NOMINAL INDEX Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423 Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424 Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425 Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427 M/S Kashi...
NOMINAL INDEX
Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another v. Administrator General,Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Financial Services Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case title - Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought to extend the benefits of schemes exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Minorities to Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholders of all other communities/castes.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, emphasising the limits of judicial review in policy matters, concluded that such decisions fall within the purview of the legislative and executive branches of government.
Case title - Tarun Goel vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court last week commuted the death sentence of a 45-year-old convict who killed his wife's grandmother with a screwdriver in 2022 to life imprisonment as it noted that he has two children and a wife to support and that it was not a "rarest of rare" case.
While answering the death reference in negative, a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus:
“…the finding of the trial court on order of sentence is modified as it is not a “rarest of rare” case, even though the accused has committed a grave offence of murder, therefore, we are of the opinion that the death penalty awarded to the appellant should be commuted to the life imprisonment.”
Case title - Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the court within whose jurisdiction the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can try those offences.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus in view of the mandate of Section 182 (2)CrPC, which states that offences punishable under Sections 494 or 495 IPC can be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or where the offender last resided with their first spouse, or where the first spouse has taken up permanent residence after the offence.
Case Title: Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 181 of 2019]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere allegation of the wife ousting the husband from the matrimonial home is not sufficient to show 'desertion' by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the husband must show that he tried to return to the house.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“Except for making allegations that the respondent declared that she shall alone stay in the house, nothing has been indicated with regard to efforts made by the appellant to get back in the matrimonial home and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been desertion on the part of respondent so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act.”
Case title - Shriniwas Rav Nayak vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 427
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has observed that while the Constitution of India grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not allow any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs; however, this personal freedom does not extend to a collective right to proselytise, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion.
Case Title: M/S Kashi Ram Ved Prakash vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 782 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court has held that a registered dealer cannot withhold the tax realised by him from a purchasing dealer only because he had deposited an excess amount of tax at the time of the transaction.
The Court held that he cannot escape the liability of depositing the tax realized under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 because a refund is due to him from assessment proceedings.
“The registered dealer after realizing the tax cannot withhold the same on the pretext that some excess amount of tax was deposited. The amount realized on the strength of Act, must be deposited and in case any amount found excess, the same will be refunded to the actual person from whom the same amount was realized as tax. The revisionist cannot get the benefit of any refund of amount while passing the assessment order,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case title - Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man accused of brutally beheading a Hindu woman and leaving her body in a drain in September 2020 after she refused to convert to Islam following her marriage with one Ejaj/Aijaj (co-accused).
Considering the gravity of the offence, the role assigned to the accused-applicant (Shoeb Akhtar) and the stage of the trial, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh did not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Case Title: Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. – 210 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors 2019, the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.”
For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the Land Acquisition Act would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The court also held that this ruling of the Supreme Court shall apply to all pending cases.
Case Title: Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another v. Administrator General,Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 115 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant cannot be held responsible for her/his counsel's inaction in filing the appeal within the statutory limitation period.
In the case at hand, the Appellants filed a special appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge in a Testamentary Suit rejecting the application by the second appellant seeking transposition as plaintiff in place of Administrator General. The special appeal was filed with a delay of 105 days and was barred by limitation.
Case title - Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
The Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government's order denying the benefit of premature release to a 79-year-old convict who had already served 25 years in jail, including remission.
Criticizing the government's order as "stereotyped" and lacking individual consideration, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi directed the government to take a fresh decision on the convict's plea for premature release within six weeks.
Case title - Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court made history by delivering its judgment in three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit—the first time this has been done by a High Court.
A bench of Justice Shiv Shankar Prasad authored the judgment in the three languages mentioned above concerning the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition seeking enforcement of an interim maintenance order made u/s 125 CrPC.
The single judge wrote a Single judgment in three languages merged into a single document.
Case Title: Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Thru. Its Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Financial Services Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434 [WRIT - C No. - 7725 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Chairman, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad to submit a preliminary report under Rule 9(1) of the Tribunal (Condition of Services) Rules, 2021 to the Central Government against the allegations of nepotism and corruption levelled against Mr. A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow.
Petitioner, Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association, alleged that the Presiding Officer had been arbitrary and whimsical in passing orders. It was alleged that he was not following due procedure established in law while passing orders but was indulging in “nepotism and corruption”.
Case Title: Nyaydhish Pankaj vs. Allahabad High Court And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435 [WRIT - A No. - 11668 of 2022]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court, while considering the case of a Judicial Officer, held that if procedural requirements were not followed at the stage of inquiry against a delinquent officer, the validity of the punishment order passed subsequently could be called into question.
“Failure to follow procedural requirements during inquiry stage raises a serious concern about the validity of the punishment order. It is imperative that the disciplinary process is carried out in a manner that allows the affected parties to present their case, respond to the allegations and have a fair opportunity to defend themselves,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh.