NOMINAL INDEX Suneeta And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 204 Srikant Tyagi and another vs. Union of India and 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 205 Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 206 Dinesh Pal Singh and Anr. vs. Presiding Officer and 2 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 207 Manjeet Singh & Others. v. State...
NOMINAL INDEX
Suneeta And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Srikant Tyagi and another vs. Union of India and 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Dinesh Pal Singh and Anr. vs. Presiding Officer and 2 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Manjeet Singh & Others. v. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Shahrukh Saleem. vs. State of UP and 2 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Having Divisional Office,Lko. Thru. G.M. Engineering Department vs. Commercial Court-II, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust vs. Sahi Masjid Eidgah Management Committee And 8 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 211
Smt. Shobha Singh v. Union of India & others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. UOI 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 213
K.A. Rauf Sherif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another and a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 214
X vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Dr. S.C. Asthana vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Medi.And Hel. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 217
XYZ vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Neelam Devi vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lko And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Ram Vilas vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 220
Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 221
M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 222
Ashish Kakkar vs. UOI 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 223
Shweta Punj vs. Union of India and 4 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 224
Manorama Kuchhal And Another vs. Brijesh Narain Singh D.M./Collector NIC Dist. Centre And 6 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Dinesh Chandra Verma vs. State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Law and Justice and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Jai Govind @ Ramji Yadav vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 227
Bharti And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 228
Dheeraj Govind Rao Jagtap vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Ats, Gomti Nagar, Lko. along with other pleas 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 229
M/S Abhay Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 230
M/S Bhawani Traders vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Tarkeshwar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. and 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 232
Garima Singh vs. Pratima Singh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233
Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 234
Avnish Tandon vs. Assistant General Manager 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 235
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case title - Suneeta And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 2723 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Observing that live-in relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country¸ the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner, seeking police protection on the grounds that her husband is endangering their peaceful lives.
However, the bench of Justice Renu Agarwal further clarified that the Court is not against live-in relationships but against illegal relations.
“…this Court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that we have sanctified their illicit relations. Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country. Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations.”
Also Read - Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 23 July To 29 July, 2023
Case Title - Srikant Tyagi and another vs. Union of India and 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17934 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The Allahabad High Court observed that a person, who has chosen violence and does not have any value of human life, has no right to plead that the State should take special measures to protect his life from his rivals.
Also Read - Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed thus while dismissing a writ plea filed by Noida-based politician Srikant Tyagi and his wife who had moved the Court seeking police protection on account of the fact that they are receiving continuous life threats.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act on the grounds that the correctness of the information based on assessee's defense can be determined in the assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.
The scope of enquiry under Section 148A(d) is only to the extent of (un)availability of information suggesting that income has escaped assessment.
Temporary/ Seasonal Employment Does Not Amount To 'Unfair Labour Practice': Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Dinesh Pal Singh and Anr. vs. Presiding Officer and 2 others [Writ C No. 30049 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The Allahabad High Court has held that temporary/seasonal employment does not amount to 'unfair labour practices'.
Citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Pune Vs. R.P. Sawant and others, a bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that temporary seasonal increase in work requires more hands to meet the situation. Once, work is completed or season is over, it is difficult for the employer to generate more work so as to enable the employee to continue work. Temporary employment also generates employment which is for the good of the society at large. Thus, such seasonal employment cannot be termed as 'unfair labour practice'.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh & Others. v. State of U.P. and Others [Writ C No. 30049 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 does not empower any Municipality to recover arrears of rent for a shop as arrears of land revenue under Section 173-A of the Act.
Bunch of writ petitions were filed challenging recovery certificates issued by Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad of Bareilly to recover the arrears of rent, allegedly due on the petitioners and consequential recovery citations issued by the Collector under Section 173-A (Recovery of taxes as arrears of land revenue) of the Act.
Case Title: Shahrukh Saleem. vs. State of UP and 2 others [Writ A No. 10418 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 209
The Allahabad High Court has held that refusal of registered owner to surrender registration certificate or his abscondance are not mandatory conditions to exercise power under Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to cancel and issue fresh certificate of registration.
A bench comprising of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Manish Kumar Nigam observed,
“The main ingredient for exercise of power under sub section (5) of Section 51 is the establishment of the fact that the registered owner had purchased vehicle by taking finance and had defaulted in repayment of the amount in terms of the said agreement. The other necessary ingredient is that the financier has taken possession of the vehicle from the registered owner. All these ingredients are fully established in the instant case. The stipulation regarding refusal on part of registered owner to hand over certificate of registration or that he had absconded is not sine qua non for exercise of the power. It only indicates that notwithstanding the aforesaid two contingencies, the registering authority still has power to cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the name of person with whom the registered owner had entered into the agreement of finance.”
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Having Divisional Office,Lko. Thru. G.M. Engineering Department vs. Commercial Court-II, Lko. And Another [Matters u/Article 227 1220 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of a Commercial Court at Lucknow rejecting the application of a Petitioner against the maintainability of a commercial suit without availing pre-institution mediation as contemplated in Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
It rejected the contention of the Petitioner that institution of suit challenging contract termination after 2 months indicated there was no urgency to waive off pre-institution mediation. A bench of Justice Manish Mathur held,
"The aspect as to whether a suit has been filed after a considerable delay, would not be a criteria required to determine urgent interim relief. There may be instances when an order of termination has been passed but is not enforced for a certain length of time and it is only its enforcement that would require filing of a suit, which would thus contemplate urgent interim relief being sought for in the plaint."
Case title - Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust vs. Sahi Masjid Eidgah Management Committee And 8 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 211 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4984 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed before it seeking a direction to the Mathura civil judge to decide an application (moved by Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust) seeking a scientific survey of Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Masjid Eidgah premises.
It was the contention of the petitioner that the Civil Judge should decide upon its application before deciding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application of the Mosque Committee and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board objecting to the suit filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Dalai Lama Over Land Held In Kushinagar
Case Title: Smt. Shobha Singh v. Union of India & others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 212 [PIL No. 1003 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation filed against Dalai Lama challenging the acquisition of a property in his name at Kushinagar district under Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
The Petitioner, claiming to be a school teacher and an active member of Rotary Club Kushinagar, said she came to know about the land from a newspaper report. She then filed an RTI before the Ministry of Home Affairs to ascertain whether Dalai Lama is an Indian citizen, to which the answer was 'No'.
Case Title: Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. UOI [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 26376 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail on the grounds that no notice for GST recovery was issued against the applicant, who was illegally arrested.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori has observed that the applicant was arrested without assigning any reason to believe or any satisfaction to justify his arrest.
The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to release him on bail for an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Case title - K.A. Rauf Sherif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another and a connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 214
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Campus Front of India (CFI) leader KA Rauf Sherif and one Mohd. Danish @ Tunnu in connection with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act case related to the Hathras Conspiracy case in which journalist Siddique Kappan, presently out on bail, is an accused person.
It may be noted that a total of 9 people linked to Popular Front of India, including its students' wing leader K A Rauf Sherif and Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan have been charge-sheeted by Uttar Pradesh police's Special Task Force for sedition, criminal conspiracy, funding of terror activities and other offences. It has been alleged that they were involved in money laundering offences claiming that they wanted to "incite communal riots and spread terror" in the aftermath of the Hathras gang rape case.
Allahabad High Court Allows Termination Of Minor Rape Survivor's 25-Week Pregnancy
Case title - X vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 22016 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The Allahabad High Court allowed a 12-year-old rape victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy after taking into account the opinion of the Medical Board that the continuation of pregnancy "poses a greater risk to her physical and mental health" due to her "tender age".
"Considering the facts and circumstances and the medical report, it would be 'just, legal and appropriate' to order the termination of pregnancy of the petitioner after considering the medical evidence on record," the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed.
Case Title: Dr. S.C. Asthana vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Medi.And Hel. And Another [Writ A No. 2000264 of 2000]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 217
The Allahabad High Court has held that in departmental proceedings, burden to prove that the unauthorized absence was 'wilful' is on the disciplinary authority. In absence of such finding, unauthorized absence does not amount to misconduct.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Irshad Ali while hearing the plea moved by a Medical Officer facing disciplinary proceeding for the charge of unlawful absence from duties during his foreign assignment period at Nigeria.
Case title - XYZ vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 430 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 218
In a significant verdict, the Allahabad High Court has held that a person, who is otherwise fit, could not be denied employment only on the ground that he or she is HIV positive and this principle also extends to grant of promotion.
"In any case, a person's HIV status cannot be a ground for denial of promotion in employment as it would be discriminatory and would violate the principles laid down in Articles 14 (right to equality), 16 (right to non-discrimination in state employment) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India," the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed.
Case Title: Neelam Devi vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lko And Ors [Writ A No. 18566 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The Allahabad High Court struck down the word 'unmarried' occurring before 'daughter' in the note appended to Regulation 104 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 which governs eligibility for compassionate appointment.
A bench comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla observed that the State has recognised the right of daughters irrespective of their marital status while amending the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The same recognition should be granted to daughters under the 1975 Regulations.
Case Title: Ram Vilas vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Ors [Writ C No. 1562 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 220
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground for cancellation of a firearm license in the absence of a specific recording by a competent authority that possession of the same would be dangerous to public peace, safety and security.
Relying on the decision of a coordinate bench in Ram Prasad v. Commissioner and others, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“it is undoubtedly to say that merely pendency of the criminal case or with the apprehension that the petitioner may be involved in future in any other criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear cut finding is recorded by the Competent Authorities that the possession of the fire arms caused threatening of the public peace and is danger for the safety of human being. The Competent Authorities fail to record any such finding in the impugned orders.”
Case title - Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23896 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 221
The Allahabad High Court has stayed coercive action against Congress leader and Rajyasabha MP Randeep Singh Surjewala till the disposal of his application before the Varanasi Court to provide him with Legible documents including the charge sheet under section 207 CrPC in the 23-year-old case of damage to public property.
The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dealing with Surjewala's plea seeking legible and readable documents along with a charge sheet under section 207 CrPC. In his plea challenge was made to the orders of the trial court rejecting his plea for the same.
Case Title: M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd vs. State of U.P. and Another [Writ C No. 6049/2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The Allahabad High Court has declined the proposal of M/s Jai Prakash Associates (Jaypee) to sell off certain portion of the 1,000 hectares land earlier allotted to it under the Special Development Zone Project in the Yamuna Expressway Development Area, for clearing the dues of YEIDA (Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority).
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Saumitra Dayal Singh noted that allotment already stands cancelled and hence it cannot permit such sale as it would amount to an interim relief in the nature of final relief.
Vague Arrest Memo, Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Fake GST ITC Worth Rs.88 Crores
Case Title: Ashish Kakkar vs. UOI [WRIT TAX No. - 834 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 223
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the person allegedly involved in the creation of 92 fake GST Forms and the passing of fake Input Tax credits (ITC) to the tune of Rs. 88 crores.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has observed that even in the arrest memo, the Department is not sure as to what offence has been committed by the petitioner, and they have used the words "clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017".
Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To Appointment Of Commissioners Of Income-Tax (Appeals)
Case Title: Shweta Punj vs. Union of India and 4 others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 224 [Writ Tax No. 521 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 224
The Allahabad High Court has held that Sections 116 and 117 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empower the Central Government to appoint Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Same pay scale would not make provisions of appointment under other statues applicable to the appointment of authorities under the Act of 1961.
“First and foremost, we find that the statute, i.e. the Act of 1961 is a self contained code which clearly vests jurisdiction with the Central Government to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be income tax authorities as are specified in Section 116 of the Act. The income tax authorities clearly includes Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the Central Government would have the jurisdiction to appoint an officer as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Officers belonging to the cadre of Indian Revenue Services have been appointed as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)”, held the bench comprising of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi.
Case Title: Manorama Kuchhal And Another vs. Brijesh Narain Singh D.M./Collector NIC Dist. Centre And 6 Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 225 [Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 2339 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 225
The Allahabad High Court while dismissing contempt proceedings against New Okhla Industrial Development Authority's (NOIDA) CEO & District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar held that the Court in contempt proceedings cannot decide questions of facts.
The bench comprising of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that there was no defiance on behalf of the officers to comply with an order of the Writ Court as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Case Title: Dinesh Chandra Verma vs. State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Law and Justice and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 226 [WRIT A No. 18675/2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Drawing parity with judges of High Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that retired Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal are entitled to domestic help allowance as a part of pension and other allowances under Rule 15-A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice- Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (1985 Rules).
A bench comprising of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla held:
“It is also to be noticed that in Rule 15-A of Rules 1985, the word to be taken note of is “shall” which occurs therein and accordingly it is mandatory. Thus, mandate of Rules 1985 is that the conditions of service and other perquisites as available to a Judge of High Court shall be made available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well. The very mandatory nature of the language occurring in Rule 15-A makes it obligatory on the part of respondents to make available all the perquisites which, in our opinion, shall include the Domestic Help Allowance as well. The benefit of Domestic Help Allowance is, in fact, a retirement benefit and hence it will be included in the expression 'pension' as occurring in Section 2(gg) of Act 1954.”
Case title - Jai Govind @ Ramji Yadav vs. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29409 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 227
The Allahabad High Court observed that the youth of the country are spoiling their lives due to the lure of free relationships with members of the opposite sex aping Western culture, however, they end up finding no "real soulmate".
"The youth in this country, under the influence of social media, movies, TV serials and the web series being shown are not able to decide about the correct course of their life and in search of their correct soulmates, they often land up in the company of the wrong person...The social media, movies etc., show that multiple affairs and infidelity to the spouse are normal and this inflames the imagination of impressionable minds and they start experimenting with the same, but they do (not) fit in the prevailing societal norm," observed Justice Siddharth.
Case title - Bharti And Another vs. State Of U P And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5589 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner while observing that since the lady has not divorced her husband, she and her live-in partner have no legal right to seek protection.
"...as the petitioner No.1 (lady) is not found to have obtained divorce from her husband i.e. respondent No.4, she still will be treated as legally weded wife of respondent No.4 and the petitioners have no legal right to seek protection on the facts of present case," the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case title - Dheeraj Govind Rao Jagtap vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Ats, Gomti Nagar, Lko. along with other pleas 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 229 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 988 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 229
In connection with the Uttar Pradesh Mass Religious Conversion Racket case, the Allahabad High Court last week Granted bail to 4 men accused by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of 'Waging War Against India' through illegal conversions.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted bail to Dheeraj Govind Rao Jagtap, Kausar Alam, Bhupriya Bando @ Arsalan Mustafa and Adam @ Prasad Rameshwar Kaware by taking note of Apex Court's orders granting bail to their co-accused Irfan Khan @ Irfan Shaikh (February 2023) and Abdullah Umar (July 2023).
Case Title: M/S Abhay Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 230 [ WRIT TAX No. – 1265/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 230
The Allahabad High Court has held that show cause notice must contain the foundation of the case based on which action is being necessitated. In case, the show cause notice is sufficient, assessee has remedy of filing reply/objections before the concerned authorities.
A bench comprising of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that there are two primary requirements of principles of natural justice to be followed while issuing a show cause notice:
“(I) a show cause notice contains the material/ground which, according to the department necessitates an action;
(II) the particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. Even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice but it can be clearly and safely discerned from the reading thereof that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.”
Case Title: M/S Bhawani Traders vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 231 [Writ Tax No. - 854 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 231
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty order passed in Form MOU-09 under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the grounds that the goods in transit were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Sahil Traders vs. State of U.P., in which it was held that in the face of the tax invoice and the E-way bill produced by the petitioner, the goods may not have been treated as not traceable to a registered dealer.
Case Title: Tarkeshwar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. and 5 Others [WRIT C No. 13852/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 232
The Allahabad High Court has held that every Court and Tribunal have inherent power to set aside an ex-parte order as it amounts to 'procedural review' and is distinct from the statutory power to review a case on merits.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that revenue authorities can recall an ex-parte order, passed without grant of notice or opportunity to the affected party, to correct the procedural defect for doing justice between the parties. 'Procedural review' is an inherent power of every Court and Tribunal “to correct procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceedings itself and consequently the order passed therein.”
Case Title: Garima Singh vs. Pratima Singh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [First Appeal No. 623/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the right of the first wife to file an application under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of her husband's second marriage as void.
On the harmonious reading of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vinod Diwakar held:
“If the first wife is deprived of seeking a remedy under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would defeat the very purpose and intent of the Act. The protection offered to legally wedded wives under sections 5, 11, and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would become insignificant in such a scenario.”
Case Title: Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11837/2023] and Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 234
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV delivered a split decision on interim plea to stay the FIRs under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC against the officers of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., lodged by Mohit Singh, Director of Shipra Estate.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (IHFL) sanctioned 16 loan facilities of Rs.2801.00 Crores to "Shipra Group/Borrowers" comprising of Shipra Hotels Ltd., Shipra Estate Ltd. and Shipra Leasing Pvt. Ltd. for the purposes of construction and development of housing projects. Shares of various companies were pledged in favour of IHFL.
Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted 26 Years After Employee's Death: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Avnish Tandon vs. Assistant General Manager [Writ A No. 10831 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 235
The Allahabad High Court held that compassionate appointment is granted to tide over the immediate hardships of the family due to untimely demise of the earning hand and it cannot be granted after a lapse of 26 years from the death of the employee.
“...What is most important is that 26 years have indeed elapsed since the petitioner's mother passed away. During this long passage of time, as life goes on, it is a legitimate inference to draw that the financial crisis emanating from the petitioner's mother's untimely demise would have been tided over by the petitioner, in whatsoever way it was. There is, therefore, no existing exigency to bail out the family in economic distress now, in aid of which this Court may issue a mandamus to consider the petitioner's case”, held Justice JJ Munir.