NOMINAL INDEX Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38 Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39 Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40 Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41 Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And...
NOMINAL INDEX
Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Manmeet Singh vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [WRIT - C No. - 22011 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on how despite guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, banks are being allowed to charge higher rates of interest from their customers.
While dealing with a case regarding higher interest rate charged by Standard Chartered Bank without informing the petitioner, the bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed,
“Surprisingly, RBI had been issuing guidelines but has done nothing for the implementation of the same. They have just been a mute spectator allowing the banks to charge arbitrarily a very high rate of interest.”
Case title - Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1041 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39
In an important assertion, the Allahabad High Court said that given the other remedies available for the purpose, under criminal and civil law, the exigence of a writ of habeas corpus at the behest of a husband to regain his wife would be rare and may not be available as a matter of course.
A bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava emphasized that such a writ may not be readily available and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances when a compelling case is presented.
“In a situation where the husband seeks to assert that the wife, without reasonable cause, is refusing to return to her matrimonial home, it would be open for him to seek the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the Court added.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another [WRIT - C No. - 17412 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court directed the University of Allahabad to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to a candidate who was otherwise eligible if the criteria had not been changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.
In a petition filed by a candidate seeking admission in second post graduate course in the University of Allahabad, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that since the eligibility criteria was changed after the petitioner had already applied, he cannot be non-suited for failing to meet the changed criteria.
Case title - Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 794 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court explained the difference between the scope of Section 311 CrPC [Power to summon material witness, or examine person present] and Section 233 CrPC [Entering upon defence] concerning the production of defence witnesses during the trial.
“Under section 311 CrPC, the power lies in the courts only and under section 233 CrPC, the right lies with the accused and the court's interference is limited,” the Court emphasized.
Case Title: Indu Bhushan Pandey vs. State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Dept Of Energy And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - A No. - 5813 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that denial of pension by retrospectively applying the amended rule is a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
While restoring pension of retired members State Electricity Regulatory Commission as prescribed under the unamended Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Condition of Service of the Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2008, the bench comprising of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“The denial of payment of pension to the petitioner as per the un-amended Rules, 2008 and application of National Pension Scheme to the petitioners on account of the retrospective application of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008 as amended vide Rules, 2021 is absolutely arbitrary and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Section 89 (2) of the Act.”(Referring to Electricity Act, 2003).
Case title – Bhola Das vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court dismissed as 'infructuous' a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which sought to prohibit Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath from conducting the Ram Mandir Pran Prathishtha ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that since the Pran Prathishtha ceremony has already concluded, the PIL plea has been rendered infructuous.
The PIL plea, filed by 79-year-old Bhola Das, prayed that the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh be refrained from taking part in the Pran-Pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya until the conclusion of the 2024 parliamentary elections and until they obtain consent from all Sanatan Dharm Guru Shankaracharya.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44 [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. 874 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the power to modify an award. The Court held that though parts of an award can be severed and set aside, provided such severance does not affect the remaining award.
“Reduction of interest is nothing but a modification of the original arbitration award, and accordingly, the same is illegal and against the principles established by the Supreme Court,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf relying on the decision of Supreme Court in on Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India and others.
Case Title: Kamlesh Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45 [WRIT - C No. - 15864 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State to pay additional compensation of Rs. 5,26,000 against the medical bill vouchers of mother-son duo who suffered acid attack injuries.
The bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“It has been well established from the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 1051 and Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 that medical grant is a fundamental right under the sweep of Article 21 which relates to Right to Life and Personal Liberty of all persons living in India.”
Case title - Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court observed that a husband is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife u/s 125 CrPC even if has no income from his job and he can earn Rs. 350-400 per day as an unskilled labour.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805 wherein it was held that a husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Section 107 Of CGST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47 [WRIT TAX No. - 291 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
“The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 777 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The Allahabad High Court has held that there cannot be any suppression as to information about conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case by any candidate seeking employment. The Court held that if there is any suppression of fact regarding criminal history, it can lead to cancellation of candidature or termination from service.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwaria, the bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I held,
“From considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) it can be concluded that the information given to the employer by a candidate as to the conviction/acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case whether before or after entering into the service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Any contravention made by the candidate shall cause cancellation of his candidature, dismissal from service if already appointed.”
Case Title: M/S Primeone Work Force Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Alok Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Revenue) New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49 [WRIT TAX No. - 4 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before passing of any adverse order, such as imposing tax or penalty, opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.
UPGST | Burden To Prove Intention To Evade Tax Lies Solely On Department: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court held that the burden to prove intention to evade tax lies solely on the Department. The Court held penalties in tax laws should not be imposed solely on insignificant technical errors which do not have any financial consequences.
The Court held that penalties should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence to show that an assesee is deliberately trying to defraud the system and not in cases of unintentional mistakes.
Commercial Tax | Allahabad High Court Upholds Condonation Of 1365 Days Delay On Sufficient Cause
Case Title: M/S Royal Sanitations vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 302 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has upheld condonation of delay of 1365 days by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in filing of appeal as it was sufficiently explained by the authorities.
Revisionist-assesee approached the High Court against order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal condoning the delay of 1365 days on part of the Department in filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Anil Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow to argue that inordinate delay cannot be condoned on wholly vague and generic grounds.
Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. 407 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court directed the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the time during which an applicant/plaintiff prosecutes a case in a court without jurisdiction shall be excluded from the computation of limitation provided the same is done with bonafide intention.