NOMINAL INDEX The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293 Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294 J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295 Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296 Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297 Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P....
NOMINAL INDEX
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Milind Saxena And 15 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Mohd. Shakeel vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Supply Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Shraddha @ Jannat And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Ashish Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lokbhawan, Lucknow And 7 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 305
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Tribunal Tried To Blow Hot And Cold At The Same Time: Allahabad High Court Upholds Levy Of Entry Tax
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 45 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad on the ground that it had made contradictory observations in its order regarding purchases made by the assesee.
“The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has tried to blow hot & cold at the same time. It may further be observed that the Tribunal, while recording the finding under the Entry Tax Act that the purchases have not been made from unregistered dealer by the respondent, has neither made any discussion, nor any material was brought on record to justify the said observation. Once it has been held that under the UP VAT Act purchases from unregistered dealer have been made, the Tribunal's observation that no purchase has been made and in the absence of any material and evidence, the entry tax cannot be levied, is perverse and cannot be justified in the eyes of law,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges framed against him.
Case Title: J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 44 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a penalty order under Section 129 of the GST Act on the ground that the missing E-way bill is a minor technical fault and does not prove intention to evade tax in the absence of any other discrepancies.
Petitioner, in ordinary course of business, sent five consignments for which five invoices were issued. The goods were being transported from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh and passed through the State of UP, where they were intercepted as the e-way bill was not accompanying them. Consequently, a penalty order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema [FIRST APPEAL No. - 959 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating an appeal against interim maintenance awarded to the wife by the Family Court, has held that the minimum amount must be paid to the estranged wife from the date of the claim to preserve her life and liberty with dignity.
The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV has upheld the interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- awarded to the wife and children by the Family Court while observing,
“Insofar as the award has been made from the date of the application, again, we find no good ground to interfere with the same. Minimum amounts are required to be provided from the date of the claim being made to ensure the life and liberty of the respondent/estranged wife involved in a matrimonial discord situation is preserved with minimal dignity,”
Case Title: Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
The Allahabad High Court waived off the cooling-off for a married couple as they had mutually filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, after entering a Memorandum of Understanding amicably.
The court said the substantive right of the two parties that settle their conflict amicably must not be interfered with by citing procedure.
A bench comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla observed,
“This Court may note that legitimacy or otherwise of an MOU arrived at between the parties out of their free will is not open to judicial scrutiny except on the ground of fraud. The very idea of settlement through mediation or amicable means runs and progresses through this realm of philosophy.”
Case Title: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1843 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his credentials as per Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952).
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi placed reliance on various Supreme Court judgments to hold that the public interest litigation has certain reservations.
“The jurisdiction of the public interest litigation is exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The said jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity. However, the courts while exercising this jurisdiction must exercise the same with extreme caution and responsibility.”
Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others [Civil Misc Review Application No. - 351 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on Jagran Prakashan to be paid to each employee who has been denied benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia found that the petitioner company had preferred an appeal and a revision petition after the initial judgment imposed a cost on the company and that the issues arising in both writ petitions were common.
Case title – Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27288 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner, the Allahabad High Court observed that a systematic design is working to destroy the institution of marriage in India and that films and TV serials are contributing to the same.
Opining that the brutish concept of "changing partners in every season" cannot be considered to be a hallmark of a "stable and healthy" society, the Court stressed that the security and stability that the institution of marriage provides to an individual, cannot be expected from live-in-relationship.
Case Title: Milind Saxena And 15 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the orders issued by Madan Mohan Malviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur, cancelling the admissions of 67 second and final-year B.Tech students for allegedly forging their way in.
A single bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra refused to draw parallels from the Vyapam case where Apex Court, finding established instances of fraud, cancelled the admissions of not only those who had completed their courses but also those who were engaged in medical practice for years after completion of their courses.
Case title - Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 935 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 302
The Allahabad High Court observed that even if the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was secured illegally, the same would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against such accused.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made this observation while rejecting a revision plea filed challenging the order of a trial court refusing to discharge an accused (Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi) in a case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case title - Mohd. Shakeel vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Supply Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 5534 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the probability of unauthorized sale of meat is no ground to refuse a 'no objection certificate' (NOC) for a retail meat shop.
Observing this, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar directed the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar to reconsider and pass a fresh order on an application of one Mohd. Shakeel/Petitioner for the grant of an NOC to open a retail meat shop.
Case title - Shraddha @ Jannat And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 23672 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 304
The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by an inter-religious couple (who happen to be distant cousins) who purportedly married each other as per the Hindu rites and rituals.
The Court noted that the Petitioner no. 1/Girl, a Muslim by birth, had not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 before converting herself to Hinduism. In this case, while petitioner no. 1 belonged to the Muslim religious community, petitioner no. 2/Boy is a Hindu.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lokbhawan, Lucknow And 7 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 795 of 2023]
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 305
The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea for the declaration of a holiday on the festival of 'Karwa Chauth'.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that such matters fall under the realm of policy decision of the state and hence, the Court cannot entertain such disputes unless guided by statute.
"Even otherwise festivals are commonly celebrated by all," the bench further noted. With this, the PIL plea was dismissed.
OTHER UPDATES
When the matter was taken up by Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Senior Counsel SFA Naqvi raised his objection regarding the transfer of cases as he submitted thus:
"We are confused. The judgment was reserved earlier, and today was the date for delivery of the judgment. In these matters before you, the judgment was to be delivered today. It is in the teeth of the full bench of this court [Amar Singh vs. State Of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4922 of 2006)], regarding the powers of judges/CJ, forming the benches."
The submission was made last week by the Amicus Curiae appointed in the Suo moto case registered over the Hathras crime relating to the alleged murder and gang-rape of a Dalit girl. The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh was also told that the UP Government has, following the HC's order, notified the policy for cremation/ burial.