NOMINAL INDEX Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2 Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3 M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4 M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official...
NOMINAL INDEX
Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3
M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8
M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13
M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30
M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34
XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53
M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56
M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58
M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5804 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The Allahabad High Court has asked a rape victim seeking compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 to approach the District Legal Service Authority.
While clarifying the procedure for rape victims for claiming compensation, Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that “the 'eligibility' of the victim for grant of compensation and quantum thereof can only be decided by the D.L.S.A. The court concerned can only make a 'recommendation'. It falls within the jurisdiction of D.L.S.A. to decide whether the 'claim' falls within the parameter of the scheme of 2014 or not. The role of the court, in such circumstances is formal and no more”
Case title - Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The Allahabad High Court has mandated that individuals facing the possibility of character certificate cancellation due to criminal antecedents must be given a show cause or hearing opportunity.
Emphasizing the importance of due process and fair treatment in such matters, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla read Clause-4 of the Government Order dated April 10, 2023, to include therein (on implied basis) that the Character Certificate cancellation action may be taken after issuance of show cause notice to the concerned citizen within one week from the date of receipt of information as to registration/pendency of criminal case.
The court's interpretation suggests that the proposed action to cancel a Character Certificate under Clause-4 should only proceed after issuing a show cause notice to the citizen within one week of receiving information about the registration or pendency of a criminal case.
“Notice may be served on the citizen within two weeks thereafter. The notice citizen may be granted two weeks therefrom to furnish his reply. A short date for a hearing may be fixed within a further period of two weeks therefrom and appropriate order may be passed in terms of Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 10.4.2023, thereafter.”
Case title - Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3
In a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of a wife against her sisters-in-law (accused) for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court granted relief to the accused as it noted that they are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while allowing a revision plea challenging the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gorakhpur rejecting the discharge application of the accused (sisters-in-law) filed under Section 245 CrPC.
“The court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication, as these are married sisters-in-law of the complainant who are stated to have been living at far away place during the period when offence of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry was practised against the complainant,” the Court noted as it directed the Magistrate to consider their discharge plea afresh.
Case Title: M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1390 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ court should not interfere in notice issued under Section 73 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established.
Petitioner challenged the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 (Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the reply filed by the petitioner. The notice under Section 73 was preceded by a notice under Section 61 (1) of the UPGST Act which provides that
“The proper officer may scrutinize the return and related particulars furnished by the registered person to verify the correctness of the return and inform him of the discrepancies noticed, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed and seek his explanation thereto.”
Case Title: M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 790 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and Another to hold that a fresh auction cannot not be held merely on the possibility of receiving higher offers.
While setting aside order of the Company Judge calling for fresh auction at higher reserve price, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“In the present case, it is not in dispute that auction notice was widely published. None has otherwise come forward Company Judge raising a grievance that the auction was not widely circulated or anyone was prevented from submitting his bid. No higher bid was otherwise placed before the Company Judge. No infirmity is otherwise shown in the publication of auction notice or the conduct of auction. It is in this backdrop that we are not inclined to concur with the view taken by learned Company Judge in ignoring the highest bid submitted by the appellant and direct holding of a fresh bid in the matter.”
Case title - Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the pleas filed by two persons challenging their detention under the National Security Act (NSA) on the allegations of burning copies of Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas and insulting the text.
In its order, a division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed that the public display of disrespect towards the Ramcharitmanas, which is considered to be a sacred scripture of the majority community, during broad daylight, is likely to provoke strong sentiments and anger within the society.
“In the case at hand, the manner in which the petitioner along with his associates, in a public place, in broad daylight, insulted the religious text Ramcharit Manas related to the events of the life of Lord Ram, worshipped by the majority section of the society as per their religious beliefs and faith, is bound to generate resentment and anger in the society, a scenario of religious frenzy and anger spreading in the society, especially in the present situation where almost every person of the society is connected with mobile phone and social media,” the Court observed.
Case title - Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court has observed that firing a pistol in self-defence does not violate license conditions. With this, the Court ordered the release of a pistol in favour of the applicant, who had been charge-sheeted under Sections 286, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act 1959.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on an application moved under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow wherein the applicant's application for release of pistol, 4 live cartridges and pistol license had been rejected.
Case title - Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cognizance of an offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code can be taken by a court only on a written complaint of the concerned Court (which issued the proclamation) and the Police have no power to lodge an FIR in such cases.
For context, Section 174A IPC, which was introduced in 2005, criminalises the non-appearance of proclaimed offenders at the specified place and time.
In brief, as per HC's ruling, cognizance of the offence under Section 174A IPC can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 CrPC against the accused.
Case Title: M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1400 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill without any other material establishing an intention to evade tax will not attract a penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Placing reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others, the judgment of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that
“Upon perusal of the judgments, the principle that emerges is that the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to the imposition of penalty.”
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7791 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court held that under Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, there is no requirement of prior notice to tenant for filing an eviction application before the rent Authority under the Act, if the eviction is for personal use of the tenanted premises.
Distinguishing the procedure under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 from the Act of 2021, Justice Alok Mathur held,
“According to sub section 2 (m) of Section 21 the landlord has only to demonstrate that the premises are required for his occupation. This provision is clearly distinguishable from the provisions in erstwhile Act No.13 of 1972 where the aspect of comparative hardship and bonafide requirement was to be established by the landlord.”
Case title - Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11 [WRIT - C No. - 9336 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the UP Government. This action was taken as the Standing Counsel, seemingly unprepared, wasted 10 minutes of 'precious' judicial time while presenting arguments in a writ matter.
Justice Abdul Moin issued the order, marking the third instance on a single day (January 8) where the Court came down heavily on Standing Counsels for their inability to effectively assist the court in the matters before it. Read details of two other orders here and here.
In the instant case, after the matter had been argued for around 10 minutes, the Court went through the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the judgements as cited by counsel for the petitioner and noted the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel prayed for some time to study the matter.
Case Title: Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5914 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 243(2) of the CrPC, the Magistrate is under an obligation to not compel re-appearances of prosecution witnesses already examined by the accused unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
While dealing with the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for summoning defence witnesses, Justice Jyotsna Sharma held that the witnesses who have already put in appearance at the time of prosecution evidence and have been cross-examined by the accused should not be summoned again unless the Magistrate is satisfied that summoning such witnesses is essential for meeting the ends of justice.
The Court further observed that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be sparingly used. The Court observed,
“Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected.”
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 13121 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a primary school teacher as it was based on forged documents.
The bench comprising of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that “a person such as petitioner, who has procured appointment as Teacher on basis of forged educational documents, cannot be entitled for any sympathy and he is required to be dealt with strictly.”
The Court held
“It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Petitioner has not submitted any document which could contradict the findings returned by Inquiry Officer as well as by disciplinary authority that forged educational documents were provided by petitioner at the time of his appointment.”
Case Title: M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1507 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the registration of the assesee is cancelled, any notice for proceedings under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall be served on the address of the assesee. The Court observed that merely uploading notice on the web portal without any intimation to the assesee will vitiate any subsequent action as being bad in law.
Elaborating on the need for judicious application of the principle of audi alteram partem in legal and administrative proceedings, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“In the present case, when the petitioner had cancelled its registration in the year 2019, a proper notice was required to be issued to it under Section 74 of the Act at its address. However, the authorities simply uploaded the Section 74 show cause notice on the web portal inspite of knowing that the petitioner had already cancelled its registration prior to the date of issuance of the show cause notice. This action clearly prevented the petitioner from appearing in the hearing in the original proceeding under Section 74 of the Act that was accordingly passed ex parte.”
Case title - Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Reading Sections 154 & 155 of CrPC conjointly, the Allahabad High Court has observed that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR.
This includes not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence, extending even to police officers themselves, the Court added.
“The universality of the authority to lodge an F.I.R. is a foundational principle ensuring that the criminal justice system remains accessible to those with information about potential criminal acts. This inclusivity empowers informants comprising victims, eyewitnesses, and even law enforcement officers to initiate the process, fostering a collaborative and comprehensive approach to crime reporting,” a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.
Case title - Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court observed that a stray statement made by any person by calling someone 'mad', may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, the same doesn't constitute an offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).
A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner, in a complaint case, for an offence under Section 504 IPC for allegedly calling the complainant a 'mad person'.
“…it appears that it was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace,” the Court remarked.
Case Title: Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3046 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried daughter has the right to obtain maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, irrespective of her religion and age if she falls within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act.
The Court held that a person seeking only maintenance has recourse under other laws. However, if a person is “aggrieved” as per the Act, then independent right is available to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“In my view the legislature, while enacting this Act had this realization in mind that though existing provision of law provide for rights of maintenance to eligible persons, however the procedural delays defeat the very purpose,” observed Justice Jyotsna Sharma.
Case title - Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.
A Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan granted bail to Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly stated in an interview on a YouTube channel that it is desirable to kill Rizvi by uttering words - Katl Wajib Hai (it is desirable to kill).
Case Title: Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has power to determine market value of the land at the time of execution of sale deed or period reasonably proximate thereto.
While dealing with challenge to proceedings under the Stamp Act, 1899, Justice Abdul Moin relied on the full bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. and others and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P. and others to hold that
“the market value of the land would have got nothing to do with the circle rates inasmuch as it is the determination of the Collector which would determine the market value of the land along with some material which may have a direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic value on the basis of which he can come to a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been correctly indicated in the instrument/sale deed.”
Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [WRIT - A No. - 11483 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court reiterated the position settled by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) that a nominee of a government employee is merely a custodian, however, any benefits that accrue after the death of such government employee can only be conferred upon his/her legal heirs.
Petitioner's ex-husband died after retiring as an Assistant Teacher at Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. Though the husband had wedded again, the petitioner's name was recorded as his nominee. Petitioner claimed entitlement to the retiral benefits based on her name being mentioned as his nominee and the fact that she was his wife for many years.
SARFAESI Act | Right Of Redemption Cannot Be Taken Away By Insufficient Notice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court has held that right of redemption under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an important right which cannot be taken away or breached by the authorities by insufficient notice.
While observing that it is settled law that service of notice upon the borrower is mandatory under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“Right of redemption is an important right available to a borrower, who is in default. Such important right cannot be taken away and any action taken in its breach cannot be approved of.”
Case title - Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1016 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person can move subsequent bail anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.
Noting that there is no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure on moving subsequent regular bail applications u/s 439 CrPC, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan held that there is no restriction on moving subsequent anticipatory bail applications if there is a change in circumstances.
Case title - Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23 [WRIT - C No. - 20596 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The Allahabad High Court directed the district magistrates posted at Haridwar (in Uttarakhand) and Bijnor (in Uttar Pradesh) districts to direct for the erection of pillars in their respective areas to demarcate the boundaries between the two states on January 23rd.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Gurpreet Singh (a resident of Bijnor district).
Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24 [WRIT - C No. - 18397 of 2018]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court held that the applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 depends upon the date on which the award is made and not on the date on which possession was taken over by the authorities.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 clearly mandates that where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of the new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply. The applicability of the said provision is not dependent upon the fact as to whether possession has been taken or not under the provisions of the old Act.”
Case Title: Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25 [WRIT TAX No. - 1524 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court has held that the seizure of a vehicle transporting goods affects the civil rights of the transporter as the truck is a capital asset of the transporter. The Court held that the transporter ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any penalty order against him.
While observing that the vehicle carrying the goods could be released under proviso-1 of Section 129 (6) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“Truck being the valuable property and a capital asset of the transporter which is utilised to generate revenue/ income, we perceive valuable civil right of the petitioner having being adversely affected exparte.”
Case title – Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation) if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence.
To hold thus, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Case title – Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10364 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court has observed that while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot examine the contention of the accused that he/she has been falsely implicated in the case.
“While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.
Case title – Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11379 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties.
“The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicant,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.
Case title – Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26217 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the proceedings of the base cases depicted in the gang chart are quashed or the accused has been acquitted, the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 are liable to be quashed.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted thus while hearing a plea moved by one Abdul Kadeer Khan under Section 482 CrPC assailing proceedings initiated against him under Sections 2/3 of the 1986 Act.
Case Title: Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30 [WRIT - C No. - 19866 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB)
The Allahabad High Court held that the Union Government is bound by the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention) as India is a signatory to the same. The Court held that the government cannot disbelieve Apostille documents issued by countries signatory to the Apostille Convention.
The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, also known as Apostille Convention, is an international treaty for abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents. It was brought in to replace the cumbersome process of certification of documents of one country by another. If two countries are signatories of the Apostille Convention, then documents issued by the government of one country are legally recognizable in the other country without any further need of verification.
Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31 [WRIT TAX No. - 937 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods. The appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 79 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification No.KANI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
The Department challenged the order of the Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 on grounds that the list in Entry 109 was exhaustive and did not include granite stone. It was argued that granite stone was unclassified and liable to be taxed at 14.5%.
Case title - Mohd. Arkam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2174 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Mohd. Arkam) who was arrested in September 2022 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (OFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted him bail as it noted that the trial in the case is still pending and there is no likelihood of it being completed soon coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal history to his name and thus, Section 43-D of the UAP Act is not attracted.
Case Title: Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34 [WRIT - C No. - 35732 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court has held that a negative report by the District Magistrate does not decide the claim for visa and citizenship. The Authorities have to decide the same based on merits, it said.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:
“The authorities vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim existing and the claim made being pending before them, we cannot shut out the case of the petitioner merely on the basis of the negative report submitted by the District Magistrate, at this stage.”
Case title - XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35
"...we are not living in a western country, where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens, We live in country, where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country," remarked Allahabad High Court while dismissing a habeas corpus plea filed by the purported lover of a girl (alleged detenue), who claimed that her family members had unlawfully confined her.
The Court also directed the petitioner (Ashish Kumar) to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/ [to be paid to the detenue "for damaging her image in the society"] as it noted that entertaining the petition would demolish the image and reputation of family members and the girl.
Case Title: Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 177 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the divorce granted by the Court below to a couple living separately for almost 13 years.
In the divorce petition filed by the husband, the Court below had decided the issue of dissertation against him. However, divorce was granted on grounds of mental cruelty inflicted by the wife on the husband.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that cruelty need not only be physical in nature. In case of mental cruelty, it may be impossible for the spouse to continue in the martial relationship.
Case Title: Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37 [WRIT - C No. - 1005250 of 1990]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Forest Corporation is an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employees working as 'mali' who are involved in systematic activities regarding forests are no casual employees.
The bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held,
“Considering the aforesaid judgments and also nature of the work involved in the present case where the workmen were working on the post of Mali and were involved in the task of plantation in the forest and distribution of forest produce, the said exercise was definitely a systematic activity and they have been working for four years continuously, it cannot be said that they were daily or casual employees engaged only intermittently.”
Case Title: Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [WRIT - C No. - 22011 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on how despite guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, banks are being allowed to charge higher rates of interest from their customers.
While dealing with a case regarding higher interest rate charged by Standard Chartered Bank without informing the petitioner, the bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed,
“Surprisingly, RBI had been issuing guidelines but has done nothing for the implementation of the same. They have just been a mute spectator allowing the banks to charge arbitrarily a very high rate of interest.”
Case title - Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1041 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
In an important assertion, the Allahabad High Court said that given the other remedies available for the purpose, under criminal and civil law, the exigence of a writ of habeas corpus at the behest of a husband to regain his wife would be rare and may not be available as a matter of course.
A bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava emphasized that such a writ may not be readily available and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances when a compelling case is presented.
“In a situation where the husband seeks to assert that the wife, without reasonable cause, is refusing to return to her matrimonial home, it would be open for him to seek the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the Court added.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another [WRIT - C No. - 17412 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court directed the University of Allahabad to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to a candidate who was otherwise eligible if the criteria had not been changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.
In a petition filed by a candidate seeking admission in second post graduate course in the University of Allahabad, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that since the eligibility criteria was changed after the petitioner had already applied, he cannot be non-suited for failing to meet the changed criteria.
Case title - Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 794 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court explained the difference between the scope of Section 311 CrPC [Power to summon material witness, or examine person present] and Section 233 CrPC [Entering upon defence] concerning the production of defence witnesses during the trial.
“Under section 311 CrPC, the power lies in the courts only and under section 233 CrPC, the right lies with the accused and the court's interference is limited,” the Court emphasized.
Case Title: Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - A No. - 5813 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that denial of pension by retrospectively applying the amended rule is a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
While restoring pension of retired members State Electricity Regulatory Commission as prescribed under the unamended Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Condition of Service of the Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2008, the bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The denial of payment of pension to the petitioner as per the un-amended Rules, 2008 and application of National Pension Scheme to the petitioners on account of the retrospective application of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008 as amended vide Rules, 2021 is absolutely arbitrary and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Section 89 (2) of the Act.”(Referring to Electricity Act, 2003).
Case title – Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court dismissed as 'infructuous' a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which sought to prohibit Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath from conducting the Ram Mandir Pran Prathishtha ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that since the Pran Prathishtha ceremony has already concluded, the PIL plea has been rendered infructuous.
The PIL plea, filed by 79-year-old Bhola Das, prayed that the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh be refrained from taking part in the Pran-Pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya until the conclusion of the 2024 parliamentary elections and until they obtain consent from all Sanatan Dharm Guru Shankaracharya.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44 [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. 874 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the power to modify an award. The Court held that though parts of an award can be severed and set aside, provided such severance does not affect the remaining award.
“Reduction of interest is nothing but a modification of the original arbitration award, and accordingly, the same is illegal and against the principles established by the Supreme Court,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf relying on the decision of Supreme Court in on Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India and others.
Case Title: Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45 [WRIT - C No. - 15864 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to pay additional compensation of Rs. 5,26,000 against the medical bill vouchers of mother-son duo who suffered acid attack injuries.
The bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“It has been well established from the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 1051 and Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 that medical grant is a fundamental right under the sweep of Article 21 which relates to Right to Life and Personal Liberty of all persons living in India.”
Case title - Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court observed that a husband is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife u/s 125 CrPC even if has no income from his job and he can earn Rs. 350-400 per day as an unskilled labour.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805 wherein it was held that a husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Section 107 Of CGST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47 [WRIT TAX No. - 291 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
“The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 777 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The Allahabad High Court has held that there cannot be any suppression as to information about conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case by any candidate seeking employment. The Court held that if there is any suppression of fact regarding criminal history, it can lead to cancellation of candidature or termination from service.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwaria, the bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“From considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) it can be concluded that the information given to the employer by a candidate as to the conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case whether before or after entering into the service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Any contravention made by the candidate shall cause cancellation of his candidature, dismissal from service if already appointed.”
Case Title: M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49 [WRIT TAX No. - 4 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before passing of any adverse order, such as imposing tax or penalty, opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.
UPGST | Burden To Prove Intention To Evade Tax Lies Solely On Department: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court held that the burden to prove intention to evade tax lies solely on the Department. The Court held penalties in tax laws should not be imposed solely on insignificant technical errors which do not have any financial consequences.
The Court held that penalties should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence to show that an assesee is deliberately trying to defraud the system and not in cases of unintentional mistakes.
Commercial Tax | Allahabad High Court Upholds Condonation Of 1365 Days Delay On Sufficient Cause
Case Title: M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 302 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has upheld condonation of delay of 1365 days by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in filing of appeal as it was sufficiently explained by the authorities.
Revisionist-assesee approached the High Court against order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal condoning the delay of 1365 days on part of the Department in filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Anil Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow to argue that inordinate delay cannot be condoned on wholly vague and generic grounds.
Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. 407 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court directed the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the time during which an applicant/plaintiff prosecutes a case in a court without jurisdiction shall be excluded from the computation of limitation provided the same is done with bonafide intention.
Case Title: Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1951 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Expressing alarm over a petition concerning continuous strike in Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia, the Allahabad High Court remarked,
“In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the cry stronger and their sleep against call for justice turning into a deep slumber, so long as the saviours of justice, i.e. the lawyers and the Judges, do not come for rescue of the victims of injustice.”
Case Title: M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54 [WRIT TAX No. - 1188 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance to consider extending the benefit of extension of time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to orders passed under Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, issued Notification No. 53/23- Central Tax dated 2nd November 2023, extending the time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act till January 31, 2024 for orders passed under Section 73 and 74.
Case title - Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21858 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55
The Allahabad High Court has observed that acts like fabricating the document or misappropriating funds do not form part of the official duty of a public servant to claim protection under Section 197 of CrPC.
For context, Section 197 CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also opined that in cases where there exists even a minor uncertainty regarding whether a public servant's action or omission falls within the purview of official duty, the determination of this issue should be reserved for trial proceedings based on evidence.
“Unless that issue was decided on the basis of evidence during the trial, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., mainly because a person claiming himself to be a public servant alleges that his act was in discharge of his official duty,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 637 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56
In a case involving large number of fake “ODs” in Amity University, the Allahabad High Court has held that when enquiry proceedings are being held against large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold a detailed enquiry against every individual involved.
“OD” is the attendance earned by students by participating in trainings, seminars, workshops or other extra-curricular activities. It is an online system and ODs can only be granted using login-id and password of the faculty involved.
The bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“It is now well settled that violation of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula but depends on facts of each case. Where enquiry is not against any particular individual but broad based and involves a large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold detailed enquiry against each individual. If on examination of facts, it emerges that a fair procedure has been adopted without causing any material prejudice to any person then the courts have declined to interfere.”
Case Title: M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57 [WRIT TAX No. – 276 0f 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to impose penalty on the assesee.
The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“At its core, a show cause notice represents the initial step in an administrative or legal process, wherein an individual or entity is formally apprised of allegations or discrepancies attributed to them. This notice serves as a mechanism to afford the recipient an opportunity to present their side of the story, provide clarifications, or rectify any perceived errors before any punitive action is taken.”
Case Title: Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1391 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court has held that grounds under Section 11 (Void Marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are very different from grounds under Section 12 (Voidable Marriages) and thus, a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.
The Court held that a marriage performed in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act is void and cannot be cured or ratified. However, in case of a voidable marriage, declaration is necessary, otherwise the marriage continues to subsist.
The bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“Needless to point out that a void marriage is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place and such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio can be sought under Section 11 of the Act on the grounds as provided therein whereas a voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. Unless the decree is granted, the lis remains binding and continues to subsist.”
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59 [Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere technical errors under tax laws without any financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties.
While dealing with the case of goods not accompanying e-way bill, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not be the grounds for imposition of penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where penalties are proportionate to the gravity of the offense. In the realm of taxation, imposition of penalty serves as a critical measure to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations.”
Case title - Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) granted interim bail to Ghosi MP Atul Rai on medical grounds until March 22 noting that he is suffering from a “life-threatening” ailment and hence, needs immediate redressal.
Stressing that no matter how serious an offence is, the health condition of a human being is paramount, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan directed that Rai be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs.
“The custody during the period of trial cannot be termed to be punitive in nature. The health concern of a person in custody has to be taken care of by the State and is to be keenly watched and evaluated by the judiciary. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively medically treated even if he is under trial or a convict,” the Court remarked.
Case Title: Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12595 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court has held that a judge appointed in individual capacity by name acts as a persona designata but when he is appointed by his designation alone, he acts as a Court.
The Court held that the test to determine whether appointment is made as a persona designata or not is to see if the person has been appointed by “his name alone, the description or designation being given only to identify him.” If only the post or the designation is mentioned, then the appointment is as Court and not as persona designata.
The Court thus held that order passed by a judge in appeals under Section 17 (Appeals) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in his official capacity are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title:- Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62 [WRIT - C No. - 31168 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the sibling fee relief granted by a school is subject to certain conditions and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
While dealing with the rustication of two siblings from Delhi Public School, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad due to issue regarding the applicability of sibling fee scheme benefit, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed,
“I find that the Sibling Fee Relief under the Circular dated 5.8.2021 issued by the respondent No. 7 is a benefit offered to the parents whose two children are studying in the institution subject to certain riders and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
Case Title: Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others [WRIT - A No. - 14824 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63
While dealing with a case where oral evidence was not led by an employer to prove charges against the, the Allahabad High Court remarked that “the seriousness or enormity of the charge does not license the employer to jump to conclusions.”
Directing the reinstatement of the employee, Justice J.J. Munir observed,
“The more serious the charge, the more serious the consequence for the employee that are likely to ensue, in the event of its proof, and, the more strict, therefore, would be the requirement of procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry, where, the inquiry must proceed according to salutary and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry, which requires the Establishment to discharge their burden in the first instance, by leading evidence, with due opportunity to the delinquent.”
Case Title: Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another [ First Appeal No. 30 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court has held that a prayer of urgent relief should not be used as a tool to circumvent the requirement of pre-litigation mediation contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that where urgent relief is not contemplated in a suit, the plaintiff must exhaust the remedy of pre-mediation litigation before instituting a suit.
Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,
“the invocation of urgent relief should not serve as a pretext to circumvent or evade Section 12A of the Act. It is imperative that the factual matrix and contextual intricacies of each case are comprehensively assessed from the plaintiff's perspective. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has expounded that any attempt to cloak or disguise the true intent behind seeking such relief, with the intention of sidestepping the statutory obligation of pre-litigation mediation, warrants scrutiny, particularly in instances where duplicity and falsehood are manifest or substantiated.”