NOMINAL INDEX Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410 Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411 Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412 Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Kailash v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case title - Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man, a doctor by profession, who secretly took his daughter's blood sample for a private DNA test to challenge her paternity, avoid paying maintenance to her and to show that her wife was living in adultery.
Calling the said DNA report obtained by the applicant “nothing but trash”, which cannot be relied upon, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi dismissed the man's plea to order a fresh DNA test of the applicant and his daughters.
Case Title: Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411 [WRIT - C No. - 18388 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has held that order on miscellaneous application regarding the court fee is appealable under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Justice Ajit Kumar held that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for appeals, does not specify that appeals can only be filed against final orders and not interlocutory orders. Observing that order under Section 17 may be interlocutory in nature, the Court held that remedy of appeal under Section 18 ought to be availed against such orders.
Case Title: Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412 [WRIT - C No. - 12796 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisitions made under U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 prior to commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which have not been finalized till 01.01.2014 shall be governed by the Act of 2013 for the purposes of determination of compensation to the landowners.
Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 empowers the Board, thereunder, to acquire any land for any purpose under the Adhiniyam as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case title - Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court recently took exception to the routine and mechanical addition of Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) by trial court judges in the state to the cases already involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment without any supporting material.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that the mechanical addition of a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) to the cases involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment was making the situation “more grim and serious”.
Case Title: Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 8348 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee.
Case title - Kailash v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415
The Allahabad High Court observed that if the current trend of conversions during religious congregations is permitted to continue, the majority population of the country could eventually find itself in the minority one day.
With this observation, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated that the religious congregations, where conversions are occurring and where the religions of the citizens of India are being changed, should be immediately stopped.