NOMINAL INDEX Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201 Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202 Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204 Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202
Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203
Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220
Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 602 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising its contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lies before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court held that no such order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U P And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6145 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The Allahabad High Court has held that after a long gap of time, a teacher whose services have been regularised cannot be terminated merely on grounds of lack of qualifications at the time of initial appointment.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajit Kumar held that “once the regularisation of appointment has already taken place, such teacher becomes a permanent member of service and no such teacher's service can be dispensed with on the ground that there were some inherent lack of qualification at the time of initial appointment.”
Case title - Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1762 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari 1970, a bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary of the husband while determining maintenance amount.
Case title - Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 428 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 204
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a suit for mere declaration of civil death is maintainable and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 merely because the plaintiff did not claim further relief.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal further noted that there is no bar under Section 34 of the 1963 Act for filing a suit for the declaration of a civil death of another person if the plaintiff is a legal heir of such a person and such legal character of civil death is for his benefit and the same is attributed to such legal character.
Case title - Poornima Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a resignation tendered by a government servant can be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance.
A bench of Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus while examining Rules 6 and 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2000, which deal with the matters of resignation from service by government servants.
Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.
While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide.”
Case title - Saurabh Mukund vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Its Joint Director Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The Allahabad High Court observed that in the normal course, a person summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is entitled to receive at least a summary of the accusations, if not the actual copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
This allows them to adequately prepare themselves or gather pertinent documents to respond to any inquiries during the interrogation by the ED, a bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan noted.
Case title - Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38288 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC is not maintainable against a husband at the instance of a 'second wife', however, in such cases, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 may get attracted if there is a demand of dowry.
“…for the dowry, the performance of marriage is not necessary, and even a marriage contract is sufficient. If a male and female contracted for marriage and cohabiting together and the male partner makes any dowry demand from the female partner, then ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted,” ruled a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.
Case Title: Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 209
While granting relief to Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the Allahabad High Court has held the 'Begar' is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
“Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” held Justice Manish Kumar.
Case title - Rajendra Prasad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 79 of 2005]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the conviction of a man who killed a 1-year-old child, observed that human/child sacrifice shocks the conscience of civilized society and the same is required to be condemned by one and all.
With these observations, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi also upheld the life sentence imposed on the 47-year-old man and dismissed his appeal against conviction.
Case title - Himanshu Kanaujiya vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The Allahabad High Court expressed profound concern over the alarming proliferation of fraudulent manpower consultant agencies and fake recruitment firms across the country.
Describing the mushrooming of such fake agencies as "unfortunate", a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the youth, without knowing the hidden agenda of such fake rackets, are falling prey to such temptations of lucrative jobs and paying huge amounts even by selling the properties held by their families or availing loans from financial institutions with a high rate of interest.
Case Title: Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 20193 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The Allahabad High Court has held that filing an amendment application or substitution application in a pending application for release of property from tenant under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be treated as a second application.
The Court held that in absence of any decision on the merits of first release application, any amendment to it cannot be treated as a second release application under Section 21 of the Act.
Case title - Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav vs. State Of U P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in the matter of public examinations, a question should not be considered wrong solely based on its formulation unless it cannot be understood or answered by the candidate.
While acknowledging the argument that a few questions could be better framed, the Court said that this fact alone does not invalidate them.
“Unless it is shown that the question is wrong or the formulation of question is such that the candidate could not have understood the question or answered it, we would not be justified in interfering with the question itself,” a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed.
UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Prohibits Live-In Relation Between Interfaith Couples: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shilpa Alias Shikha And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2330 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 214
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 3(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prohibits live-in relationships like a matrimonial bond between couples of different religions.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed thus while disposing of a writ petition moved by a Hindu girl and her interfaith partner (petitioner No.2) seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against petitioner no. 2 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC.
Case Title: Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 245 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The Allahabad High Court has held that divorce petition cannot be dismissed under Section 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if acts of cruelty which were once condoned by the spouse are repeated.
The Court held that merely because in the petition it was stated that the husband had condoned the adultery and lived with the wife, it cannot be said that subsequent adultery by the wife was condoned. The Court held that one paragraph of the petition cannot be read in isolation to the other averments made in the divorce petition. Since the wife had continued her relationship outside of marriage, the Court held that there was cause of action for filing the divorce petition.
Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act.
"Thus, Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.
Case Title: State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs. Shyam Kewal Ram 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 217
The Allahabad High Court has held that Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreeing with the exoneration by the Inquiry Officer to enable the delinquent employee a chance to effectively defend himself.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“Recording of reasons in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the opinion of inquiry officer has a definite purpose to subserve. It gives an opportunity to the delinquent employee to offer his explanation on the issues that have weighed with the disciplinary authority. In a case where the disciplinary authority does not record reasons for his disagreement with the opinion of the inquiry officer the delinquent employee will be denuded of his right to effectively explain his defense regarding reasons of disagreement.”
Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4152 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if a woman waives off her right to claim maintenance from her husband at the time of divorce by mutual consent, she cannot later demand the same.
A bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit opined thus while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court passed in a plea moved by his wife under Section 125 CrPC directing him to pay Rs.25K per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.
Case Title: Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 117 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik for filing public interest litigation on the issues already decided by the High Court.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held
“The repeated attempt on part of the petitioner to raise the issue which already stood concluded by filing petitions in one form or the other in the name of Public Interest Litigation cannot be countenanced under any circumstance. The attempts made, as noticed hereinbefore, essentially amount to manipulation and attempt to mislead the Court, which action of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with heavy hand.”
Case Title: Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5761 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 220
The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure at the practice of development authority allowing illegal constructions to be raised beyond the sanctioned plan and legalizing the same by way of compounding. The Court held that such practice of allowing illegal construction by relaxing and deviating from the building bye-laws must stop.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that
“Building bye-laws and plans are supposed to be followed scrupulously so that urban development is allowed in a planned manner. What is, however, disturbing is the practice of allowing constructions in excess of approved plan and thereafter entertaining compounding plans, ostensibly with the purpose of augmenting the financial interest of the development authority.”
Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221
While treating the pension as the monthly income of the husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that awarding 25% of the monthly income of the husband as maintenance is not excessive.
The Court relied on Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari where the Supreme Court held that
“25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”