NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.”