the HC's January 11, 2024, order consolidating all suits filed in connection with the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute at Mathura,
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain dismissed the plea at 3:50 pm today. A detailed order is awaited.
It may be noted that in January this year, a single judge directed the consolidation of 15 suits related to Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute. The order was passed 'in the interest of justice' on an application filed by the Hindu plaintiffs under Order IV-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
Case title - Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 661
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the bail application of an 'unconvicted' person should not be rejected for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson or as a mark of disapproval of his conduct.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that while considering the bail application, apart from the seriousness of the charges and severity of punishment, paramount consideration should be given to whether there are chances of absconding or tampering with the witnesses or intimidation to the victim or witnesses on the part of the accused.
Case Title: Wasi Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru . Additional Cheif Secy. Prin. Secy. Election Anubhag,Lko. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3827 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 662
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh as a senior State Officer acted as an Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in case of disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
Single bench of Justice Alok Mathur noted,
“Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla [Secretary Election Anubhag, Lucknow], have acted himself in all the three capacities in the present case as lead to miscarriage of justice and accordingly the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. The entire exercise will have to be carried out afresh in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. Chaurasiya Enterprises and 2 others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 305 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 663
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of extension of limitation during COVID-19, as per In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, cannot be granted to a party merely for the asking, especially when there is default on the part of the party seeking such extension.
While dismissing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“The benefit of the judgment in the case of cognizance of extension and limitation, IN RE (supra) cannot be granted on mere asking particularly when it is not the case of the BSNL that they were not aware about the pendency of the proceedings as rather to the contrary we find from the order sheet that on certain dates, the BSNL through its counsel stood represented and on other dates remained absent.”
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri Ram Prakash And Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 664
The Allahabad High Court Bench comprising of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai heard a petition revolving around the dismissal of a bus conductor by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“UPRTC”). Here, the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the respondent's dismissal for allegedly allowing passengers to travel without tickets.
Case Title: Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 665
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Additionally, the court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 and 11 of the Act is identical, but extremely limited and restricted with little interference from court.
Case Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Proprietor, Smt. Shayaka Khan v. Smt. Suman Devi And Another [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 666
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a First Appeal From Order (FAFO) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed with a delay of 3107 days as the appellant, sole proprietor of the transport company, failed to inquire about the status of the case.
Justice Rajnish Kumar held that
“A litigant, who is such negligent that he/she would not inquire for the status of case for such a long period in which the allegations are against him/her and he/she has put in appearance and filed written statement and documents, cannot be said to was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring appeal in time because if he/she has not pursued the case diligently and has been negligent in doing so cannot be said to have been prevented, therefore the grounds taken are nothing but excuses for such a long delay. Such a litigant is not entitled for any discretion of Court.”
Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 667
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Niyukti Anubhag- 4,Lko.And Another [WRIT - A No. - 1382 of 2022]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 668
The Allahabad High Court has recently upheld the compulsory retirement of an Additional District Judge who after the approval of the State Government on compulsory retirement was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. It was held that after the order of the State Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the inquiry officer had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings.
Holding that the orders to compulsorily retire the petitioner were based on his consideration of his entire service records, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“Deadwood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest.”
Case Title: Ambika Yadav v. State of U.P. and others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1050 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 669
The Allahabad High Court has directed the concerned department of the State to initiate training programmes to make the Pradhans in the State aware about their rights and duties under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Several public interest litigations were filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the construction of water tanks and RCC centres on the land reserved for public purpose. It was argued that the land reserved for a specific purpose could not be used for any other purpose except in exceptional circumstances.
Case Title: S/S J.H.V. Steels Ltd v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 808 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 670
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be initiated where stock is found excess at the time of survey.
Section 130 of the UPGST Act provides for confiscation of goods and penalty in cases where supply, transport of goods has been made in contravention to the provisions of the Act with the intention to evade tax. It also includes penalty when an assesee does not account for the goods on which tax is to be paid.
Case title - Anjani Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 671
The Allahabad High Court directed a magistrate to pass an appropriate order under Sections 203 or 204 CrPC (as the case may be) in a complaint case pending before a Court in Ballia for the last 7 years.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that such a direction was being given to the magistrate concerned to secure the ends of justice and to curb the culture of 'Tareekh Pe Tareekh'.
Teachers' Absenteeism In Primary Schools 'Bane' Of UP's Education System: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Draupadi Devi vs. District Basic Education Officer And 4 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 672
The Allahabad High Court observed that teacher absenteeism in primary schools is the bane of the state's educational system, and it must be curbed by taking appropriate measures in accordance with the law.
The Court also sought an affidavit from the Principal Secretary of the State Department of Basic Education explaining the steps taken by the UP Government in the past in this regard and the proposed measures to ensure regular teacher attendance and curb teacher absenteeism.
Every Arrest & Detention Doesn't Amount To Custodial Torture: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shah Faisal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 673
Underscoring that every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture, the Allahabad High Court observed that when custodial torture allegations are not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court ought not to entertain such kind of proceeding.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added that while protecting the fundamental rights of those who are subjected to any torture in custody, the Court should also stand guard against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of society and enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively.
Case title - Ahsan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 674
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl child, noting that the victim has supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
In its order, the Court also observed that Rape is a heinous crime and that these types of cases are increasing day by day in our society, even though little girls are worshipped in our country.
Case title - Upendra @ Balveer vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 675
The Allahabad High Court observed that trial court judges often convict the accused in cases of heinous offences despite a clear case of acquittal due to their fear of higher courts.
“…they are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases, and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects, such judgment and order of conviction are passed,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.
Case Title: Dr. Virender Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6106 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 676
The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of adultery against wife must be decided before the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Revisionist-husband approached the High Court against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- to the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC. It was argued that the wife being adulterous was not entitled to any relief by virtue of Section 125(4) CrPC.
Case Title: Smt. Alka Saxena v. Sri Pankaj Saxena [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2015]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 677
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bars presentation of a petition for divorce cannot be filed within a period of 1 year from the date of marriage and can only be entertained in case of exceptional hardship caused to the spouse.
It was held that an application under Section 14 must be filed by the spouse seeking divorce within a year of marriage and the same must be allowed with reasons for entertaining divorce within 12 months of marriage.
Case title - Kamare Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 678
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the 'arbitrary' confiscation of a vehicle that a person might be using for his trade, profession, or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
“The confiscation, by its very connotation, implies depriving a person of his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business,” the Court remarked.
Case title - Ram Babu vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2163 of 1983]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 679
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted in 1982 murder caa, as it noted that two eye-witnesses and the first informant had ganged together to implicate the accused.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also observed that the prosecution story contained many lapses, which made the case doubtful, and the case against the accused-appellant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case title – XXX vs State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 680
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is neither desirable nor lawful for a Magistrate, dealing with a Section 156 (3) plea containing sexual assault allegations, to direct a preliminary investigation/inquiry by police and to place reliance on the police report submitted in favour of the proposed accused.
The Court observed that such an approach of the magistrate is not in accordance with the Apex Court's Judgment in the case of 'XYZ' vs the State of MP and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676.
Case title - Jitendra Pratap Singh Alias Jeetu vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 681
The Allahabad High Court has held that since the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2018 bars the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where the offence is punishable by a death sentence, the Courts cannot entertain pre-arrest bail pleas concerning such cases.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari held thus while answering a reference made by a single judge of the HC in April this year. The question referred for the consideration of the larger bench was:
“Whether Section 438 (6) (b) CrPC, as it applies to the State of UP, puts an absolute bar against applicability of Section 438 CrPC to offences, in which death sentence can be awarded or the aforesaid bar would apply only where the Court comes to a conclusion after examining the facts of the case, that the case warrants imposition of the death sentence.”
Case title - Sangeeta Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 682
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an order for the removal of a Pradhan by the District Magistrate can't be passed only based on a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officer without complying with the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that while the District Magistrate has the power to either cease the financial and administrative powers or oust the democratically elected Gram Pradhan, the power is to be exercised only in exceptional and extraordinary cases.
Case title - Pundrik Kumar Pandey Alias Pundrik Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others, along with a connected matter
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 683
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash an FIR, lodged on the complaint of Mahasi MLA Sureshwar Singh against a relative of the Bahraich violence victim Ram Gopal Mishra, the BJYM City Chief, and others.
For the uninitiated, on October 13, the final day of Durga Puja celebrations, communal violence broke out in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of District Bahraich after some local members of a particular community objected to the playing of loud music. The altercation further resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 684
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of denial of sexual intercourse, it must be demonstrated that this denial has been a consistent and ongoing issue over a prolonged period of time.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also added that the issue of what type of physical intimacy the parties may be able to maintain is not subject to judicial determination.
Case title - In Re: Restoration Of Community Health Centre vs. State Of UP And 7 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 685
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the vacant land of Abadi may be used for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, but it cannot be at the cost of any other building for public utility.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while dealing with a suo moto matter concerning the restoration of a community health centre in Village Panchayat Alauddinpur, Block and Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau.
Case title - Mahendra Singh vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. And 5 Others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 686
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a suit filed under Section 144 of the UP-Revenue Code 2006 on the basis of an oral sale deed and alleged possession must include findings of the proceedings under Section 38 (1) of the code regarding the sale deed.
Allahabad High Court Acquits Convict In 1981 Murder Case By According Benefit Of Doubt
Case title - Ram Krishna vs. State of U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 687
The Allahabad High Court acquitted one Ram Krishna, who was convicted for the offence of murder (incident dates back to August 1981) by a Sessions Court in March 1983 and sentenced to life imprisonment by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar found that PW1's testimony, based on which the accused was convicted by the trial court, was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Thus, it concluded that a conviction based on his testimony would be unsafe.
Case title: M/S Ashish Traders v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 688
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee is entitled to fresh notices demanding unpaid tax or short tax under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, if the initial notices were not duly communicated to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2024) whereby “benefit of doubt” was given to the assessee since notices issued to it did not show up on the assessee's portal under the tab "view notices and orders".
Case title: Ankur Vikram Singh Respondent v. State of UP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 689
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of an electric vehicle which was purchased prior to October 14, 2022 cannot seek refund of tax citing a subsequent notification exempting the payment of One Time Tax.
Petitioner had sought refund of One Time Tax paid in respect of his Hybrid Vehicle purchased on October 13, 2022.
Case title - State of UP vs. Bholu Qureshi And 5 Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 690
While upholding the acquittal of 6 men accused of rioting and assaulting police personnel in Jhansi's Babina district in 2008, the Allahabad High Court observed that it is a well-established principle that the prosecution's case 'must be proved beyond reasonable doubts' and not merely 'may be proved'.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I also observed that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
Case title - Chetram @ Mintu and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 691
The Allahabad High Court observed that a review is permissible only when an error is apparent on the face of the record without requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning and reappraisal of the entire evidence to find the error, as doing so would amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Explaining the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if a mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Rajbhar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 692
The Allahabad High Court has observed that any statute/rules/instructions that empower an employer to deny appointment to a candidate only because of non-disclosure of criminal cases would be unjust and unreasonable.
A bench of Justice Salil Rai also opined that any decision by the employer denying appointment only because of such non-disclosure would also be contrary to the constitutional principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.
Case title - Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Through Its General Manager vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Karmchari Sabha Throu Its G.S.And Ors. and connected matters
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 693
A single bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi declared that the canteen workers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) were direct employees of the company, despite the existence of a contract with a third-party canteen operator.
However, the court ruled that the question of whether the contract between HAL and the canteen operator was a “sham” was beyond the tribunal's mandate, as it was not mentioned in the reference.
Additionally, the court held that the Central Government was the “appropriate government” for HAL, but in this case, the State Government had the power to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal under the Central Act.
Case title - Nandan Singh Bisht vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 694
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 12 accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident related to the killings of five persons in October 2021, noting that their case is on a better footing than the case of Ashish Mishra, who was granted bail by Top Court in July this year.
The court also factored in that there is a cross-version to the present case, the Supreme Court has made absolute the interim bail granted to four accused persons in the cross-version, a significant number of witnesses remain to be examined, there is no likelihood that the trial will conclude in the near future, and there is no indication that the applicants have misused the interim bail previously granted.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 695
The Allahabad High Court observed that members of the Bar should be more responsible when their actions may malign or, to some extent, question a judge's image in the eyes of the public at large.
The Court added that the advocates should not act in a manner which gives the public an occasion to say that HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE NOW DECIDING CASES WHICH THEY WERE PURSUING FOR THEIR CLIENTS.
Case title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs. Sudha [FIRST APPEAL No. - 174 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 696
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as it must be proven that the 'mental disorder' if of such a kind and degree that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with partner.
Noting that Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus:
“The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.”
Case title - Daya Prasad @ Vyas Ji vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 697
The Allahabad High Court directed the State DGP to issue directives to investigating authorities to ensure they comply with the mandatory safeguards relating to recoveries to be read in evidence under Section 27.
Expressing concerns over courts frequently discarding prosecution cases due to IOs' lapses in following legal procedures during evidence recovery, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary underscored that failure to adhere to these safeguards could not be dismissed as a minor flaw in the investigation, as it directly impacts the admissibility of crucial evidence.
Case title: M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 698
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the demand and penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 against a trader whose GST registration came to be suspended, after it found that the goods in transit were accompanied with proper tax invoice and e-way bill.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 wherein a coordinate bench had held that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill, the consignee will be deemed owner and goods will have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
Case title - Amardeep Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Msme Lko. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 699
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a civil court's declaration of civil death of a person under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would not lead to a presumption about the date and time of his death.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla further observed that the presumption of Section 108 is not the only mechanism for declaring death and that a party is within his/her right to prove by convincing evidence that the date and time of death are before seven years.
Case title - Irfan Solanki And Another vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 700
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Irfan Solanki, a now disqualified MLA of the Samajwadi Party, in a 2022 house arson case in which he was sentenced by a Special Court in Kanpur to seven years' rigorous imprisonment in June this year.
However, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh refused to stay his conviction, clearing the way for the scheduled bye-election for the Sisamau seat on November 20. A detailed order in the matter is awaited.
Case title - Irfan Solanki And Another vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 701
Refusing to stay the conviction of Irfan Solanki, a now disqualified MLA of the Samajwadi Party, in a 2022 house arson, the Allahabad High Court observed that the 'wider' opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices.
The Court also observed that it has often been seen that a large number of persons with criminal antecedents or who are charged with heinous crimes stand for and are elected to Legislative Assemblies and Parliaments.
Case title - Padam Singhee vs Directorate Of Enforcement
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 702
The Allahabad High Court took exception to the actions of the accused's counsels, who had sent emails to Enforcement Directorate officers requesting them to file a counter affidavit, as directed by the court, in a case involving their client.
Noting that counsels' sending emails directly to the Investigating Officer was not proper and could not be appreciated, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that reminding the authorities of the court's order and requesting them to comply with it is not in the realm of the duties of counsel appearing in the matter.
Case title - Umesh Singh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 703
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that every error in a Gram Panchayat's inventory purchase bill cannot be grounds for proceeding against the Gram Pradhan under the UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947, specifically when such an error does not result in any property loss.
“It is to be seen that Gram Pradhan is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat and his removal from the office of the Gram Panchayat required under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, then it is necessary that unless there is material to indicate removal, otherwise the same cannot be accepted against the elected representative as the same itself hits the basic tenets of democracy,” a bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
Case title - Javed Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 704
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Javed Alam, who was booked in an FIR lodged by a Bajrang Dal member accusing him of abducting a Hindu minor girl and having physical relations with her.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that in her Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements, the victim girl stated that she was more than 17 years of age when the FIR was lodged and that she performed marriage with the accused and willingly accompanied him.
Case title - Arun Pandey vs. Neha Pandey
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 705
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in matrimonial proceedings, wives and children often face financial crises compared to husbands, as they have limited support from family or income and their situation is frequently exploited by husbands, which makes it difficult for them to face such proceedings.
“In a matrimonial proceeding, the wife and children are pitted against the husband or the father, as the case may be and in most of the cases they are not on equal footing. Some gets financial support from their parents, brothers and sisters and also some work and earn, in exceptional cases. However, in all cases, the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands,” a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed.
Case title - Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 706
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an error apparent on the face of the record, such as the non-availability of the specific date and timing in an FIR, cannot be rectified at the investigation stage.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava termed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur's act of taking cognizance of the charge sheet (on December 1, 2023)—despite the FIR lacking crucial details such as the specific date, time, and witnesses—as "highly shocking".
Case title – Kaniz Fatima vs Imran Khan
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 707
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a suit filed wherein relief is claimed for adjudging a gift deed as null, void, forged, and fabricated ad valorem Court Fees would be payable as per Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) and not as per residuary Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the 1870 Act.
For context, residuary Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II applies to cases where a declaratory decree is sought to be obtained without claiming any consequential relief. The provision explicitly states that it would apply to such suits “not otherwise provided for by this Act”.
Case title - Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Union Of India And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 708
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that while a nominee has a right to obtain money from the bank after the account holder's death, the money received would be subject to succession laws, and the deceased's heirs would have a right to the said amount in accordance with the law.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed this while dealing with a writ plea filed by Manoj Kumar Sharma, who claimed that, as the nominee, he was entitled to receive the money from the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of his late mother in accordance with Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Nomination for payment of depositors' money].
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India And Another Versus Jagpal Singh And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 709
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari affirmed that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Ram Taulan Yadav And Another versus Himanshu Kesarwani And 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 710
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta affirmed that referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act stage cannot examine as to whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement or not. Such an issue requires factual determination which can be decided by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title – Shivika Upadhayay vs. Pushpendra Trivedi
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 711
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the transfer applications concerning cases pending in Family Courts which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court must be filed before the Lucknow Bench itself, not the principal seat at Allahabad.
A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra emphasised that the Lucknow Bench is the appellate court competent to hear appeals against orders passed by Family Courts falling within its territorial jurisdiction, so transfer applications related to such matters would have to be filed before the Lucknow bench only and not before the principal seat at Allahabad, where such an appeal would be incompetent.
Case title - Pnb Housing Finance Ltd. Lko. Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Surya Prakash Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 8 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 712
The Allahabad High Court has observed that as per the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is the statutory obligation of the District Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to take possession of secured assets and documents and to forward such assets & documents to the secured creditor.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Brij Raj Singh clarified that the secured creditor is not supposed to run from pillar to post or to the police personnel to get the order executed after obtaining an order under Section 14 of the 2002 Act; instead, it is the obligation of the DM/CJM to get the same executed.
Case title - Manbodh @ Manoj And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 713
The Allahabad High Court has observed that when all the accused persons have been found guilty of committing the same offences, granting benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to one and denying the same benefit to other “keeping in view the nature of the offence” is unreasonable.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while dealing with a criminal revision plea filed by three accused challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gonda, in criminal appeal and the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda, convicting them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing them to one-year simple imprisonment.
Case title: M/S Batra Henlay Cables v. State Of U.P. and 2 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 714
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition claiming exemption from payment of road tax on an electric vehicle purchased from Jammu.
The Petitioner had claimed that since road tax is levied for operating the vehicle within the State, no distinction can be made on the basis that the vehicle in question has been purchased within the State or from outside.
Case title - Krishnawati vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 715
The Allahabad High Court directed state authorities to pay interest (fixed at 8 per cent) on the 14-year delayed disbursement of retiral dues to the wife of a state government employee, who died in harness in the year 2005.
Noting that the state authorities had adopted a callous attitude to the plight of the petitioner-wife, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot underscored that the deceased employee's family cannot be harassed for her entitlements by overbearing officials.
Case title - Irfan Qureshi vs. Up State Industrial Development Authority And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 716
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that in the State of UP, an agreement to sell immovable property (situated within the state) would also require compulsory registration to create any right, title, or interest in it.
The Court arrived at this conclusion through a combined reading of the state amendments made to Sections 17 (Documents of which registration is compulsory) and 49 (Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered) of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 (Sale) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Mrs. Jayashree Kailash Vani v. Official Liquidator [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 963 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 717
In a case concerning delay in payment pursuant to auction of a property, the Allahabad High Court said that where a bidder had the opportunity to inspect a property prior to bidding on it and the auction was to proceed on an 'as is where is and whatever there is basis', then they cannot question the results on discovering obstructions to the property post such bid.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 718
The Allahabad High Court last week granted a 4-month interim bail to a Hindu man booked under the POCSO Act to marry a Muslim girl (alleged victim) and get the same registered after getting her custody.
Provisions Of CPC Applicable In Proceedings Before Family Court: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Nagendra Sharma and Anr. v. Court of Prin. Judge Family Court Gonda and Anr. [WRIT - C No. - 6354 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 719
While examining a divorce case, the Allahabad High Court has held that in light of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable before the Family Court and therefore, a writ petition seeking Writ of Prohibition could not be entertained by the High Court in presence of remedy of appeal.
“It would be pertinent to observe here that provisions encoded in Civil Procedure Code are based on principle of natural justice and fair play, hence all the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are made applicable to the proceedings before Family Courts within the meaning of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act,” held Justice Manish Kumar Nigam.
Case Title: Baba Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 12055 OF 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 720
While considering a case of an appointment to a government post, the Allahabad High Court has held that merely being implicated in a criminal case does not de facto form a basis for rejecting the candidate.
Case title - Punita Bhatt Alias Punita Dhawan vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 721
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajan Roy, and Om Prakash Shukla granted relief to a widowed daughter seeking appointment to the post her deceased father based on compassionate grounds.
The Court held that even after marriage or widowhood, a woman would continue to be a daughter. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would for all legal and practical purposes be included in the definition of 'daughter', although widowed, on the date of her father's death.
Case title - Alishan vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 722
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two sons of Hazi Iqbal, also known as Balla, an alleged mining mafia in the Meerut region, in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Hazi Iqbal, along with his sons (bail applicants), is accused of running an interstate criminal gang involved in various financial and corporeal crimes.
Case title - Shahjahan And Others vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 723
The Allahabad High Court acquitted seven accused, convicted in connection with a July 2004 minor girl's kidnapping and rape case, as it observed that the allegations made against the accused were fabricated, intended to serve as a cover-up and create a defence for the victim, who was herself implicated in a separate kidnapping case involving a minor boy.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary refused to accord the status of a sterling witness to a victim, finding that neither her statement was credible nor the same was supported by medical evidence on record.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 423 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 724
The Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts.
National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation granted to the respondent was not in accordance with law.
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, Through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Hem Singh and 5 Ors. with 17 Others [WRIT – C No. - 38900 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 725
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the award granted by the Industrial Tribunal to the workmen of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority regularizing their services in the Authority establishment.
“The Industrial Tribunal while deciding the 16 misc. cases, under Section 16-F of the Act of 1947 has recorded finding of fact that petitioner-authority has violated the provisions of Section 6-E(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and terminated the services of the workmen w.e.f. 6.2.2003 which is illegal, as such, workmen shall be deemed to be in employment of petitioner-authority which is proper exercise of jurisdiction by Tribunal,” held Justice Chandra Kumar Rai.
Case Title: Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra [FIRST APPEAL No. - 55 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 726
The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of wife quarreling with the husband are not sufficient to show acute mental agony suffered by him so as to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Observing that the allegations made by the husband against the wife inflicting cruelty on him were vague in nature, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife.”
Case Title: Dr. Prabhanshu Shrivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 31358 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 727
While deciding a case of termination of services of a government employee, the Allahabad High Court has held that mentioning that the employee “absconded” from service will cast a stigma on the employee as the word suggests that the employee deliberately fled from his work. It was held that such a remarks adversely affects the employee.
The Court held that an order casting stigma on such an employee cannot be passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Case title - M/S Kewal Dairy vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 728
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the date of commission of an offence is determined by the receipt of the food analyst's report about unfit/unsafe food and not by the date when the sample of food is collected.
The High Court clarified that in the case of the sale of unsafe or substandard milk, the date of commission of the offence would be when the Food Analyst's report about its quality is received, not the date when the sample was collected.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 729
While hearing a case where a man had moved a second divorce plea after dismissal of the first divorce case, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that a second divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty is maintainable where fresh cause of action arises after the dismissal of the first divorce petition.
In doing so the court observed that the second divorce plea is not hit by the principle of res judicata.
Case title - Mirza Iqrar Beg vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 730
The Allahabad High Court observed that as per the law laid down by the Constitutional Courts, there is no permission for the initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on a petitioner to discourage his conduct of filing a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Shiksha Mitra, his relative (respondent No. 4) on the ground that the appointment was illegally appointed and that he had embezzled money.
Case Title: M/s A.V. Pharma Thru. Its Prop. Smt. Madhu Vohra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 731
The Allahabad High Court has held the time extension notification dated 24.04.2023 extending time period for passing orders under Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 will apply only from 31.03.2023 and not before that.
Section 73 empowers the proper officer to pass orders imposing penalty or interest where any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, after following due procedure laid down in the Section.
Case title - Abhishek Awasthi @ Bholu Awasthi vs. State of UP and Another along with connected matters
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 732
The Allahabad High Court has observed that when a challenge lies to the entire proceeding of a case registered under the SC/ST Act, the High Court could entertain the case under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the end of justice.
The Court held that there could be no hard and fast rule regarding the interference of the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction, and it may if it finds that by interfering in a particular case, it can prevent the misuse or abuse of the Court or law, always so interfere.
Case Title: Smt. Krishnawati v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 12642 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 733
While deciding a case related to retiral dues of a deceased government employee, the Allahabad High Court has held that no cause had been given by the state for an inordinate delay from 2005 in making the payment and that this was actually caused by the “apathy” of the respondents.
The Court held that the state is liable to pay an interest of 8% per annum on such dues which had not been disbursed due to its own .
Case Title: Shahid Hussain v. Board of Revenue U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - B No. - 2398 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 734
While deciding a case under the U.P. Abolition of Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Allahabad High Court has held that where possession of land was acquired by an agreement of sale, adverse possession cannot not be availed to claim ownership of the property.
Case Title: Agmotech Fabrics Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1757 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 735
While deciding a case relating to Input Tax Credit, the Allahabad High Court has held that a quasi-judicial body must provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before imposing liability on them.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that as per the doctrine of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well), such orders cannot be passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to make present their case. It was held that documents relied upon by the authorities while passing orders must be provided to party who is being held liable.
Case Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sec. Edu. Lko. And Others [WRIT - A No. - 11061 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 736
While hearing a principal's plea–whose earlier suspension was quashed in a writ petition, and who was subsequently suspended again, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that non-passing of a formal order of reinstatement after quashing of suspension order does not disentitle the employer from placing the employee under suspension again.
The Court held that suspension does not remove the employer-employee relationship between the parties. Consequently, the act of passing a formal order of reinstatement would amount to an empty formality. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel had neither in the arguments nor in the plea had indicated anywhere as to the prejudice that may have been caused to the petitioner on account of non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement after the earlier suspension order was quashed.
Case Title: M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 737
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the High Court has directed the assesee to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.
Counsel for petitioner argued that notice and demand under Section 79 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which it approached the High Court. The then Division Bench relegated the petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 85 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 738
While entertaining an Income Tax Appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained without establishing a perversity with the fact finding of the Tribunal.
“In the instant appeal the department has only challenged the fact finding off the Tribunal. A catena of Supreme Court judgments have concluded that in relation to facts, no substantial question of law would arise unless the finding of fact is perverse,” held the division bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit.
Case Title: M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Goods and Service Tax Authorities to not take action for any assessment year in which the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities have already taken action.
Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the actions taken by the State and Central GST Authorities for the same assessment year, 2017-18. It was argued that once State GST Authorities had completed assessment proceedings under Section 74, the Central GST Authorities could not have issued notice for the assessment year.
Case title - Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 532 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 740
The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case, noting that he had not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents before the trial court, which granted him the relief.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized that one of the crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be carefully evaluated. Therefore, if the accused has a history of criminal behaviour, whether explained or not, it could significantly impact the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr. [WRIT - C No. - 28196 of 2023]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 741
The Allahabad High Court directed the District of Jaunpur to pay an ex-panel advocate the outstanding fees they owed him. A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the district was required to compensate the advocate for all the cases where he received notices and appeared before the Court.
By letter dated 16.05.2013, the petitioner was engaged as a panel advocate for Gaon Sabhas in the Varanasi Division of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The said division includes the districts of Varanasi, Ghazipur, Jaunpur and Chandauli. Upon removal from the panel on 27.12.2019, the petitioner raised his professional bills for the cases in which he represented the Gaon Sabhas.
Allahabad High Court Flags Trend Of Filing PILs Without Due Research, Upholds 75K Cost On Litigant
Case Title: Ashish Kumar v. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj and 6 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1024 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 742
While upholding the cost of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the Single Judge in a PIL under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that more Public Interest Litigations are being filed to wreck vengeance on parties rather than for public cause.
In doing so the Court also observed that the PILs were being filed without due research and based on incomplete facts.
Case Title: Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari vs State of UP and others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 743
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a PIL plea seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe under the chairmanship of a retired HC judge into the alleged involvement of the Uttar Pradesh government, its administrative officials, including the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP), in the violence that erupted in Sambhal earlier this week.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary allowed the withdrawal of the PIL plea filed by Varanasi-based Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari, noting that the State Government has already formed a judicial inquiry commission to probe into the incident of violence.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To IIT-BHU Student Gangrape Accused In UP Gangsters Act Case
Case Title: Saksham Patel vs State of UP
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 744
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man booked under the UP Gangsters Act, who is one of the accused in the notorious gangrape case involving a 20-year-old student from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) – Banaras Hindu University (BHU).
The accused, Saksham Patel, an alleged member of the BJP IT Cell, was arrested in December last year, and he has been in jail since then.
Case title - Mohd Haroon vs. State of U.P
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 745
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a practising advocate from Hamirpur district, who had been convicted earlier this year by a trial court and sentenced to four years in prison for 'stalking' a woman judge and making inappropriate comments about her.
While hearing his revision plea against the judgment of conviction, a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra granted bail to Mohd. Haroon, considering the nature of the offence, his imprisonment since July 2023, and the fact that his plea is not likely to be decided early due to the pendency of backlog cases.
Case Title: Utkarsh Tripathi v. United Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Thru. Vice Chancellor And Others [WRIT - C No. - 10105 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 746
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a 5th year law student who was suspended without being informed the charges or allegations against him, by permitting him to appear in the end semester examination.
Stating that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the Clause 7.14 of the Code of Conduct of The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Justice Manish Mathur held,
“In the present, since no specific charge or allegation has even been served upon the petitioner, there obviously cannot be any reply submitted by petitioner in the absence of any specific charge or allegation. Students cannot be expected to imagine a charge and then subsequently, reply to same.”
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 747
The Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings in a rape case involving allegations against an Indian Army Naik. The Court noted that the victim, a major and prudent woman who is a journalist, had initially come into contact with the accused through a matrimonial site and subsequently entered into a relationship with him.
The Court also factored in the statement of a hotel manager, who categorically stated that the victim and the accused had visited a hotel together, introducing themselves as friends.
Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Thomas T. Kurian [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 748
While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.
“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case title - Tripta Tyagi vs State of UP
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 749
The Allahabad High Court denied anticipatory bail to a 60-year-old teacher and principal of Muzaffarnagar's Neha Public School (Tripta Tyagi), who has been accused of asking her students to slap a Muslim student and uttering communal slurs against him.
A bench of Justice Deepak Verma, however, directed no coercive action against her for two weeks or until she surrenders before the concerned Court seeking regular bail, whichever is earlier.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawab, Noida and Anr. v. M/s Sampark Management Consultancy LLP [INCOME TAX APPEAL
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Allahabad High Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in a case where no perversity can be shown in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for an appeal to be filed before the High Court against the decision of an Appellate Tribunal.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v Sushil Kumar Sharma [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 86 of 2024]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 751
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that only on account of purported infraction of the Agreement between the FRB and the assessee, without there being any dispute regarding the amount collected by the assessee which, in turn, has been deposited with the FRB, the deposits in the bank account of assessee cannot be termed as unexplained cash deposits by the assessee,” held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Case Title: Rama Kant and Ors. v. Smt. Prema Devi and Ors. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 112 of 2023]
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 752
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in a suit for Specific Performance, the party filing has to necessarily show that they are, or have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract before pursuing such a direction.
“...a decree of specific performance of contract can not be passed unless the person, who prays for a decree for specific performance of contact, proves that he has performed or always ready and willing to perform the essential terms and conditions of the contract, which were to be performed by him, therefore, it is sine qua non for grant of a decree of specific performance of contract.It has to be determined on the basis of entirety of facts, relevant circumstances and the intention and conduct of the parties and financial capacity of the party,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar while referring to Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Case title - Piyush Shyamdasani vs. State of U.P along with connected cases
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 753
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of 5 accused persons, who were found guilty by trial court and sentenced to Life imprisonment in connection with the 2014 Kanpur's Jyoti Shyamdasani murder case. The persons convicted included the deceased's husband.
The Court, however, acquitted the 6th accused, the alleged lover of the deceased's husband, who was accused of being a part of the entire murder conspiracy.
Case title - Halkaee Ahirwar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 754
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to one Halkaee Ahirwar, who has been accused of committing gang rape against a 14-year-old girl in April this year and making viral a video of the entire incident.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav rejected his bail plea, emphasizing that the victim is an 'innocent' 14-year-old girl and that the alleged offence committed by the applicant is of a very serious and heinous nature towards the society.
Alternative Remedy Precludes Writ Petition In Gratuity Dispute: Allahabad HC
Case Name: Mahendra Singh Kanwal v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 755
A single judge consisting of Justice Abdul Moin dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226. The writ petitioner disputed an order that denied him gratuity for his years of work as a daily wager.
The Court noted that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act') is statutorily designated to resolve such gratuity related disputes that require factual enquiries.
Holding that such remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ court, the high court refused to intervene. Instead, it directed the petitioner move the Controlling Authority.
Case Title: M/s Laxmi Telecom v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 756
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee cannot file for the supply of requisite documents after the adjudicating body has accepted the plea placed by them and issued notice pursuant to it. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the same would be impermissible, especially in a case where statutory appeal was available to the filing party.
Case title - Pradeep Kumar vs. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 757
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the appointment of a man as a judge (HJS Cadre), nearly seven years after he was initially denied the position due to allegations of espionage.
Petitioner Pradeep Kumar, who had been accused of spying for Pakistan in 2002, was acquitted in a trial in 2014 (the trial started in 2004); however, despite his final selection in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination in 2016, he was denied the appointment letter.
Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 19382 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 758
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court expressed concern that litigants are being deprived of relief in courts due to ongoing lawyer strikes, despite the availability of statutory remedies for their grievances.
“I am afraid to know that the litigants are not getting justice from courts of law despite there being statutory remedy available and are compelled to apply to this Court only for the reason that there is strike by the lawyers in the concerned district,” a bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed.
Case Title: Janhvi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 3887 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 759
The Allahabad High Court ordered the appointment of a woman as Civil Judge, after it found that she was denied the post in UPPSC (J) Examination 2018, due to calculation error in her marks.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also took into account her young age (33 years) and directed that her appointment shall operate at the seniority position on which she would have been, had she been awarded the marks at the time of examination.
Case Title: Rafat Naaz and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 6031 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 760
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not necessary for an applicant to provide a succession certificate if a nomination exists to their name, while making an application for death-cum-retiral benefits of a deceased government employee.
“…once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reasons for the respondents or any employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records. It is for the other person, not so nominated to establish his/her claim through suit,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Dish TV India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and 2 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1953 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 761
The Allahabad High Court has held that an assesse claiming refund of excess TDS (tax deduction at source) is not required to fill Form 26B under the Income Tax Rules once Form 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been issued to them.
“A perusal of the Rules would reveal that Form 26B is required to filled up if the assessee claims refund paid under Chapter XXVII-B of the Act, 1961. The Stage of requirement of filling up the Form 26B was long over in the year 2008-09 itself and the present refund was being sought by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020, which did not require filling up any form, as claimed by the respondents, and as such, the demand made has no sanction in law”, held Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.
Case title - Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 762
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle-class family to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while partly allowing a wife's criminal revision plea challenging an order passed by a Family court under Section 125 CrPC, directing her husband (opposite party) to grant her interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month.
Case Title: Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 18692 of 2022]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 763
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Neeraj Tiwari of the Allahabad High Court has held that a government employee cannot be removed from service for not disclosing that an F.I.R. was filed against them, if they themselves were not aware of the fact.
“This Court is also of the same view that in case at the time of filing of affidavit before submission of joining, candidate is having no knowledge of pendency of any criminal case ad at any point of time, case is found registered against him, he cannot be held guilty for concealment of fact, no action for termination or dismissal of service can be taken against him”, held Justice Neeraj Tiwari.
Case title - Nikita Singhania And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 764
The Allahabad High Court allowed transit anticipatory bail for 4 weeks to Sushil Singhania, the uncle of the estranged wife of 34-year-old Bangalore techie Atul Subhash, in connection with the abetment to suicide case.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava noted that denying interim protection to enable him to make a pre-arrest bail application before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction would result in irremediable and irreversible prejudices to him.
Case title - Anaya Health Centre And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 765
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur for defying the earlier order of the High Court and denying renewal of license of running medical establishment despite a temporary injunction by the Civil Court.
Observing that the CMO had overreached the earlier order passed by the High Court in the same dispute, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“What is inexcusable in the facts of the present case is that the impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order (passed by this Court), but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner, prior to that judicial order. Once, the order of the writ Court had been served on the CMO, Saharanpur, it was his bounden duty to make firm compliance of the same. It was not for him to look the other way or to abide by a wrong administrative command, given by a superior administrative authority.”
Case Title: Arshad Hussain v. Shahneela Nishat
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 766
The Allahabad High Court granted a decree of divorce to a Muslim couple who had filed for divorce by mutual agreement through a Mubaarat.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Asbi K.N. v Hashim M.U. to hold that where the authenticity of the mutual nature of the Mubaarat had been verified, the Courts were not to investigate further and simply grant the divorce.
Case Title: Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu and Anr. v. District Magistrate and 2 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 33687 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 767
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction sought under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would be subject to the outcome of a suit pertaining to larger issues between the family members, if such suit is filed prior to the application made for eviction under the Act of 2007.
The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that while the order for eviction was subject to the outcome of the previous suit, the protection granted under it must not be defeated.
Case title - Mohammad Kashif vs. Directorate Enforcement Special Task Force Government Of India Pravartan Bhawan Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 768
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to one Mohammad Kashif, booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, on the allegations that he duped people financially by flaunting on social media morphed images with ministers, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Denying him the relief, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal noted that the alleged recovery of huge amount of money and other related documents and articles corroborate his deeds and that there is nothing credible to overcome the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002.
Case title - Pathan Rashid Ahmad vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 769
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man, in jail since October 2019, who allegedly conspired to kill Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari in 2019 over his alleged remark made against Prophet Muhammad.
Granting bail to Accused-Pathan Rashid Ahmad, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that he has no criminal history apart from the instant case and that he always cooperated with the investigation and undertook to join the trial proceedings. The court also noted that there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Case title - Association Of Protection Of Civil Rights vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 770
The Allahabad High Court consigned to record a PIL plea seeking an independent probe into the alleged police atrocities during the Sambhal violence, noting that the State Government had already formed a judicial inquiry commission to investigate the incident, which is currently handling the matter.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal that any person conversant with relevant facts can submit his evidence before the Enquiry Commission.
Case Title: M/S NS Papers Limited And Another v. Union Of India Through Secretary And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 408 of 2021]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 771
The Allahabad High Court has held that the resolution applicant cannot be burdened with new claims after approval of a resolution plan.
The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that the principle underlying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to give a fresh start to the successful resolution applicant. It held that any action obstructing the aforementioned principle is illegal and beyond the 'Lakshman Rekha' of the Code.
Case Title: Kajal Kumari v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 7793 OF 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 772
The Allahabad High Court has held if an application for compassionate appointment is made beyond the permissible limit of 5 years, it is not up to the appointing authority to consider the matter.
Justice J.J. Munir held that as per Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the application was to be placed before the State, who would then adjudicate on it.
Case Title: The Yog Satsanga Samiti Through Its Director/ General v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41969 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 773
Noting the increase in since of Kumbh Mela, the Allahabad High Court has held that there is no vested right to allotment of a particular land in the Maha Kumbh Mela area only because they may have been allotted the same in previous years.
Case title - Vikas Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 774
The Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict in an appeal filed against the acquittal of rebel Samajwadi Party MLA Abhay Singh in connection with the 2010 attempt-to-murder case. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for nomination of a fresh bench.
While Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi sentenced five of the accused, including Abhay Singh, to three years of imprisonment in connection with the 2010 case, Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, on the other hand, dismissed the appeal and upheld the sessions court's 2023 Judgment acquitting all the accused.
Case Title: Shivansh Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1076 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 775
The Allahabad High Court, relying on its earlier decisions, has held that medical evaluation carried out by experts should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction solely on the basis of the subsequent reports brought forth by the parties.
The bench Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that
“where recruitment process has been carried out as per the prescribed procedure whereunder the medical fitness of candidates has been tested by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by the appellant- petitioner on the basis of some subsequent report procured by him from another medical practitioner.”
Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal, ED Proceedings Initiated Against Indiabulls & Its Officials
Case Title: Niraj Tyagi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10893 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 776
The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the borrower, Shipra Group, and the Enforcement Directorate against the Indiabulls Group and its officials as arbitral proceedings pursuant to the loan agreements are already underway, a fact which was suppressed by the informant.
Case Title: Jagdish v. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari and Ors. [WRIT – B No. 9423 of 1984]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 777
While allowing a 40 year old writ petition, the Allahabad High Court has held that consolidation proceedings in the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be overruled on the ground of non-registration of adoption deed when such deed was executed prior to 01.01.1977.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held that the same could not be countenanced, especially when the adoption papers were already verified by the Consolidation Officer.
Case Title: Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 16406 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 778
The Allahabad High Court has held that an application for compassionate employment cannot be decided by the management of the institution where the deceased government employee worked. It was held that such application must be placed before District Inspector of Schools for decision.
Justice J.J. Munir referred to Regulations of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 to hold that
“The Regulations aforesaid envisage a complete scheme for compassionate appointment and the power to select a candidate on compassionate ground does not at all vest with the Management of the Institution, where the deceased employee was serving.”
Case Title: Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 43025 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 779
The Allahabad High Court has held that remedies under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall continue to be available to an applicant wishing to file a revision against a decree in a suit filed prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
“Any repealing law which repeals an earlier law shall not affect the remedies available to a party which were available to the party on the date when the suit was filed. It would continue to be in existence for the litigant just as it was available to him or her on the date of filing the lis. A vested right to go to a higher Court can be taken away by a subsequent enactment if the latter expressly provides or a bare reading of it shows that the right of going to a higher Court as per the earlier law had been by a necessary intendment taken away”, held the division bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar.
Case Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Shri Askari Hussain and 6 Ors. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 901 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 780
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a matter is placed for reference before a third member, it is the job of the referring member to just opine on the issues raised for reference. Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that in such a case, it was not up to the referring member to resolve the entire matter themselves.
Referring to the Consumer Protection Act, the Court held that
“In terms of the proviso of Section 58(3), the powers of the President or the other member to whom the points have been referred for opinion can only delve and decide on those questions alone, he cannot act as a 3rd member to decide the lis.”
Case Title: Smt. Munni Devi v. Smt. Shashikala Pandey [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15798 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 781
While dealing with a case under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court has observed a judge of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge is expected not only to apply his judicial mind but also deal with the arguments of the parties before returning any findings.
Holding that revision is to be treated as an appeal where remedy of appeal is not specifically available, Justice Ajit Kumar held
“From a judge in the rank of Addl. District and Sessions Judge it is expected that he would not only apply his judicial mind to issues raised but also be dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties very meticulously to arrive at findings which would be reflecting a sound judicial approach of a varied and wide experience of such a judicial officer.”
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra And 3 Others v. State Of U. P. And 10 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1020 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 782
Discussing Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal is remanded back to the original Court for any reason, the Appellate Court ought to grant a certificate of authorization to the appellant to receive back the full court fees paid along with the memorandum of appeal.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“Section 13 casts an obligation upon the appellate court to grant a certificate to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fees paid on the memorandum of appeal and the proviso restricts such right to the extent of the amount originally paid.”
Case title - State of U.P. through Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow and ors vs. Vashistha Muni Mishra
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 783
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali & Justice Jaspreet Singh held that an employee appointed under the Special Sugar Fund cannot be regarded as a government servant, as the appointment was not made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Department Drivers Service Rules, 1984.
Case Title: Jai Bhagwan v. State Of Up And 6 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1911 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 784
While disposing of a public interest litigation pertaining to illegal leasing of land belonging to schools, the Allahabad High Court has directed that school's farm land cannot be leased out without a reasoned decision by the Committee of the concerned school.
The Committee to be constituted must include Gram Pradhan or Nagar Palika Adhyaksha as President and a person nominated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, above the rank of Naib Tehsildar and Principal of concerned School as its Members, the court said.
Case title - Ramesh Yadav vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 785
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a relationship between brother-in-law and sister-in-law (jija and sali) is immoral; however, if the woman is a major, the said relationship doesn't attract the offence of rape.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while granting bail to an accused (Jija) who was booked under Sections 366, 376, 506 IPC on the allegation that he enticed away his sister-in-law (wife's sister/saali) under the false promise to perform marriage with her.
Case Title: Samrah Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7076 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 786
While dealing with dispute regarding appointment on various posts in U.P. Jal Nigam, the Allahabad High Court has held that Associate Professors of Institutes of Technology are not experts recognized under the Information and Technology Act, 2000 for the purposes of examination of electronic evidence.
Case title - Mahendra Prasad vs. Smt. Bindu Devi
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 787
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a 'free-willed' wife's acts of travelling alone or interacting with members of civil society without engaging in any illegal or immoral relationships cannot be considered an act of cruelty against her husband.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, however, added that a wife's conduct of only seeking to keep alive a legal fiction of her marriage, without any reason to keep alive that relationship, and refusing to cohabit with her husband may amount to cruelty against the husband.