NOMINAL INDEX Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253 Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254 Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255 Aliyari vs Ranjana And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256 Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh...
NOMINAL INDEX
Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254
Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Aliyari vs Ranjana And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256
Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh Chandra And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258
Pooja Rajput Corpus And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Brijpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
Jay Prakash And Another v. Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 263
Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Mithilesh Maurya And Another Vs. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
State of UP and 3 others vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267
Dhananjay Singh and another vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Alok Jha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253 [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 253
While quashing criminal proceedings against officers of M/s Himri Estate Private Limited and Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. initiated by Shipra Group, the Allahabad High Court held that defaulter cannot initiate criminal proceedings against creditor/auction purchaser against the auction conducted under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The Court held that grievance regarding auction, transfer of property in such cases must be raised before Debt Recovery Tribunals under the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9337 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254
The Allahabad High Court has held that a written statement jointly filed by various defendants cannot be amended at the behest of one of defendants without express consent from other defendants who had jointly filed the written statement.
The bench of Justice Jayant Banerji held that “where a written statement is jointly filed by a group of defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one or more such defendants unless the other defendants who are signatories to the joint written statement, expressly consent to the amendments sought.”
Case Title: Shri Pal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255 [WRIT - A No. - 13858 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 255
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut for denying an increment to the government employee retiring on the day prior to the accrual of the increment.
The Court held that the action of the Nagar Ayukt based on a Government Order was against various judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others.
Case title - Aliyari vs Ranjana And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256 [CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 15 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 256
In a resolute stance against the propagation of irresponsible accusations against the judicial system, the Allahabad High Court recently imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on a litigant who had sought a transfer of his case alleging bias against the presiding Judge.
"This kind of a tendency of hurling allegations at Courts without the slightest fear of the outcome, if the allegations fail or are found to be made on hollow ground, must be put down with a heavy hand in the larger interest of administration of justice," a bench of Justice JJ Munir remarked as it termed the allegations as 'scandalous and most irresponsible'
Case Title: Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh Chandra And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257 [WRIT - C No. - 61111 of 2012]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 257
The Allahabad High Court has held that while proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Labour Court does not have the power to grant interest to the employee on delayed payment of amount due by the employer. The Court held that proceeding under Section 33C(2) are execution proceedings.
Section 33C (1) provides that where any money is due to an employee from his employer, the employee shall make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him. If the government is satisfied that money is due, application must be forwarded to the collector for recovery of such amount. When amount so due is disputed, the case may be decided by the Labour Court as specified by the Government under Section 33C(2).
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258 [WRIT - A No. - 18173 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 258
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude cannot be said to be suitable to head any department, much less an educational institution.
“…A candidate who is convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, such a candidate cannot be taken to be suitable candidate to hold the position of head of any institution or department much less an educational institution as he has not only to run the administration but to ensure discipline with high moral values and character to demonstrate,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case title – Pooja Rajput Corpus And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 259
The Allahabad High Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Nari Niketan/Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Nagar for its 'shocking' decision to send a 15-year-old girl, who was residing with her mother, to a children's home.
The court directed that the amount be handed over to the girl's father and used for the upbringing of the minor girl's child.
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, while deeming the committee's actions as 'shocking' and 'surprising', directed that if the committee does not pay the cost, the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar will ensure that the Chairman of the CWC remains present in the Court on the next hearing.
Case title – Brijpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 260
The Allahabad High Court held that the cooperative society's employees and officers are not public servants as per Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted under Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the IPC.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed this while dismissing a petition filed by Brijpal Singh seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in connection with a case u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 3080 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court has rejected bail to four persons accused of wrongfully availing input tax credit of about Rs. 315 crores on grounds that an economic offence of such magnitude may affect the economy of the country.
Justice Nalin Kr Srivastava noted that the applicants' office-cum-residence was subjected to a search where several forged rubber stamps, chequebooks, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Mobile Phones, SIM cards along with various electronic gadgets were recovered. On inquiry, it was found that activities on the searched premises were being controlled by persons situated at other premises.
Case Title: Ram Kishan Bairwa vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262 [WRIT TAX No. - 416 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The Allahabad High Court has held that mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for filing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be waived under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Alternatively, petitioner prayed for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act while being relegated to appellate jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: Jay Prakash And Another v. Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another [ELECTION PETITION No. - 1 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 263
The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition filed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 outside the period of limitation prescribed under Section 81 of the Act is not maintainable.
Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a complete and self-contained code which renders the Limitation Act inapplicable per se.
Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides 45 days period from the date of election of the returned candidate and if the dates for elections are different, then the later date, for filing of election petition.
Case Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order.
The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour Courts/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. It held that while examining the matter for granting relief to the workman, Labour Court is entrusted power to examine the legality and validity of the discharge/dismissal order.
Case title – Mithilesh Maurya And Another Vs. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265
The Allahabad High Court held that a habeas Corpus writ would not ordinarily be issued to grant visitation rights, particularly when proceedings between the parties are pending before the Family Court.
“A writ of habeas corpus, as has been consistently held, though a writ of right is not to be issued as a matter of course, particularly when the writ is sought against a parent for the custody of a child,” a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed as it dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking visiting rights vis-à-vis his one-month-old child (presently in mother's custody).
Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 gives the discretion to the court to allow the predeposit to be made, if felt necessary, in installments also.
Case Title: State of UP and 3 others vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267
The Allahabad High Court has held that services rendered by an employee as a daily wager cannot be taken as qualifying service for pension/ calculating pension amount. It has been held that when employee was rendering services as work charge and was later regularized, period served as work charge must be counted for qualifying services for pension.
Case title - Dhananjay Singh and another vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to former MP Dhananjay Singh in connection with a kidnapping and extortion case (of a Namami Gange project manager). The Court, however, refused his plea to suspend or stay his conviction.
Singh and his associate Santosh Vikram Singh were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by an MP/MLA court last month. Challenging their conviction, Singh and his associate moved before the high court.
Case title - Alok Jha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The Allahabad High Court has observed that bank officials must cooperate fully in criminal investigations of cybercrimes.
“Bank officials are expected to be law-abiding citizens who are under an obligation of law to cooperate in criminal investigations being conducted by the police,” a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed while allowing a second bail plea filed by one Alok Jha, an accused in a case of cybercrime and booked under Section 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471, 411 I.P.C. and Section 66D of IT Act.