NOMINAL INDEX Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299 M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300 Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301 Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
ORDERS/JUDGMENT OF THE WEEK
Case title - Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12409 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The High Court has observed that a delay in the conclusion of the proceedings/trial should not be the reason for the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it quashed an order of the Trial Court wherein an application moved under Section 311 CrPC was rejected noting that the case had been pending for a substantial amount of time.
Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
The High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas.
It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.
Case title - Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3265 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The High Court has observed that the work of a Court can not be brought to a grinding halt on account of the fact that the elections of a registered society are to be held.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the Bar Association is not established to obstruct the functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions.
Case title - Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
In a significant remark, the High Court has said that an advocate should not give such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any other reason why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a civil review application wherein the advocate concerned advised his client to take a chance by filing the instant review application after a period of six years.
OTHER UPDATES FROM THE HC
Gang Rape Convict Who Underwent Over 20 Years Of Imprisonment Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title - Collector And Another Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5815 of 2007]
The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to one 'Collector' who underwent over 20 yrs in jail after being convicted for the offence of Gang Rape.
It was the convict's primary submission that since he has already undergone over 20 years of imprisonment and thus, in view of SC's ruling in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), he is entitled to be released on bail.