NOMINAL INDEX M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171 Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172 Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173 Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs....
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 [Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.
“Capital goods are intended for long-term use and are typically subject to capitalization. However, inputs, are goods used in the day-to-day operations of the business and are not subject to capitalization,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171 [WRIT TAX No. - 50 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).
Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 contemplates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be given to an assesee if he so requests in writing “OR” any adverse decision is contemplated against such assesee.
Case Title: Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court has held that on a combined reading of Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 no permission of the Court is needed by the adult head of Hindu family for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in joint family property.
Section 6 of the Act provides that for a Hindu minor and the minor's property (excluding their undivided interest in joint family property), the father shall be the natural guardian and after him the mother is the natural guardian.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 214 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
The Allahabad High Court has held that the scope of judicial review in rejection of a candidature based on medical condition found during medical examination is limited. The Court held that unless the medical board or the department has violated any guidelines issued for conduction the examination, interference by Court is not justified.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“The limited issue which has to be examined by the medical board is as to whether on the date of medical examination the candidate was medically fit or unfit. Whether the candidate was accorded consideration in terms of the policy/rules for medical examination would be the issue. It is only the correctness of such opinion by the medical board which can be examined in the review medical board. Judicial review of such administrative action would not involve recognition of a right in a candidate to get himself operated upon, even after he has been validly found unfit on a particular medical exigency so as to get himself operated and thereafter apply for fresh consideration of his candidature.”
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174 [WRIT - A No. - 12559 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court has held that the general category is called “open category” because there can be migration from reserved category to general category but not vice versa.
Accordingly, it was held that a reserved category candidate scoring higher marks than a general category candidate will be given priority in open category selection process. However, vice versa is not applicable for selection in reserved category, where only candidates of reserved category shall be selected.
Case title - Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3099 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 for want of prosecution will amount to acquittal u/s 256(1) CrPC, and same can be challenged in appeal u/s 378(4) CrPC or is that order revisable u/s 397 CrPC?
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench while disagreeing with the order of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Vinay Kumar Vs. State of UP 2007 wherein it was observed that against the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 NI Act, an appeal lies u/s 378(4) CrPC and not a revision.
Case title - Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2250 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a summoning order as well as a charge sheet against 3 persons in a case related to their alleged act of raising anti-India slogans in a temple, while a religious preaching was going on there.
Denying them the relief, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the allegations against them are of hailing another country and raising slogans against our nation, and of abusing and threatening the persons present in religious preaching, which clearly make out a case of trial of the applicants.
Case title - Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
While DISMISSING the challenge made to the cancellation of the lease of Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar University's land in the state's Rampur District, the Allahabad High Court strongly criticized the acts of the then Cabinet Minister and Senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan for misusing his position to perpetuate personal gains.
The judgment, passed by a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, emphasises that the grant of lease of Government land to Jauhar Trust was an outcome of "abuse and misuse of power" by the then Cabinet Minister as he acted "without scruples" and under influence of the public office he held, succeeded in "circumventing the law".
Case title - Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
The Allahabad High Court has GRANTED BAIL to Masood Ahmed, a student leader, in connection with the 2020 Hathras 'Conspiracy' case wherein 4 persons including Masood and Siddiqui Kappan, a journalist, have been booked by the UP Police under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
While passing this order, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I took into account the fact that the Supreme Court has already granted bail to co-accused Kappan and that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Case Title: Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179 [WRIT - C No. - 39901 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two interpretations of a fiscal or penal statute are possible, the interpretation which exempts the subject from penalty must be adopted rather than the one which imposes penalty.
The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“As regards interpretation of a penal or fiscal statute, it is well settled that if two views or constructions are possible, the Court must lean towards that view/construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is also well settled that if there is a reasonable doubt or ambiguity, the principle to be applied in construing a penal provision is that such doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person who would be subjected to penalty.”
Case Title: Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180 [WRIT - A No. - 37974 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of service in Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh before its division in 1997 must be counted as continuity in service for the purpose of computation retiral benefits, especially pension.
Initially, the petitioner was appointed as 'Auto/Motor Mechanic' at Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal where he continued till a fresh appointment was made as Anudeshak Motor Mechanic in Government Polytechnic, Jhansi in the same capacity. After retiring in 2015, the petitioner claimed retiral dues which were withheld by the authorities.
Case title - Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2447 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
The Allahabad High Court clarified that the criminal cases in which the accused are not charge-sheeted under the SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under the provisions of CrPC, even if the offence is being tried by the special court established under the SC/ST Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while dealing with an application filed by one Pramod seeking bail in a Murder case after his bail plea was rejected by the trial Court in December 2023.
Case title - Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
The Allahabad High Court has issued a show cause notice to an Oath Commissioner to show cause as to why he must not be removed from his post for executing affidavits without there being signature of Deponent and proper identification by Advocate.
Expressing serious displeasure at the conduct of the Oath Commissioners, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed,
“It is found that Oath Commissioners being appointed are not maintaining the standard of professionalism and are executing affidavits without signature of the Deponent in the affidavits. In the past occasions, the matter was referred to Competent Authority, however, despite reference, it has been informed that no action was taken in the previous matter. Inaction on the part of Competent Authority is resulting in encouragement to Oath Commissioners in executing affidavits without signature of Deponent.”
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To SHUATS Director Vinod Bihari Lal In An Attempt To Murder Case
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51149 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology And Sciences (SHUATS) director Vinod Bihari Lal in a case lodged against him for allegedly attempting to murder, causing grievous hurt to a person.
A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal granted him relief while directing him to deposit Rs. 10 lacs before the trial court before his release. The Court further ordered that any violation of the bail conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of bail and the immediate release of the deposited amount to the State.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 184
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court EXPUNGED the remarks made by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, Ravi Kumar Diwakar in one of his orders pertaining to the 2010 Bareilly Riots case wherein he had praised UP CM Yogi Adityanath and stated that "religious person in power gives good results".
While expunging Judge Diwakr's "unwarranted" remarks "containing political over-tones and personal views", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that it is not expected from the judicial officer to express or depict his personal or pre-conceived notions or inclinations in the matter.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the quashing of termination of an employee after he had an unblemished service record of 30 years.
Petitioner was appointed in the Schedule Tribe category against posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale in 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale and was eventually promoted on the post of Deputy Controller on 31.07.2013.
Case title - Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2814 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
The Allahabad High Court granted short-term bail to 4 elderly murder accused, including two with 100% blindness, till their cases for premature release - pending before the State Government - are not decided.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad in line with the HC's order of January 10, 2024 [passed in the case of Ganesh Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016)].
Case Title: Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5882 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of the Family Court granting extension of time to defendant-wife for filing written statement beyond the statutory period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC during pendency of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides that a defendant shall file his written defense within 30 days from the receipt of summons. The proviso to Rule 1 provides that the defendant may be allowed to file written statement after a period of 30 days on any other day specified by the Court. However, such period cannot exceed 90 days from the date of receipt of summon.
Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature.
The Court held that if the assessing authority is unable to obtain the registered email address from the income tax returns or from the designated portal of assesee or website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, then it is upon the assesee to provide the email address to the authority.
Allahabad High Court Declares 'UP Board Of Madarsa Education Act 2004' As Unconstitutional
Case title – Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
The Allahabad High Court single judge Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years.
Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant.
Case Title: Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [WRIT - A No. - 5017 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court has granted compassionate appointment to daughter-in-law as the son of the deceased was suffering from 75% disability. The Court held that daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is supposed to be treated like a daughter.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family.”