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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.”
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.
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.
OTHER UPDATES FROM HC
Taking a serious note of the lamentable condition of jails across the state of Uttar Pradesh and the plight of convicts and undertrials housed in such prisons, the Allahabad High Court recently directed the State Government to take firm action to revise the wage policy for such jail inmates.
Stressing that prisoners are also a part of society, the Court reminded the state government that unless conditions (inside jail faculties), for dignified human existence are assured inside the jails, the justice delivery system may remain from dispensing justice with dignity.
"It is dignity that is at the root of the justice delivery system so that any punishment awarded is met out in accordance with the law in circumstances that are conducive to human life is without offending the basic/fundamental human rights."
The Allahabad High Court granted a further 4 weeks' time to the Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Central Board of Film Certification as well as Al Jazeera Media Network Private Ltd. to file their counter affidavit in a PIL plea challenging the broadcast/release of the documentary film "India....Who lit the Fuse?" in India.
The film, produced by the Qatar-based international news network, has been challenged by social activist Sudhir Kumar on the ground that the telecast of the said film has the potential to cause disharmony amongst the citizens and threaten the integrity of the Nation.