Allahabad High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June 2024 [Citations 1-415]

[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS (JANUARY-JUNE 2024)

UP Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 | Eligibility/ Quantum Of Compensation For Rape Victims To Be Decided By DLSA, Not Court: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5804 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1

The Allahabad High Court has asked a rape victim seeking compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014 to approach the District Legal Service Authority.

While clarifying the procedure for rape victims for claiming compensation, Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that “the 'eligibility' of the victim for grant of compensation and quantum thereof can only be decided by the D.L.S.A. The court concerned can only make a 'recommendation'. It falls within the jurisdiction of D.L.S.A. to decide whether the 'claim' falls within the parameter of the scheme of 2014 or not. The role of the court, in such circumstances is formal and no more”

Show Cause/Hearing Opportunity A Must Before A Citizen's Character Certificate Is Cancelled Due To Criminal Antecedents: Allahabad HC

Case title - Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2

The Allahabad High Court has mandated that individuals facing the possibility of character certificate cancellation due to criminal antecedents must be given a show cause or hearing opportunity.

Emphasizing the importance of due process and fair treatment in such matters, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla read Clause-4 of the Government Order dated April 10, 2023, to include therein (on implied basis) that the Character Certificate cancellation action may be taken after issuance of show cause notice to the concerned citizen within one week from the date of receipt of information as to registration/pendency of criminal case.

The court's interpretation suggests that the proposed action to cancel a Character Certificate under Clause-4 should only proceed after issuing a show cause notice to the citizen within one week of receiving information about the registration or pendency of a criminal case.

“Notice may be served on the citizen within two weeks thereafter. The notice citizen may be granted two weeks therefrom to furnish his reply. A short date for a hearing may be fixed within a further period of two weeks therefrom and appropriate order may be passed in terms of Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 10.4.2023, thereafter.”

'They Aren't Supposed To Be Beneficiary Of Dowry Demand': Allahabad HC Grants Relief to Sisters-In-Law Implicated In 498A IPC Case

Case title - Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3

In a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of a wife against her sisters-in-law (accused) for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court granted relief to the accused as it noted that they are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry.

A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while allowing a revision plea challenging the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gorakhpur rejecting the discharge application of the accused (sisters-in-law) filed under Section 245 CrPC.

“The court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication, as these are married sisters-in-law of the complainant who are stated to have been living at far away place during the period when offence of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry was practised against the complainant,” the Court noted as it directed the Magistrate to consider their discharge plea afresh.

UP GST | No Interference Under Article 226 Unless Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Or Absence Of Relevant Material Established: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1390 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4

The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ court should not interfere in notice issued under Section 73 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established.

Petitioner challenged the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 (Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the reply filed by the petitioner. The notice under Section 73 was preceded by a notice under Section 61 (1) of the UPGST Act which provides that

“The proper officer may scrutinize the return and related particulars furnished by the registered person to verify the correctness of the return and inform him of the discrepancies noticed, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed and seek his explanation thereto.”

Otherwise Valid Auction Cannot Be Cancelled On Mere Expectation Of Fetching Higher Price: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 790 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5

The Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and Another to hold that a fresh auction cannot not be held merely on the possibility of receiving higher offers.

While setting aside order of the Company Judge calling for fresh auction at higher reserve price, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“In the present case, it is not in dispute that auction notice was widely published. None has otherwise come forward Company Judge raising a grievance that the auction was not widely circulated or anyone was prevented from submitting his bid. No higher bid was otherwise placed before the Company Judge. No infirmity is otherwise shown in the publication of auction notice or the conduct of auction. It is in this backdrop that we are not inclined to concur with the view taken by learned Company Judge in ignoring the highest bid submitted by the appellant and direct holding of a fresh bid in the matter.”

'Bound To Generate Anger In Society': Allahabad HC Upholds NSA Detention Of Two Men Accused Of Burning 'Ramcharitmanas'

Case title - Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the pleas filed by two persons challenging their detention under the National Security Act (NSA) on the allegations of burning copies of Hindu epic Ramcharitmanas and insulting the text.

In its order, a division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed that the public display of disrespect towards the Ramcharitmanas, which is considered to be a sacred scripture of the majority community, during broad daylight, is likely to provoke strong sentiments and anger within the society.

“In the case at hand, the manner in which the petitioner along with his associates, in a public place, in broad daylight, insulted the religious text Ramcharit Manas related to the events of the life of Lord Ram, worshipped by the majority section of the society as per their religious beliefs and faith, is bound to generate resentment and anger in the society, a scenario of religious frenzy and anger spreading in the society, especially in the present situation where almost every person of the society is connected with mobile phone and social media,” the Court observed.

Arms Act 1959 | Firing A Pistol In Self-Defence Doesn't Violate License Condition: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7

The Allahabad High Court has observed that firing a pistol in self-defence does not violate license conditions. With this, the Court ordered the release of a pistol in favour of the applicant, who had been charge-sheeted under Sections 286, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act 1959.

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on an application moved under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow wherein the applicant's application for release of pistol, 4 live cartridges and pistol license had been rejected.

Offence U/S 174-A IPC Cognizable Only Based On A Written Complaint Of Concerned Court; Police Can't Lodge An FIR: Allahabad HC

Case title - Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cognizance of an offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code can be taken by a court only on a written complaint of the concerned Court (which issued the proclamation) and the Police have no power to lodge an FIR in such cases.

For context, Section 174A IPC, which was introduced in 2005, criminalises the non-appearance of proclaimed offenders at the specified place and time.

In brief, as per HC's ruling, cognizance of the offence under Section 174A IPC can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 CrPC against the accused.

Typo Error In E-Way Bill, Penalty Can't Be Imposed If There Is No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1400 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9

The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill without any other material establishing an intention to evade tax will not attract a penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Placing reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others, the judgment of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that

“Upon perusal of the judgments, the principle that emerges is that the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to the imposition of penalty.”

UP Urban Premises Tenancy Act | No Requirement Of Prior Notice If Eviction Application For Personal Use Of Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7791 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10

The Allahabad High Court held that under Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, there is no requirement of prior notice to tenant for filing an eviction application before the rent Authority under the Act, if the eviction is for personal use of the tenanted premises.

Distinguishing the procedure under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 from the Act of 2021, Justice Alok Mathur held,

“According to sub section 2 (m) of Section 21 the landlord has only to demonstrate that the premises are required for his occupation. This provision is clearly distinguishable from the provisions in erstwhile Act No.13 of 1972 where the aspect of comparative hardship and bonafide requirement was to be established by the landlord.”

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On UP Govt As Its Standing Counsel 'Wastes' 10 Minutes Of 'Precious' Judicial Time

Case title - Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11 [WRIT - C No. - 9336 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the UP Government. This action was taken as the Standing Counsel, seemingly unprepared, wasted 10 minutes of 'precious' judicial time while presenting arguments in a writ matter.

Justice Abdul Moin issued the order, marking the third instance on a single day (January 8) where the Court came down heavily on Standing Counsels for their inability to effectively assist the court in the matters before it. Read details of two other orders here and here.

In the instant case, after the matter had been argued for around 10 minutes, the Court went through the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the judgements as cited by counsel for the petitioner and noted the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel prayed for some time to study the matter.

S.243(2) CrPC | Accused Can't Summon Prosecution Witness Who He Had Cross-Examined Unless Magistrate Satisfied It Is Essential: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5914 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 243(2) of the CrPC, the Magistrate is under an obligation to not compel re-appearances of prosecution witnesses already examined by the accused unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.

While dealing with the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for summoning defence witnesses, Justice Jyotsna Sharma held that the witnesses who have already put in appearance at the time of prosecution evidence and have been cross-examined by the accused should not be summoned again unless the Magistrate is satisfied that summoning such witnesses is essential for meeting the ends of justice.

The Court further observed that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be sparingly used. The Court observed,

“Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected.”

Appointment Based On Forged Documents, Not Entitled To Any Sympathy: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Teacher's Appointment

Case Title: Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 13121 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13

The Allahabad High Court upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a primary school teacher as it was based on forged documents.

The bench comprising of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that “a person such as petitioner, who has procured appointment as Teacher on basis of forged educational documents, cannot be entitled for any sympathy and he is required to be dealt with strictly.”

The Court held

“It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Petitioner has not submitted any document which could contradict the findings returned by Inquiry Officer as well as by disciplinary authority that forged educational documents were provided by petitioner at the time of his appointment.”

CGST Act | Once Registration Is Cancelled, Uploading Notice On Portal Not Sufficient Notice, Must Be Given At Assesee's Address: Allahabad HC

Case Title: M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1507 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the registration of the assesee is cancelled, any notice for proceedings under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall be served on the address of the assesee. The Court observed that merely uploading notice on the web portal without any intimation to the assesee will vitiate any subsequent action as being bad in law.

Elaborating on the need for judicious application of the principle of audi alteram partem in legal and administrative proceedings, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,

“In the present case, when the petitioner had cancelled its registration in the year 2019, a proper notice was required to be issued to it under Section 74 of the Act at its address. However, the authorities simply uploaded the Section 74 show cause notice on the web portal inspite of knowing that the petitioner had already cancelled its registration prior to the date of issuance of the show cause notice. This action clearly prevented the petitioner from appearing in the hearing in the original proceeding under Section 74 of the Act that was accordingly passed ex parte.”

Anyone Including Victims, Eyewitnesses Or Cops Having Knowledge Of Commission Of Cognizable Offence Can Lodge FIR: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

Reading Sections 154 & 155 of CrPC conjointly, the Allahabad High Court has observed that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR.

This includes not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence, extending even to police officers themselves, the Court added.

“The universality of the authority to lodge an F.I.R. is a foundational principle ensuring that the criminal justice system remains accessible to those with information about potential criminal acts. This inclusivity empowers informants comprising victims, eyewitnesses, and even law enforcement officers to initiate the process, fostering a collaborative and comprehensive approach to crime reporting,” a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

Stray Remark Calling Complainant 'Mad' May Be Rude But It Doesn't Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

The Allahabad High Court observed that a stray statement made by any person by calling someone 'mad', may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, the same doesn't constitute an offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).

A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner, in a complaint case, for an offence under Section 504 IPC for allegedly calling the complainant a 'mad person'.

“…it appears that it was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace,” the Court remarked.

“Aggrieved” Unmarried Daughter Has Right To Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act, Irrespective Of Her Religion & Age: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3046 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17

The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried daughter has the right to obtain maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, irrespective of her religion and age if she falls within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act.

The Court held that a person seeking only maintenance has recourse under other laws. However, if a person is “aggrieved” as per the Act, then independent right is available to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“In my view the legislature, while enacting this Act had this realization in mind that though existing provision of law provide for rights of maintenance to eligible persons, however the procedural delays defeat the very purpose,” observed Justice Jyotsna Sharma.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Muslim Scholar Accused Of Issuing Fatwa To Kill Waseem Rizvi After He Embraced Hinduism

Case title - Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Muslim Scholar who has been accused of issuing a fatwa to kill former Shia Waqf Board chairman Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi Aka Waseem Rizvi after he converted to Hindu religion renouncing Islam.

A Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan granted bail to Maulana Syed Mohammad Shabibul Husaini who allegedly stated in an interview on a YouTube channel that it is desirable to kill Rizvi by uttering words - Katl Wajib Hai (it is desirable to kill).

Collector Can Determine Market Value Of Land At The Time Of Execution Of Sale Deed Or Period Reasonably Proximate Thereto: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has power to determine market value of the land at the time of execution of sale deed or period reasonably proximate thereto.

While dealing with challenge to proceedings under the Stamp Act, 1899, Justice Abdul Moin relied on the full bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. and others and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P. and others to hold that

“the market value of the land would have got nothing to do with the circle rates inasmuch as it is the determination of the Collector which would determine the market value of the land along with some material which may have a direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic value on the basis of which he can come to a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been correctly indicated in the instrument/sale deed.”

Nominee Of Govt Employee Merely A Custodian, Benefit After Death Of Employee Conferred To Legal Heirs: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [WRIT - A No. - 11483 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20

The Allahabad High Court reiterated the position settled by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) that a nominee of a government employee is merely a custodian, however, any benefits that accrue after the death of such government employee can only be conferred upon his/her legal heirs.

Petitioner's ex-husband died after retiring as an Assistant Teacher at Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. Though the husband had wedded again, the petitioner's name was recorded as his nominee. Petitioner claimed entitlement to the retiral benefits based on her name being mentioned as his nominee and the fact that she was his wife for many years.

SARFAESI Act | Right Of Redemption Cannot Be Taken Away By Insufficient Notice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21

The Allahabad High Court has held that right of redemption under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an important right which cannot be taken away or breached by the authorities by insufficient notice.

While observing that it is settled law that service of notice upon the borrower is mandatory under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“Right of redemption is an important right available to a borrower, who is in default. Such important right cannot be taken away and any action taken in its breach cannot be approved of.”

Also read: Special Appeal Against Order Of Single Judge Dealing With Order Of DRAT Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Subsequent Anticipatory Bail Pleas Maintainable On Emergence Of Substantial Change In Facts & Circumstances: Allahabad HC

Case title - Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1016 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person can move subsequent bail anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.

Noting that there is no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure on moving subsequent regular bail applications u/s 439 CrPC, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan held that there is no restriction on moving subsequent anticipatory bail applications if there is a change in circumstances.

Allahabad HC Directs Haridwar & Bijnor DMs To Install Pillars Demarcating State Boundaries Between UP & Uttarakhand

Case title - Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23 [WRIT - C No. - 20596 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23

The Allahabad High Court directed the district magistrates posted at Haridwar (in Uttarakhand) and Bijnor (in Uttar Pradesh) districts to direct for the erection of pillars in their respective areas to demarcate the boundaries between the two states on January 23^rd.

The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Gurpreet Singh (a resident of Bijnor district).

S.24 Land Acquisition Act 2013 | Applicability To Prior Acquisitions Depends On Date Of Award, Not Date Of Taking Possession: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24 [WRIT - C No. - 18397 of 2018]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24

The Allahabad High Court held that the applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 depends upon the date on which the award is made and not on the date on which possession was taken over by the authorities.

The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,

“Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 clearly mandates that where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of the new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply. The applicability of the said provision is not dependent upon the fact as to whether possession has been taken or not under the provisions of the old Act.”

UPGST | Truck Is Capital Asset Of Transporter, Seizure Without Notice Affects Civil Rights: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25 [WRIT TAX No. - 1524 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25

The Allahabad High Court has held that the seizure of a vehicle transporting goods affects the civil rights of the transporter as the truck is a capital asset of the transporter. The Court held that the transporter ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing any penalty order against him.

While observing that the vehicle carrying the goods could be released under proviso-1 of Section 129 (6) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held

“Truck being the valuable property and a capital asset of the transporter which is utilised to generate revenue/ income, we perceive valuable civil right of the petitioner having being adversely affected exparte.”

Offence Punishable U/S 506 IPC If Committed In Uttar Pradesh Is A Cognizable Offence: Allahabad High Court

Case title – Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26

The Allahabad High Court observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation) if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence.

To hold thus, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

Contention Of Accused About False Implication Cannot Be Examined In Section 482 CrPC Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

Case title – Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10364 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27

The Allahabad High Court has observed that while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot examine the contention of the accused that he/she has been falsely implicated in the case.

“While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.

Criminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Allegations Also Disclose A Civil Dispute Between Parties: Allahabad HC

Case title – Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11379 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties.

“The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicant,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted.

Proceedings Under 'UP Gangsters Act' Liable To Be Quashed Upon Acquittal Of Accused In Base Cases Of Gang Chart: Allahabad HC

Case title – Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26217 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the proceedings of the base cases depicted in the gang chart are quashed or the accused has been acquitted, the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 are liable to be quashed.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted thus while hearing a plea moved by one Abdul Kadeer Khan under Section 482 CrPC assailing proceedings initiated against him under Sections 2/3 of the 1986 Act.

Union Govt Bound By Apostille Convention, Cannot Disbelieve Apostille Document Of Other Countries: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30 [WRIT - C No. - 19866 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB)

The Allahabad High Court held that the Union Government is bound by the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention) as India is a signatory to the same. The Court held that the government cannot disbelieve Apostille documents issued by countries signatory to the Apostille Convention.

The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, also known as Apostille Convention, is an international treaty for abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents. It was brought in to replace the cumbersome process of certification of documents of one country by another. If two countries are signatories of the Apostille Convention, then documents issued by the government of one country are legally recognizable in the other country without any further need of verification.

Also read: Citizenship Act 1955 | Nativity Certificate Not Mandatory For Grant Of OCI Card: Allahabad High Court

UPGST | Invoice Contains Vehicle Details, Error In Not Filling Part-B Of E-Way Bill Technical: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31 [WRIT TAX No. - 937 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31

The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Petitioner approached the High Court against the order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods. The appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.

VAT Act | Granite Stone Falls Within Definition Of Stone Under Entry 109, Taxable At 5%: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 79 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 of the Schedule II Part A as per notification No.KANI-2-421/XI-9(1) dated 31.03.2011 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

The Department challenged the order of the Tribunal classifying granite stone as “stone” under Entry 109 on grounds that the list in Entry 109 was exhaustive and did not include granite stone. It was argued that granite stone was unclassified and liable to be taxed at 14.5%.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA For Allegedly Strengthening PFI To Establish 'Gazwa-E-Hind' In India

Case title - Mohd. Arkam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2174 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Mohd. Arkam) who was arrested in September 2022 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (OFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.

The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted him bail as it noted that the trial in the case is still pending and there is no likelihood of it being completed soon coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal history to his name and thus, Section 43-D of the UAP Act is not attracted.

Negative Report By DM Does Not Decide Claim For Visa And Citizenship, Must Be Decided By Competent Authorities: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34 [WRIT - C No. - 35732 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34

The Allahabad High Court has held that a negative report by the District Magistrate does not decide the claim for visa and citizenship. The Authorities have to decide the same based on merits, it said.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:

“The authorities vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim existing and the claim made being pending before them, we cannot shut out the case of the petitioner merely on the basis of the negative report submitted by the District Magistrate, at this stage.”

'Ploy To Defame Image Of Girl, Her Family Members': Allahabad HC Dismisses Alleged Lover's Habeas Corpus Plea With ₹25K Cost

Case title - XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35

"...we are not living in a western country, where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens, We live in country, where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country," remarked Allahabad High Court while dismissing a habeas corpus plea filed by the purported lover of a girl (alleged detenue), who claimed that her family members had unlawfully confined her.

The Court also directed the petitioner (Ashish Kumar) to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000/ [to be paid to the detenue "for damaging her image in the society"] as it noted that entertaining the petition would demolish the image and reputation of family members and the girl.

Prolonged Separation From Spouse Without Cause Itself Cruelty U/S 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 177 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the divorce granted by the Court below to a couple living separately for almost 13 years.

In the divorce petition filed by the husband, the Court below had decided the issue of dissertation against him. However, divorce was granted on grounds of mental cruelty inflicted by the wife on the husband.

The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that cruelty need not only be physical in nature. In case of mental cruelty, it may be impossible for the spouse to continue in the martial relationship.

Industrial Disputes Act | UP Forest Corporation An 'Industry', 'Mali' Involved In Systematic Activities In Forest Not Casual Employee: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37 [WRIT - C No. - 1005250 of 1990]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Forest Corporation is an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employees working as 'mali' who are involved in systematic activities regarding forests are no casual employees.

The bench comprising of Justice Alok Mathur held,

“Considering the aforesaid judgments and also nature of the work involved in the present case where the workmen were working on the post of Mali and were involved in the task of plantation in the forest and distribution of forest produce, the said exercise was definitely a systematic activity and they have been working for four years continuously, it cannot be said that they were daily or casual employees engaged only intermittently.”

RBI Mute Spectator, Allowing Banks To Arbitrarily Charge Very High Rate Of Interest Despite Guidelines: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Writ Of Habeas Corpus At Husband's Behest Seeking Wife's Return Not Available As A Matter Of Course: Allahabad High Court

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.

Eligibility Rules Changed Post Commencement Of Selection Process: High Court Directs Allahabad University To Compensate Candidate Declared Ineligible

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.

Production Of Defence Witness | Power Of Court Vs Right Of Accused: Allahabad High Court Explains Scope Of Sections 311 & 233 CrPC

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.

Denial Of Pension By Retrospectively Applying Amended Rule Violates Constitutional Rights Under Articles 14, 16: Allahabad High Court

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).

'Infructuous': Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL For Restraining PM Modi To Inaugurate Ram Mandir Till Conclusion Of 2024 Polls

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.

Reduction Of Interest Is Nothing But Modification Of Original Arbitration Award: Allahabad High Court Quashes Section 34 Order

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.

Acid Attack | Medical Grant Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Allahabad HC Grants Additional Compensation For Verified Medical Bills

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.”

Husband Bound To Maintain Wife Despite Lack Of Income, He Can Earn ₹350-400 Per Day As An Unskilled Worker: Allahabad HC

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.

Suppression Of Criminal History From Employer Ground For Cancellation Of Candidature/ Dismissal From Service: Allahabad High Court

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.”

UPGST | Opportunity Of Hearing Mandatory Under S75(4) Before Imposing Tax/Penalty: Allahabad High Court

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.

[Limitation Act] Allahabad High Court Extends Benefit Of Exclusion Of Time U/S.14 To Appeals Under S.107 CGST Act

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.

Courts Are Not Industrial Establishments, Bar Can't Bargain Their Demands Like Trade Unions: Allahabad High Court On Lawyers' Strike

Case Title: Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1951 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53

Expressing alarm over a petition concerning continuous strike in Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia, the Allahabad High Court remarked,

“In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the cry stronger and their sleep against call for justice turning into a deep slumber, so long as the saviours of justice, i.e. the lawyers and the Judges, do not come for rescue of the victims of injustice.”

CGST Act | Time Extension For Filing Appeal Against Orders U/S 73, 74 Can Be Extended To Orders U/S 129, 130: Allahabad HC Asks CBIT To Consider

Case Title: M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54 [WRIT TAX No. - 1188 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54

The Allahabad High Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance to consider extending the benefit of extension of time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to orders passed under Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, issued Notification No. 53/23- Central Tax dated 2^nd November 2023, extending the time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act till January 31, 2024 for orders passed under Section 73 and 74.

Fabricating Documents, Misappropriating Funds Not Part Of 'Official Duty' For Purposes Of Claiming Protection U/S 197 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21858 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55

The Allahabad High Court has observed that acts like fabricating the document or misappropriating funds do not form part of the official duty of a public servant to claim protection under Section 197 of CrPC.

For context, Section 197 CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also opined that in cases where there exists even a minor uncertainty regarding whether a public servant's action or omission falls within the purview of official duty, the determination of this issue should be reserved for trial proceedings based on evidence.

“Unless that issue was decided on the basis of evidence during the trial, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in the exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., mainly because a person claiming himself to be a public servant alleges that his act was in discharge of his official duty,” the Court observed.

Not Always Necessary To Hold Detailed Enquiry Against Each Individual Where Enquiry Is Against Several Persons: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 637 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56

In a case involving large number of fake “ODs” in Amity University, the Allahabad High Court has held that when enquiry proceedings are being held against large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold a detailed enquiry against every individual involved.

“OD” is the attendance earned by students by participating in trainings, seminars, workshops or other extra-curricular activities. It is an online system and ODs can only be granted using login-id and password of the faculty involved.

The bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

“It is now well settled that violation of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula but depends on facts of each case. Where enquiry is not against any particular individual but broad based and involves a large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold detailed enquiry against each individual. If on examination of facts, it emerges that a fair procedure has been adopted without causing any material prejudice to any person then the courts have declined to interfere.”

GST | Show Cause Notice A Vital Checkpoint, Delineates Boundaries Within Which Any Authority Can Operate: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57 [WRIT TAX No. – 276 0f 2020]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57

The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to impose penalty on the assesee.

The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,

“At its core, a show cause notice represents the initial step in an administrative or legal process, wherein an individual or entity is formally apprised of allegations or discrepancies attributed to them. This notice serves as a mechanism to afford the recipient an opportunity to present their side of the story, provide clarifications, or rectify any perceived errors before any punitive action is taken.”

Hindu Marriage Act | Plea To Declare Marriage Void U/S 11 Can't Be Judged On Grounds Of Voidable Marriage U/S 12: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1391 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58

The Allahabad High Court has held that grounds under Section 11 (Void Marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are very different from grounds under Section 12 (Voidable Marriages) and thus, a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.

The Court held that a marriage performed in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act is void and cannot be cured or ratified. However, in case of a voidable marriage, declaration is necessary, otherwise the marriage continues to subsist.

The bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

“Needless to point out that a void marriage is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place and such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio can be sought under Section 11 of the Act on the grounds as provided therein whereas a voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. Unless the decree is granted, the lis remains binding and continues to subsist.”

GST | Technical Error Without Any Financial Implications Do Not Attract Penalties: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59 [Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere technical errors under tax laws without any financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties.

While dealing with the case of goods not accompanying e-way bill, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,

“Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not be the grounds for imposition of penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where penalties are proportionate to the gravity of the offense. In the realm of taxation, imposition of penalty serves as a critical measure to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations.”

Undertrials/Convicts Have A Right To Get Adequate Medical Treatment: Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail To MP Atul Rai On Medical Grounds

Case title - Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) granted interim bail to Ghosi MP Atul Rai on medical grounds until March 22 noting that he is suffering from a “life-threatening” ailment and hence, needs immediate redressal.

Stressing that no matter how serious an offence is, the health condition of a human being is paramount, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan directed that Rai be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs.

“The custody during the period of trial cannot be termed to be punitive in nature. The health concern of a person in custody has to be taken care of by the State and is to be keenly watched and evaluated by the judiciary. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively medically treated even if he is under trial or a convict,” the Court remarked.

Payment Of Wages Act | District Judge Deciding Appeal U/S 17 Acts As A Court, Not As 'Persona Designata': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12595 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61

The Allahabad High Court has held that a judge appointed in individual capacity by name acts as a persona designata but when he is appointed by his designation alone, he acts as a Court.

The Court held that the test to determine whether appointment is made as a persona designata or not is to see if the person has been appointed by “his name alone, the description or designation being given only to identify him.” If only the post or the designation is mentioned, then the appointment is as Court and not as persona designata.

The Court thus held that order passed by a judge in appeals under Section 17 (Appeals) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in his official capacity are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

School Fee Concession Granted To Siblings Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad High Court

Case Title:- Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62 [WRIT - C No. - 31168 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the sibling fee relief granted by a school is subject to certain conditions and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

While dealing with the rustication of two siblings from Delhi Public School, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad due to issue regarding the applicability of sibling fee scheme benefit, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed,

“I find that the Sibling Fee Relief under the Circular dated 5.8.2021 issued by the respondent No. 7 is a benefit offered to the parents whose two children are studying in the institution subject to certain riders and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”

Enormity Of Charge Does Not License Employer To Jump To Conclusions: Allahabad High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Employee

Case Title: Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others [WRIT - A No. - 14824 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63

While dealing with a case where oral evidence was not led by an employer to prove charges against the, the Allahabad High Court remarked that “the seriousness or enormity of the charge does not license the employer to jump to conclusions.”

Directing the reinstatement of the employee, Justice J.J. Munir observed,

“The more serious the charge, the more serious the consequence for the employee that are likely to ensue, in the event of its proof, and, the more strict, therefore, would be the requirement of procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry, where, the inquiry must proceed according to salutary and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry, which requires the Establishment to discharge their burden in the first instance, by leading evidence, with due opportunity to the delinquent.”

Provision For Urgent Relief Not A Tool To Circumvent Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Commercial Courts Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another [ First Appeal No. 30 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64

The Allahabad High Court has held that a prayer of urgent relief should not be used as a tool to circumvent the requirement of pre-litigation mediation contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that where urgent relief is not contemplated in a suit, the plaintiff must exhaust the remedy of pre-mediation litigation before instituting a suit.

Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held,

“the invocation of urgent relief should not serve as a pretext to circumvent or evade Section 12A of the Act. It is imperative that the factual matrix and contextual intricacies of each case are comprehensively assessed from the plaintiff's perspective. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has expounded that any attempt to cloak or disguise the true intent behind seeking such relief, with the intention of sidestepping the statutory obligation of pre-litigation mediation, warrants scrutiny, particularly in instances where duplicity and falsehood are manifest or substantiated.”

UP Anti-Conversion Law | Interfaith Marriage Not Valid Unless 'Pre' & 'Post Conversion Declaration' Formality U/S 8 & 9 Complied With: Allahabad HC

Case title - Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66 [WRIT - C No. - 1348 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66

The Allahabad High Court has held that no sanctity could be attached to an interfaith/inter-religious marriage which has been performed without the compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.

The Court court clarified that in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 came into force [after November 27, 2020] the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed thus:

"...if conversion is done in relation to marriage of the persons belonging to different religions, irrespective of any past event, which might or might not attach sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come into force, i.e., after 27.11.2020 as per Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act..."

Arbitral Award Under MSMED Act Must Be Challenged Under S 19 Of MSME Act Read With S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67 [WRIT - C No. - 3774 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67

The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council under the MSED Act shall not be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not the supplier) deposits 75% of the decretal amount.

Arbitration Act| Debatable Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Decided In Proceedings U/ S 11(6): Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68 [ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 42 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator.

“The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. Its adjudication requires appreciation of evidence. The scope of judicial review in deciding issue of arbitrability is very limited,” held Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta.

Arms License Can Be Cancelled During Pendency Of Criminal Case If Conduct Detrimental To Public Peace, Safety: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69 [WRIT - C No. - 1614 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of firearms license on grounds that categorically factual findings were recorded by the authority regarding the conduct of the petitioner being detrimental to public peace and safety.

The Court observed that Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to vary the conditions of the firearm license granted. The licensing authority also has the power to suspend or revoke firearm license if, inter alia, licensing authority is satisfied that the suspension or revocation is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety.

S.29 UP Police Act | Same Magistrate Cannot Be Both Witness & Judge In Proceedings Against SHO: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 414 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70

Allahabad High Court has held that the same Magistrate cannot be the witness and the judge in the case initiated by him against the SHO (Inspector In-Charger) under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.

Section 29 of the UP Police Act provides penalties for neglect of duties by a police officer mentioned therein including wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or a lawful order made by competent authority. Penalties for such erring police officer are upto three months' pay, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both.

S.326(1) UP Municipalities Act | Notice To Municipality Not Mandatory If It Will Defeat Purpose Of Injunction Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12988 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of anapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) on grounds that notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is not mandatory if it will defeat the purpose of the injunction suit.

Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 provides for suits against municipality or its officers, it is mandatory to provide a two month notice period to the municipality and its officers. The notice must contain the cause of action, nature of relief sought, amount of compensation claimed, and name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left at the address of the municipality or its officers whoever is sought to be impleaded.

Allahabad HC Bats For Action Against Rape Victims Who Turn Hostile During Trial After Getting Compensation From Govt

Case title - Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41458 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72

The Allahabad High Court has observed that appropriate action should be taken against victims who initially lodge an FIR under Section 376 IPC (Rape), POCSO Act & SC-ST Act but turn hostile by retracting their statements during the trial after receiving compensation from the Government.

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav further emphasized that such cases result in a waste of the investigator's and the court's time and resources.

75(4) UPGST Act| Even If There Is No Request For Personal Hearing, Must Be Heard Before Adverse Decision: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [Writ Tax No. 1544 of 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73

The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part.

Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that

“Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”

UPGST | Expired E-Way Bill, But No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74 [Writ Tax No. 141 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax.

S.148 Income Tax| For Assumption Of Jurisdiction Satisfaction Needs To Be Bonafide, No Need To Record “Reason To Believe”: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 [WRIT TAX No. - 1482 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held,

“under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.”

Dark Face Of Society That Girls' Parents Lodge FIRs Against Husbands While Disapproving Their Love Marriage: Allahabad HC

Case title - Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17109 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76

The Allahabad High Court observed that it is the 'dark face' of the society where parents, disapproving of their children's love marriages, resort to filing FIRs against the boy under familial and societal pressure, showcasing a troubling trend.

“The court after hearing the parties, records its deepest anguish, whereby this social menace is deep rooted that even after 75 years of independence we are fighting the cases with his opponents on this score only,” the bench of Justice Prashant Kumar remarked.

UP VAT Act | Where Assessee Has Paid Far More Tax Than Input Tax Credit Claimed, Section 13(1)(f) Will Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 87 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77

The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply.

Section 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides conditions in which input tax credit can be claimed by an assesee holding a valid registration. Section 13(1)(f) of the Act provides that

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this sub-section where goods purchased are resold or goods manufactured or processed by using or utilizing such where goods are sold, at the price which is lower than (i) purchase price of such goods in case of resale; or (ii) cost price in case of manufacture, the amount of input tax credit shall be claimed and be allowed to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods.”

S107 CGST | Appellate Authority Does Not Have Power To Remand Case Back To Adjudication Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1417 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78

The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul the order under appeal.

Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the remedy of appeal to an assesee aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the CGST Act. Sub-section 11 of Section 107 empowers the appellate authority to pass orders either confirming, modifying or annulling the order under challenge. However, sub-section 11 specifically prohibits the appellate authority from sending the case back to the authority whose order is under challenge.

Person Summoned U/S 319 CrPC Can't Avail Remedy Of Discharge U/S 227 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a person added as accused after being summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

Referring to top Court's judgement in the case of Jogendra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (2015), a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan opined thus:

“…an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC is entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, however, the same cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”

Writ Petition Has To Be Drafted Carefully, Reliefs Sought Must Be Supported By Pleadings: Allahabad High Court Rejects Claim For Payment Of Gratuity

Case Title: Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [WRIT - A No. - 18971 of 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a petition must be carefully drafted, disclosing all relevant facts for grant of relief sought by the petitioner.

While dealing with a bunch of cases relating to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that

“In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.”

NI Act Doesn't Prescribe Who Will Represent Company Which Is Complainant U/S 138, Can Be Represented By An Employee: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18652 of 2016]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not prescribe who can file a complaint on behalf of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

The Court held that when company is the payee, the complaint must be registered in the name of the company.

“Section 142 of the N.I.Act does not specify as to who should represent the company, if the company is the complainant. A company can be represented by an employee or even by a known employee, who is duly authorized and empowered to represent the company either by resolution or by a power of attorney,” held Justice Prashant Kumar.

NDPS Act | Samples Not Drawn In Magistrate's Presence As Per S. 52A Can't Be Treated As Primary Evidence During Trial: Allahabad HC

Case title - Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6549 of 2018]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that samples not drawn from the bulk in the presence of a Magistrate as per the mandate of Section 52A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can't be treated as a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial.

For context, Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) of the provide that when seized contraband is forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, the officer must draw samples from the seized goods in the presence of a magistrate who shall certify its correctness. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.

S. 138 NI Act | Demand Notice Sent To Cheque Drawer Via Email/WhatsApp Is Valid: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45953 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a demand notice sent to the drawer of a cheque through 'email or WhatsApp' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument for the dishonour of a cheque, is a valid notice and the same shall be deemed to be dispatched and served on the same date, if it fulfils the requirement of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act.

For context, Section 13 of the IT Act provides that as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, a computer resource outside the control of the originator, it is deemed to be dispatched and as soon as the notice in electronic form is entered, the designated computer resource or enters the computer resources of the addressee, and then it is deemed to be served.

'Law Must Yield To Justice': Allahabad High Court Permits Woman With 4 Biological Children To Adopt Child Despite Legal Bar

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84

The Allahabad High Court permitted a woman having four biological children to adopt a child, despite a legal bar under Adoption Regulations 2022, notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 68(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Rule 5 of the Adoption Regulations provides that couples with two or more children shall only be considered for adoption of special needs children and hard to place children, unless they are relatives or step-children.

In this regard, while giving the custody of X to the petitioner, her foster parent, the bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla observed,

“While the law could not prevent the petitioner from giving birth to another child, it has been relied to deprive the petitioner from bringing up another child as her own. To take away X from the petitioner is the easiest part in law but it is not possible for law to find another set of parents X may identify as its own. Therefore, law must yield to justice that otherwise commends that the child X must remain in the care of those it perceives to be its parents, especially the petitioner in whom it has found its mother.”

'Injury Caused By Throwing A Piece Of Brick Not An Injury Likely To Cause Death': Allahabad HC Alters Murder Conviction To 'Grievous Hurt'

Case title - Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 1989]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85

The Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of a man for the offence of 'murder' under Section 302 IPC to one of 'voluntary causing grievous hurt' under Section 325 IPC as it noted that though the accused had caused an injury to the victim by throwing a piece of brick at him, the said injury cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death.

The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that for deducing the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused, it has to be seen whether he was aware of the consequences which shall follow or likely to follow as a direct consequence of his act.

“Where such an awareness of the direct consequences or the higher degree of probability cannot be attributed to the accused, the offence may not fall either under section 302 IPC or section 304 IPC, In our firm opinion, in such cases the offence may be covered under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC as the case may be,” the Court remarked.

Mere Use Of Abusive Language Or Being Discourteous/Rude By Itself Doesn't Amount To Offence U/S 504 IPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18245 of 2018]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86

The Allahabad High Court observed that mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).

The court added that for an act to come under the purview of this offence, it has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult was such that is likely to insult a person or to commit a breach of the peace or commit an offence

DRT | Rejection Of Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 Will Not Operate As Res Judicata On Deciding Issue Of Limitation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35362 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87

The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.

The Court held that question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact requires evidence to be led by contesting parties. The issue of limitation as such cannot be decided at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC unless the pleading in the plaint show the plaint to be barred by limitation, it said.

Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be To A Post Higher Than That Held By Deceased Employee: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19344 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted on a higher post than the post which was held by the deceased employee, despite the applicant having higher educational qualifications.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suneel Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others and the observations given by the Apex Court while reversing the decision of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Premlata vs. State of U.P. and others, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held,

“Apex Court had twice interpreted the Rule 5 Rules 1974 as well as suitable employment as referred herein. Apex Court has clearly held that "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be construed with the post held by the deceased employee and not by the higher qualification held by the dependent. View of the Apex Court is that compassionate appointment shall not be given upon a higher post than the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore, as on date, law of land is that legal heir cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee.”

No Restriction On Extending Compassionate Employment To Daughter Of Deceased Employee If Son Already In Govt Employment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16068 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89

The Allahabad High Court has held that the statutory condition for not granting compassionate appointment if the spouse of the deceased employee is already in government employment is only limited to the spouse and cannot be extended to children of the deceased employee.

The Court held that the son being in government employment at the time of the death of his father would be irrelevant since his earning may be utilized for providing for his own family, wife and children.

Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12798 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90

The Allahabad High Court observed that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge the order.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while relying upon a full bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others wherein it was held that an aggrieved person, having a remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Res-Judicata Does Not Apply In Tax Matters, But Doctrine Of Finality Applies Unless There Is Marked Change: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91 [ SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 206 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91

The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its stance for the same assesee for different assessment years, unless there is a marked change from one year to another.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that

“One may of course keep in mind that in taxation matters, the principles of res-judicata do not apply squarely for one assessment year to the other. However, keeping in mind the doctrine of finality, unless there is a marked change from one assessment year to the other, the department cannot be allowed to take a different stand.“

NEET | Medical College Can't Retain Fees If Student Resigns From Allotment Made In First Counselling Itself: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92 [WRIT - C No. - 6606 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92

The Allahabad High Court has held that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling is quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student by the institution.

While directing the respondent college to refund the fee deposited by the student at the time of first counselling, who is now seeking admission elsewhere, Justice Manish Mathur observed that

“In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place.”

Allahabad HC Upholds Cancellation Of Appointment Of Asst Teachers Who Were Unfairly Awarded Higher Marks In Entrance Test, Imposes 5K Costs On Each Candidate

Case Title: Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15229 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93

While dealing with a challenge against the cancellation of appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Basic Education Department based on the re-evaluation of answer booklets, the Allahabad High Court has held that less meritorious candidates cannot be allowed to continue on the posts at the cost of meritorious candidates.

The Court held that in the absence of a challenge to the process of re-evaluation, merely citing the lack of statutory provisions, cannot be a reason to disregard the process and accommodate less meritorious candidates who were selected based on fraudulent tabulation of marks.

“Fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates on examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness, an endeavour has to be taken to cure it,” held Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.

UPVAT Act | Revision Jurisdiction Of High Court Limited To Questions Of Law, Jurisdictional Errors Or Procedural Irregularities: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.- 36 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94

The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal.

Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides that any person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 57(7) or Section 57(8) of the UPVAT Act can file a revision before the High Court on grounds that the case involves questions of law. The limitation for filing such revision is ninety days from the service of such orders.

“In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has a limited mandate. The scope of revisional jurisdictional, is primarily focused on questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities. The High Court in a revision petition must refrain from engaging in a de novo inquiry into factual matters already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, unless compelling grounds warranting such intervention are made,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

S.75(4) UPGST Act | Failure To File Reply To Show-Cause Notice Does Not Take Away Right Of Personal Hearing: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95 [WRIT TAX No. - 144 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95

The Allahabad High Court has held that not filing a reply to a show cause notice does not take away the opportunity for personal hearing mandated 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 for a hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated against such person.

The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held that there is a dual requirement engrained in the principles of natural justice.

“First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.”

Govts Should Collect Taxes Like Honeybee, Without Disturbing Petals: Allahabad High Court While Quashing Penalty Order Against Hawkins

Case Title: M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96 [WRIT TAX No. - 739 of 2020]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96

While quashing penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited, the Allahabad High Court cited the Arthashastra by Chanakya.

“Governments should collect taxes like a honeybee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.”

The Court held that in absence of any other discrepancy, incorrect address entered in four out of eight e-way bills is of the principal place of business of the petitioner, the same does not give rise to the presumption of intention to evade tax. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner.”

Rule 108 CGST Rules | Self-Certified Copy Of Order Under Challenge Not Required For Appeals Filed Electronically: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97 [Writ Tax No. 83 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97

The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any order passed under the Act. Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides that the appeal under Section 107 must be filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner.

True Love Between Adolescents Can't Be Controlled Through Rigours Of Law Or State Action: Allahabad High Court

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98

The Allahabad High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minors or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.

Justice Rahul Chaturvedi's bench further noted that in cases where couples being adults, enter into marriage, the action of their parents of filing FIRs against the husband-boy, is like poisoning their marital relationship.

The Single Judge also observed that the Court have to sometimes grapple with justifying State/Police action against a teenage couple who marry, lead peaceful lives, and raise families, while also upholding respect for the law.

"This Court has time and again reached to the conclusion that true love between the individuals, one or both of who may be a minor or at the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action," the Court remarked.

"When the scale of justice has to be weighed, they are not on the basis of mathematical precision or the mathematical formulas or theorems, but at times, while on one side of the scale there is the law and other side of scale may carry the entire life, happiness and the future of toddlers, their parents and the parents of their parents. The scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality would definitely equal the scale carrying the law as the application of law is meant for maintaining the rule of law and an orderly society," it added.

Newer Generation Of Staff Recruited In HC's Stamp Reporter Section Has Scant Awareness About Law: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99 [SECOND APPEAL No. - 928 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99

Expressing displeasure with the Stamp Reporter section of the HC for erroneously listing an application against an order concerning temporary injunction in a pending suit as a 'Second Appeal', the Allahabad High Court observed recently newer generation staff in the Stamp Reporter section lacks sufficient knowledge of the law.

“…the newer generation of staff recruited in the Stamp Reporter have scant awareness about the law, though they may have plenty of knowhow in working with the computers, on which they enter data,” a bench of Justice JJ Munir observed.

Police Line Campus Is A Sensitive Place, Public Shouldn't Be Allowed Entry Sans Valid Permission: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8877 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the campus of the police line is a sensitive place where the Armory, District Wireless Control Room Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, and therefore, the public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District.

The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh made this observation while refusing to quash a criminal case against a leader of the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) who has been booked inter alia under Section 153B of IPC & Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932 for allegedly trying to enter in a Mosque located inside the Police Lines premises in Pratapgarh to offer namaz.

Can't Raise Objections U/S 47 Of CPC In Execution Proceedings For The Enforcement Of Award, S. 34 Of A&C Must Be Availed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC.

Moreover, once the award attains finality, any objections must be raised exclusively in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Wasim Rizvi In Case Over Making 'Derogatory' Remarks Against Sunni Muslims In 'Ram Ki Janmabhoomi' Movie

Case title - Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1343 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102

The Allahabad High Court granted relief to former Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board chairman Wasim Rizvi (now Jitendra Tyagi) in an FIR lodged against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the adorable personalities of the Sunni Sect of the Muslim community in his film Ram Ki Janmabhoomi.

In the FIR, Tyagi, who wrote, produced and acted in the film, was booked under section 153-A and 504 IPC in the year 2019 on the allegations that the screening of the film may lead to communal tension in the city.

Suspended Principal Can't Take Part In Recruitment Process, Selection Committee Comprising Officiating Principal Competent: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 791 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103

The Allahabad High Court has held that a suspended principal of a college cannot take part in any selection or recruitment process. The Court held that in absence of any challenge to the appointment of Officiating Principal, the appointments made in his presence in the selection committee cannot deemed to be invalid.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“A suspended Principal cannot take part in the recruitment proceedings, nor can he be expected to form part of the selection committee.”

What Constitutes 'Prima Facie Satisfaction' Of Magistrate To Issue Process Against An Accused U/S 204 CrPC?: Allahabad HC Explains

Case title - Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20280 of 2013]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday explained what constitutes a 'prima facie case' or 'prima facie satisfaction' and when it can be said to have been made out before a Magistrate proceeds to summon/issue process against an accused under section 204 CrPC.

A bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that before issuing a process against an accused, the Magistrate has to hold an inquiry as envisaged under section 202 CrPC, to look for 'sufficient ground to proceed' (as per Section 204 CrPC) against the accused, which is nothing but a 'prima facie satisfaction' of the Magistrate.

Property Purchased By Hindu Husband In Homemaker Wife's Name Is Family Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 321 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105

The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchased by husband in the name of wife who is a homemaker and has no independent source of income is a family property. The Court held that it is common and natural in Hindu husbands to purchase properties in the name of their wives.

While dealing with son's claim for declaration of co-ownership of deceased father's property, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,

“This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”

Non-Appearance Of Advocate For His Client Amounts To Professional Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106

Observing that advocates are not appearing in the majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates, the Allahabad High Court said that the non-appearance of a counsel for his client amounts to professional misconduct and also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in the year 2019 as infructuous as it noted that both the applicant and his counsel were absent during the court hearings.

Compliance Of Section 21 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107

The Allahabad High Court has held that the compliance of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) is mandatory. Thus, arbitral proceedings would only commence once the notice invoking arbitration issued by the claimant is received by the respondent.

The Bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan was adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by borrowers, challenging the arbitration proceedings initiated against them by Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. without serving a Notice Invoking Arbitration. The Bench has quashed the arbitration proceedings for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of Arbitration Act.

National Security Act | Period Of Detention In Confirmatory Order Can't Be Extended By Review, Fresh Orders Needed For Further Detention: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 657 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108

The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of detention prescribed in the confirmatory order passed by the State Government under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be reviewed or extended by reviewing such order.

The Court held that for detaining the person any further, a fresh detention order needs to be passed under Section 3(2) of the Act and such order has to be confirmed as per procedure prescribed under Sections 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act.

A Brothel 'Customer' Doesn't Procure Woman For Commercial Purposes; Can't Punish Him Under 'Immoral Traffic Prevention Act': Allahabad HC

Case title - ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109 [name of the applicant hidden]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that If a person ('customer') comes to a brothel and pays money for the satisfaction of his lust, then, at the most, it can be said that he procures a woman to satisfy his lust and not for commercial purposes and hence, it can't be said that he procured or induced the woman for prostitution.

Civil Services Regulation | Can't Withhold Pension Under Regulation 351A For Incident Which Occurred 4 Yrs Prior To Retirement: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110 [WRIT - A No. - 9908 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110

The Allahabad High Court has held that no action under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation can be taken for an incident which took place four years prior to the retirement of the employee.

Regulation 351–A of CSR empowers the Governor to reserve to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.

Rape-Murder Of 3-Yr-Old Girl | 'Chances Of Reformation Of Accused Not Ruled Out': Allahabad HC Commutes Death Penalty To 30-Yr Jail Sans Remission

Case title - Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111 [CAPITAL CASE No. - 4 of 2022 With Reference No.4 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111

The Allahabad High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man, who had brutally raped and killed a three-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh in October 2021, to a fixed-term sentence of 30 years without any benefit of remission.

Considering the age of the accused (25 years at the time of the incident) along with his marital status, the bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi found it appropriate to commute his death sentence.

Limitation Act And Tax Appeals | Allahabad High Court Rejects Application Under Limitation Act, Holds Tax Statue Will Prevail

Case Title: M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112 [WRIT TAX No. - 975 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that Tax laws are complete comprehensive codes which have strict procedural requirements to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability.

Section 107 of the UPGST Act provides a period of three months from the date of order to file an appeal challenging the same. Section 107(4) empowers the appellate authority to exercise discretion in condoning delay of up to one month in filing the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a general provision which enables Courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.

GST | Only Typographical/ Clerical Error In Documents, Initial Burden On Department To Prove Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113 [WRIT TAX No. - 1314 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113

The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of no discrepancies or clerical errors in the documentation, the initial burden to prove that there is intention to evade tax lies on the department.

While quashing penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service tax Act, 2017, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that

“It is a fact that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases to show that there was no evasion of tax. However, when the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax.”

GST | Production Of Invoice, E-Way Bill After Detention Does Not Absolve Assessee Of Penalty: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114 [WRIT TAX No. - 1109 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114

The Allahabad High Court has held that absence of tax invoices and/or e-way bill at the time of interception and their subsequent production does not absolve the assesee from the liability of penalty under the Goods and Service Tax Act.

“Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty as the very purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a deterrent to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement For Non-Compliance Of Rule 63(5) Of U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008

Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.

The bench of Justice Abdul Moin has observed that, as per Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008, a judgement and appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision, and the reason for the decision, which were not compiled by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while passing the judgement.

Urgency Clause U/S 17 Of Land Acquisition Act 1894 For Taking Possession Of Property Not Violative Of Article 300A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116 [WRIT - C No. - 2208 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116

The Allahabad High Court has held that taking possession of property pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers an appropriate Government to acquire land in case of urgency for public purpose. While acquiring land under Section 17, the land vests in the Government after 15 days from the date of notification without any encumbrances. Passing of an award under the Act is not necessary.

Gyanvapi | 'UP Govt's Action Of Stopping Worship Rituals Inside Vyas Tehkhana In 1993 Was Illegal', Says Allahabad High Court

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court called the Uttar Pradesh Government's action of stopping worship rituals inside Vyas Tehkhana (located at the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) in 1993 as ILLEGAL. The Court said that the worship rituals were stopped by "illegal action of State without there being any order in writing".

"The act of the State Government since the year 1993 restraining the Vyas family from performing religious worship and rituals and also by the devotees was a continuous wrong being perpetuated": a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal observed in his 54-page order which was released soon after the bench pronounced its verdict of dismissing Gyanvapi Mosque committee's appeal challenging the Varanasi Court's January 31 order allowing 'Puja' In 'Vyas Tehkhana' (southern cellar of Gyanvapi Mosque).

Urgency Clause U/S 17 Of Land Acquisition Act 1894 For Taking Possession Of Property Not Violative Of Article 300A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Deepak Sharma vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118 [WRIT - C No. - 2208 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118

The Allahabad High Court has held that taking possession of property pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowers an appropriate Government to acquire land in case of urgency for public purpose. While acquiring land under Section 17, the land vests in the Government after 15 days from the date of notification without any encumbrances. Passing of an award under the Act is not necessary.

GST & Central Excise Superintendent Has No Jurisdiction To Pass Order Exceeding Rs.10,00,000: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur has observed that according to the circular dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue, the power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, and in the present case, the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000, and consequently, the order passed by it is without jurisdiction.

Without Registration For 'Financial Activity', Loan Advanced By Cold Storage Facility Cannot Be Recovered Under MSMED Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120 [WRIT - C No. - 35190 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120

The Allahabad High Court has held that without registration for financial services under Section 22 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 along with Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the alleged loan advanced by the petitioner was a private contract not amenable to recovery under the aforesaid laws.

The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held,

“For the purposes of MSMED Act and to provide financial services under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 the petitioner ought to have the registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 for 'financial activity', which admittedly could not be explained by the petitioner. The petitioner having not been registered under the MSMED Act for financial activity and there being a private agreement between the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the petitioner could not have sought a recovery for an alleged loan purportedly granted under Section 22 of the Act, 1976 by taking aid of the provisions contained under MSMED Act.”

Also read: MSMED Act | Facilitation Council Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Any Dispute Regarding Unregistered Services Under Act: Allahabad High Court

Cheque Returned Unpaid By Bank With 'Account Closed' Endorsement Amounts To 'Cheque Dishonour' U/S 138 NI Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2965 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121

The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cheque is returned unpaid by a Bank with an endorsement 'Account Closed', it would amount to 'dishonour of cheque' and constitute the commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta further added that the return of the cheque by the drawee Bank alone constitutes the commission of offence under section 138 of the NI Act.

To conclude thus, the single judge relied upon Apex Court's judgments in the cases of NEPC Micon Ltd. vs. Magma Leasing Ltd (1999), wherein it was observed that when the cheque is returned by a bank with an endorsement account closed, it would amount to returning the cheque unpaid, because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account, is insufficient to honour the cheque as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act.

S.299 Indian Succession Act | No Appeal Lies Against Order Rejecting Amendment Application In Plea For Grant Of Letters Of Administration: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 52 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122

The Allahabad High Court has held that no appeal lies under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against an order rejecting amendment application in petition filed under Section 278 of the Act of 1925.

The Court held that since Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC does not provide a remedy of appeal against orders passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejecting amendment application, the same needed to be challenged either by filing revision under Section 115 CPC or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

'Such Illegal Relations Need Not Be Protected': Allahabad HC Rejects Protection Plea Of Married Woman, Her Live-In Partner; Imposes ₹2K Cost

Case title - Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123 [WRIT - C No. - 1579 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner while observing that such type of 'illegal relationship' need not be protected by the court.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal also imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the live-in couple (petitioners) as it observed that if it would indulge in “such type of cases” and grant protection to “illegal relationship”, then it will create 'chaos' in the society.

Rich Businessman Possessing Large Portions Of Land In Slums Cannot Be Called Slum Dweller: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124 [WRIT - C No. - 11383 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that by common sense, businessman having possession of large portions of land by illegally taking the same from the slum dwellers without required sanctions cannot be termed as slum dweller.

“Presuming in a slum, a businessman finding good business opportunity, takes possession of a large piece of land from the actual slum dwellers and illegally, without required sanctions, constructs a multiplex or a big hotel or a big shopping complex or raises any other such big business constructions. Can he, merely because he did these activities within a slum, claim to be a slum dweller entitled to the protection given to dingy houses of slum dwellers, despite all aspects of the matter reflecting his disparity with actual slum dwellers? The answer 'NO' comes to us too loudly.”

Attempting To Pollute Stream Of Justice: Allahabad HC Imposes 50K Costs On Frivolous PIL Filed In 'Private Interest'

Case Title: Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 163 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for filing private interest litigation in the grab of public interest litigation.

The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such cases including the present one.”

UPGST | Search And Seizure Of Godown Can't Result In Penalty Proceedings U/S 129 Of Act: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126 [WRIT TAX No. - 1632 of 2018]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that search and seizure of a godown of an assesee cannot be penalised in proceedings under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Section 129 of the Act provides procedure for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances which have been intercepted in transit and are found to be in contravention of the statute.

S.29A Arbitration Act | Who Has Power To Hear Time Extension Application When Arbitrator Appointed By SC/HC/Parties? Allahabad HC Refers Question To Larger Bench

Case Title: M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127 [Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.2 Of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127

The Allahabad High Court has referred the question of whether an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for time extension can only be heard by the Supreme Court or the High Court where the appointment of such arbitrator has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be.

Further, the Court has raised a query regarding the powers of the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act to adjudicate on an application under Section 29A of the Act.

Lifting Corporate Veil, Allahabad HC Orders ED Probe Against Directors Of Hacienda Project, Three C Universal For Defrauding Lotus 300 Flat Buyers

Case Title: Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128 [WRIT - C No. - 41110 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128

The Allahabad High Court has lifted the corporate veil to hold the Promoters/Directors of M/s Hacienda Projects Private Limited and M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. who are in default, liable for defrauding flat-buyers of the Lotus 300 project in Sector 107, Noida.

The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar has directed the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters/designated promoter/officer who are in default, companies/other entities in which money from Hacienda Projects is syphoned or parked.

Allahabad HC Directs ED To Probe Promoters Of Cloud 9 Projects, Says Reality Behind Corporate Veil Needs To Be Examined Due To Illegalities

Case Title: Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129 [WRIT - C No. - 25554 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129

The Allahabad High Court has held that the concept of a separate legal identity of a company was to encourage trade and commerce and not as front for the directors to commit illegalities and defraud people.

While directing the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters or designated promoter/officers who are in default and against the companies/other entities in which money from M/s Cloud 9 Projects Private Limited was siphoned or parked, the Court held

“….the concept of separate corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commence, but not to commit illegalities or to defraud people. Therefore, where the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the Court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil.”

Live-In Relation Of A Married Muslim Woman With Another Man Is 'Haram' & 'Zina' As Per Shariat: Allahabad HC Dismisses Protection Plea

Case title - Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a legally wedded Muslim wife can not go outside marriage and her live-in relationship with another man would be 'Zina' (fornication) and 'Haram' (act forbidden by Allah) as per the Shariat Law.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal asserted thus while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. The Court added that the 'criminal act' of the woman "cannot be supported and protected" by the Court.

Where Statutory Appeals Filed After Making Pre-Deposit, Stay Applications Must Be Decided In Reasonable Time: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131 [WRIT TAX No. - 206 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131

The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.

Petitioner approached the High Court against the order for putting up the stay application filed on 24.01.2024 in appeal pending for last four years on a separate date fixed. It was argued that purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated if the stay application is not decided.

Decide In 8 Weeks Plea Seeking Unrestricted Rights To Worship 'Shiva Linga' In Gyanvapi Mosque Premises: Allahabad HC To Varanasi Court

Case title - Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1791 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132

The Allahabad High Court has directed a court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) in Varanasi to dispose of the petition in 8 weeks seeking unrestricted right to worship the 'Shiv Linga' purportedly found inside Gyanvapi Mosque premises in May 2022.

A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam ordered thus while hearing an application filed by one Vivek Soni and another under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had approached the High Court requesting expeditious disposal of their plea.

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Applicant Accused Of Availing Excess Input Tax Credit, As Proceedings U/S 70 And 74 Pending Since Long

Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the applicant accused of availing excess input tax credit as the proceedings under Section 70 and Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were pending since long.

The Court held that the punishment for wrong availment of input tax credit is imprisonment which shall extend upto 5 years and fine under Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act. For a registered person, every second offence or thereof shall be punishable. The Court further relied on Section 138 of GST Act which provides that for compounding of all offences can be done before or after prosecution is commenced when payment is made by such person.

S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

GST | Truck Moving Slowly Due To Fault In Engine, Not Extending E-Way Bill Technical Breach: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty U/S 129

Case Title: M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135

The Allahabad High Court has held that when the GPS tracking system showed slow movement of the truck due to mechanical issues in the engine, penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not have been imposed for not extending time-period in e-way bill. The Court held that not extending time period in such case was a technical breach.

No Difficulties In Generating E-Way Bill After April 2018: Allahabad High Court Upholds Penalty U/S 129 GST For Late Production Of E-Way Bill

Case Title: M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136

The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Goods and Services Tax Regime was launched in 2017, there were difficulties in downloading e-way bills. However, the difficulties were resolved and from April 2018 there were no difficulties in generating the same. The Court held that goods not accompanied by both tax invoices and e-way bill is not a common mistake. It shifts the burden on the assesee to show that there was no intention to evade tax.

Writ Jurisdiction Discretionary, To Be Exercised For Petitioners Acting In Good Faith, With Clean Hands: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137

While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.

Conditions Of Remand Not Followed, Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Under NHAI Act In Writ Jurisdiction

Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138 [WRIT - C No. - 33840 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138

The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

'Decide Prosecution's Plea To Withdraw Abduction Case Against Kunda MLA Raja Bhaiya Afresh': Allahabad HC Directs MP/MLA Court

Case title - Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139

The Allahabad High Court has directed a Special Judge MP/MLA/ Civil Judge (SD), Pratapgarh to decide afresh a plea moved by a Public Prosecutor seeking to withdraw an abduction and attempt to murder case against Kunda MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (Raja Bhaiya), MLC Akshay Pratap Singh and others.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on an application moved by Raja Bhaiya, Akshay Pratap Singh and others challenging the order of a Special Court in March 2023 whereby the application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution against the applicants had been rejected.

Allahabad High Court Elucidates Ambit Of 'Exception' In The 'Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception' Principle Of Criminal Jurisprudence

Case title - Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140

The Allahabad High Court recently provided clarity on the scope of "Exceptions" within the "Bail is the rule and Jail is an exception" principle of Criminal Jurisprudence. These exceptions are circumstances where the general rule of granting bail is overridden due to specific factors.

"These exceptions might include concerns about flight risk, potential danger to the community, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, or possibility of repeating offence. Essentially, while bail is generally favoured to ensure the presumption of innocence, exceptions exist when there are compelling reasons to detain someone before trial," a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed.

Lucknow-Akbarnagar Demolitions | 'Provide EWS Accommodation To All Slum Dwellers, Shift Them By March 31': Allahabad HC To UP Govt

Case title - Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141

In a significant relief for the slum dwellers of the Akbarnagar area of the Lucknow District, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that all persons being rehabilitated from Akbar Nagar slums and applying for EWS accommodation, be provided such an accommodation and the entire process of shifting be completed by March 31st.

Noting that those applying for EWS accommodation may face some financial constraints, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla reduced the initial registration deposit from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000.

JJ Act | 'All CWC's Orders Excluding Decisions On 'Foster Care' & 'Sponsorship After Care' Are Appealable In Children's Court': Allahabad HC

Case title - Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 617 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an appeal against all the orders passed by the Child Welfare Committee, except where the order has been passed relating to foster care or sponsorship of foster care, shall lie to the children's court as per Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and not to the District Magistrate.

A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while noting that in numerous instances, Children's Courts erroneously dismiss legal challenges to CWC orders by citing Section 27(10) of the JJ Act, 2015 (appeals to the DM) even when they are legally bound to entertain such appeals.

Allegations On Arbitrator's Independence Under Item 24 Of 5th Schedule Of Arbitration Act Is Not Automatically A Ground For Disqualification: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party.

Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years.

Allahabad High Court Issues Modalities On Intimation Of Police Reports To Passport Applicants With Pending Criminal Proceedings

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144 [WRIT - C No. - 41540 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144

The Allahabad High Court has issued modalities to be followed by Regional Passport Offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh on intimation of police reports to applicants with pending criminal 'proceedings' seeking for issuance of fresh passport, renewal or re-issue of passports.

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court are pending against any alleged offence committed by the applicant. Section 10(3)(e) gives power to the passport authorities to revoke or impound a passport for the same condition as Section 6(2)(f).

Denied Rs 165 Per Month Salary, Allahabad High Court Orders Payment Of Rs 1 Lakh To "Full Time" Peon After 14 Yrs

Case Title: Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145 [WRIT - A No. - 2065 of 2010]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145

The Allahabad High Court awarded a salary plus cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to a peon working in school operated by District Basic Education Authorities, as she had been denied her full salary despite working full time as peon.

Petitioner had approached the High Court in 2010 seeking full salary as she was only paid Rs. 15 per month despite the salary being Rs. 165 per month. The respondent authority had appointed the petitioner as a “Full Time Peon”, however, subsequently the appointment was withdrawn as not being duly approved.

Allahabad HC Dismisses Shooter Vartika Singh's Plea Challenging Dismissal Of Her Defamation Complaint Against Union Minister Smriti Irani

Case title - Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed International Shooter Vertika Singh's plea challenging Sultanpur Special MP/MLA Court's October 2022 order rejecting her defamation complaint against Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development, Smriti Zubin Irani.

A Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for not summoning Irani to face trial under section 499/500 IPC, as according to the trial court, there was no sufficient material/ground for proceeding further in the defamation case.

Criminal 'Proceedings' U/S 6(2)(f) Passport Act To Include Investigation Prior To Filing Of Chargsheet: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court for any alleged offence committed by the applicant.

Tendering Committee Failed To Perform Functions Properly, Did Not Scrutinize Tender Documents: Allahabad HC Awards Tender To Highest Bidder

Case Title: M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148 [WRIT - C No. - 39170 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148

The Allahabad High Court has awarded tender to the highest bidder who was above the reserve price as the tendering committee had failed to scrutinize tender documents and acted in a lax manner.

Petitioner participated in e-tender-cum-e-auction for short-term permit, also regarding Gata No.62 and 63/1 Area 42.00 acre, Village Khapatiha Kala, Tehsil Pailani, District Banda. Petitioner's bid was the second highest. The petitioner then filed an application stating that the highest bidder had not filed self-attested copies of the Aadhaar Card, Pan Card, and Character Certificate and therefore, its bid was liable to be rejected.

S.138 NI Act | Cause Of Action U/S 142(1)(B) Only Arises After Expiry Of 15 Days For Payment Of Amount: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. ­ 7895 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cause of action under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises after expiry of 15 days granted to the drawer to pay the amount to the payee/cheque holder under clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act.

Section 142(1) of the NI Act provides that a complaint must be made within 1 month of the date from which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of Section 138. Clause (c) of Section 138 provides that action under Section 138 may be initiated if the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the amount due to the payee/ holder of the cheque within 15 days from the date of notice. Further, Section 142(1)(b) provides that if sufficient cause is shown, delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Court.

Hindu Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Unilateral Declaration Executed On A Stamp Paper: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

The Allahabad High Court has held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can't be dissolved by a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a Criminal Revision plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the family court directing him to pay Rs. 2200/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent in the plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.

UP Stamp (Valuation Of Property) Rules | Burden On Revenue To Prove Nature & Potential Use Of Land Not Discharged Properly, No Spot Verification: Allahabad HC

Case Title: M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151 [WRIT-C No.12727 OF 2012]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151

Placing reliance on its earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and other, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that there was a deficiency in stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale deed is upon the Department.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that in the absence of mandatory spot inspection under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, the burden was upon the Department to prove that the land was not being used for the purpose stated in the sale deed.

“Such being the case, the burden of proof that rested solely on the Revenue to indicate the nature of the land and the potential use of the land was not discharged properly. Furthermore, the reasoning provided by the authorities below for valuing the land on the basis of non-agricultural cannot be sustained as the same is based on another piece of the land that was much closer to the highway and certain constructions were made on that piece of land.”

Courts Must Exercise Power Conferred U/S 451 CrPC Judiciously And Without Unnecessary Delay: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.

For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the 'Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property'.

“So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made,” emphasised a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed.

UP Public Services (Reservation For EWS) Act | Allahabad HC Declines EWS Reservation For Recruitment Of 69000 Asst Teachers Initiated Before Commencement Of Act

Case Title: Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153 [WRIT - A No. - 4063 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153

The Allahabad High Court has refused to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section category for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers held in 2020, as the process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.

The state of UP enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020), published in the Gazette on 31.08.2020, for implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of the society.

'Public Servants Should Remain Within Bounds Of Law': Allahabad HC Raps Gorakhpur ADM Over Unfair Notice Under 'UP Goondas Act'

Case title - Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3277 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154

The Allahabad High Court reprimanded Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Gorakhpur for issuing a notice to a man under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act 1970 against a man based upon a solitary case registered against him. The Court also directed the state to pay Rs 20K to the man within 2 months.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP to ensure that the public servants exercising powers of the State "remain within the bounds of law" and violation of law may entail disciplinary proceedings against them.

GST | Vehicle Number In 'Bilty' Couldn't Be Changed As Goods Were In Transit, E-Way Bill Was Updated: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155 [WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.

Petitioner's goods were intercepted, and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the bilty and invoice accompanying the goods had the earlier vehicle's number.

'Supporting Such Relations Will Create Chaos In Society': Allahabad HC Junks Protection Plea Of Live-In Couple Involving Married Adults

Case title - Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by a couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses, imposing a fine of 2K. The court emphasized that if such type of relationship gets the support of the Court, it will create chaos in society and destroy our country's social fabric.

"The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce, a person cannot get married with another person," a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it dismissed the protection plea.

Before Issuing Proclamation U/S 82, 83 CrPC Court Should Record Its Satisfaction That Person Is Deliberately Avoiding Proceedings: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

The Allahabad High Court has observed that before issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 of CrPC, the Court concerned must record its satisfaction that despite the service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the person concerned has deliberately avoided the proceedings.

Emphasizing that if any order issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 CrPC lacks the procedure described above, such an order would be a nullity in the eyes of the law, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus:

"...any order of proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. must be passed on an application of a person concerned/ Investigating Officer etc. to the effect that after service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant upon the person concerned, he/ she is avoiding the proceedings so a proclamation may be issued and on such application, which must be supported with an affidavit, the court concerned may issue proclamation under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. indicating the subjective satisfaction on the aforesaid aspect in the order itself."

A Person Can't Be In An Illicit & Live-In Relationship As Per Hindu Law If His/Her Spouse Is Alive: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158 [WRIT - C No. - 1546 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158

The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while dismissing a protection plea filed by a live-in relationship couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses.

"The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court," the court observed as it emphasised that such relationship cannot be supported by the orders of the Court.

Tenant's Right To Basic Amenities Like Electricity Subject To Him Being Authorized 'Occupier': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159 [WRIT - C No. - 5548 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.

Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must be a legal and authorized occupier of the premises to seek such electricity connection.

Public Toilets 'Scam' | Allahabad HC Sets Aside Barabanki CJM's Order Taking Cognizance Of 'Criminal Conspiracy' Offence Against CDO & SP

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Barabanki district by which cognizance of the offence under 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) was taken against the then Chief Development Officer (CDO) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district in connection with the alleged scam in the construction of public toilets.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in a revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the CJM, Barabanki.

High Court Cannot Grant Stay During Pendency Of Appeal When Stay Application Is Also Pending Before Appellate Authority: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge granting a blanket stay on the order passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil - Obra, District - Sonbhadra under Section 134 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The Court held that the stay could not have been granted as the stay application was pending before the Commissioner.

Respondent filed a writ petition seeking early disposal of the stay application pending before the Commissioner. The Single Judge had directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided within 6 months period with a further direction that during the pendency of the appeal, the order impugned shall remain stayed.

Customs Act | “Reason To Believe” For Confiscation Of Goods Must Be Based On Credible Material: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162 [WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162

The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

“Curtailment of free trade has serious consequences. While the revenue authorities would be within their jurisdiction to exercise their power to seize and confiscate goods that may have been smuggled inside the customs frontiers, yet with respect to natural products, that are also grown inside the country, no presumption is available to presume or assume that such goods are smuggled unless the assessee or the citizen otherwise satisfies that they are of Indian origin.”

Personal Loan EMI A Part Of Husband's Net Monthly Income For Purposes Of Determining Maintenance Payable To Wife U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

The Allahabad High Court observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, the payment made by the Husband towards the monthly instalment of personal loan has to be added to his net monthly income.

The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I added that merely on the ground that a wife is a BA degree holder and has done some professional course, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.

Mandatorily Pass Order Asking Parties To File 'Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities' Affidavit In Maintenance Proceedings: Allahabad HC To Judicial Officers

Case title - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25862 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164

The Allahabad High Court directed all the Judicial Magistrates as well as Presiding Officers of Family Courts in the state, dealing with maintenance proceedings, to mandatorily pass a specific order directing the parties to file their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32.

"It seems appropriate to direct that when an application under Section 125 of CrPC or a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act or an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed before the Court concerned, it should by passing a specific order on the order-sheet direct the applicant to file his/her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed while directing the registry to circulate its order to all the Judicial Officers of the state.

Can All Accused Cross-Examine A Witness Recalled After Addition Of Another Accused U/S 319 CrPC?: Allahabad HC Explains

Case title – Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2138 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165

The Allahabad High Court clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only.

In other words, the HC held that only the accused who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC has a right to cross-examine a witness and the persons who were accused since before and who had already availed opportunity of cross-examining the said witness, have no right to cross-examine the said witness again.

“A bare reading of Section 319 (4) CrPC indicates that where a person is summoned under Section 319 (1) to face the trial, the proceedings shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard only in respect of such person and not in respect of all the accused persons,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Future Group CEO Kishore Biyani Concerning A Commercial Transaction

Case title - Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

In a relief to the founder and Group CEO of Future Group, Kishore Biyani, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings including a summoning order and a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him in connection with a case related to a commercial transaction.

A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order on Biyani's application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Gorakhpur court's summoning and NBW issuance order passed in a criminal complaint moved against him under Section 120B, 463, 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Defamation Case Filed Against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh By A Journalist

Case title - Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

The Allahabad High Court has QUASHED a criminal defamation complaint case filed against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The complaint, filed by a Lucknow-based freelance Journalist (Mohd Kamran), alleged that MP Singh wrote letters to State Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defaming him.

A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the letters in question appeared to be confidential and privileged communication between two constitutional authorities (Member of Parliament and Chief Minister). The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not suggest that MP Singh caused the letters in question to be published in the print media or digital media or on social media platforms.

Marriage Between Hindus Cannot Be Dissolved By Compromise In Proceedings U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court held that any such marriage can only be dissolved by a decree passed a competent Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held

“The marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955.”

[UP Fighters Of Democracy Honor Act 2016] Mere Allegations Of Bad Character Don't Disentitle Person From Claiming Benefits: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169 [WRIT - C No. - 31840 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere allegations of having 'bad character' do not disentitle a person from claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016.

“Fighters of Democracy” are defined under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016 as the residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh who actively fought during the emergency period from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977 and were detained in political grounds in jail under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for participating in such activities.

CGST | 'Capital Goods' Are For Long-Term Use, 'Inputs' For Day-To-Day Operations, Not Capitalized In Books Of Accounts: Allahabad HC Clarifies

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.

S75(4) UPGST | 'Or' Is Disjunctive In Nature, Each Option To Be Considered Independently: Allahabad High Court

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.

Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act | Adult Head Doesn't Require Court Permission To Sell Minor's Undivided Interest In Joint Family Property: Allahabad HC

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.

SSB Recruitment | Judicial Review Of Medical Board's Opinion Limited, Doesn't Involve Recognition Of Candidate's Right To Undergo Operation: Allahabad HC

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.”

Less Meritorious General Category Candidates Can't March Ahead Of Higher Merit Reserved Category Candidates In Open Seats: Allahabad HC

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.

Does Dismissal Of Complaint U/S 138 NI Act For Want Of Prosecution Amount To Acquittal U/S 256(1) CrPC?: Allahabad HC Refers Question To Larger Bench

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.

Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Chargesheet Against 3 Men Accused Of Rasing Anti-India Slogans In A Temple

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.

'Brazen Misuse Of Power To Perpetuate Personal Gains': Allahabad HC Castigates Ex-UP Minister Azam Khan In 'Jauhar University' Case

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".

Hathras 'Conspiracy' | 41 Months After Arrest, Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Siddiqui Kappan Co-Accused Masood In UAPA Case

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.

When Two Interpretations Of Fiscal/Penal Statute Are Possible, One Which Exempts Subject From Penalty Must Be Adopted: Allahabad High 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.”

Period Of Service In Undivided Uttar Pradesh Liable To Be Counted As Continuity Of Service For Pension: Allahabad High Court

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.

CrPC Provisions Applicable On Accused Not Chargesheeted Under SC/ST Act Even If Special Court Is Trying Offence: Allahabad HC

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.

Allahabad HC Suspends Oath Commissioner For Improperly Executing Affidavits, Directs Not To Re-Appoint Such Persons Without Leave From Court

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.

'Unwarranted Expressions Containing Political Overtones': Allahabad HC Expunges UP Court's Remarks Hailing CM Yogi Adityanath

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.

Employee Erroneously Given Benefit Of Scheduled Tribe Quota Can't Be Terminated In Absence Of Any Misrepresentation On His Part: Allahabad HC

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.

Allahabad HC Releases 4 Elderly Accused Including 2 With 100% Blindness On Interim Bail Pending Premature Release Decision By UP Govt

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)].

Order 8 Rule 1 CPC Only Directory: Allahabad High Court Upholds Family Court Order Permitting Wife To File Written Statement Beyond 90 Days

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.

S.144B Income Tax | Burden to Provide Registered Email Shifts On Assessee Only If It Can't Be Obtained From ITR/Portal/MCA Website: Allahabad HC

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.

Limitation Act | Doesn't Encompass Long Delays, Condonation Only In Exceptional Cases: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Section 37 A&C Petition

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.

A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

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.

Compassionate Appointment | Daughter-In-Law Supposed To Be Treated Like Daughter In India, Integral Part Of Family: Allahabad High Court

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.”

Additional Chief Medical Officer Has No Authority To File A Complaint For Any Offence Under PCPNDT Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193

The Allahabad High Court has held that an Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held thus while perusing the mandate of Sections 28 and Section 17 (1) & (2) of the 1994 Act. For context, Section 28 bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority. Section 17 provides for the manner of appointment of an 'appropriate authority'.

S. 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC Doesn't Bar FIR Registration Where Alleged Forgery In Documents Took Place Outside Court: Allahabad HC

Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.

For context, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Applicable To Live-In Relationships Too: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195 [WRIT - C No. - 1067 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195

The Allahabad High Court observed that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 applies not only to marriages but to relationships in the nature of marriage or live-in relationships.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal made this observation while dismissing a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple (petitioners) as it noted that the duo had not applied for registration of any conversion under the provisions of the 2021 Act.

No Suit For Injunction Maintainable Against Notifications Declaring Land As Reserved Forest Under Indian Forest Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 756 of 1982]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196

The Allahabad High Court has held that suit for permanent injunction under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is not maintainable against the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a land as reserved forest area.

The Court held that such notifications can only be challenged before the Forest Settlement Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1927.

“….once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar.

Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197

The Allahabad High Court held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.

Employee Placed Under Suspension During Detention Can't Be Denied Wages Upon Acquittal In Absence Of Any Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension.

The Court further held that such an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.

“The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.

DRT | Effect & Operation Of Any Interim Order Passed Is Wiped Out At The Passing Of Final Order: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others. [WRIT - C No. - 68334 of 2005]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199

The Allahabad High Court held that the effect and operation of any interim order passed is wiped out at the passing of the final order.

The bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal held that “once an appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, the interim order, if any, passed thereon automatically merges with the final order.”

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra wherein the Supreme Court held that where stay is granted vide an interim order and the petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order is merged with the final order. It was held that beneficiary of the interim order must pay interest upon the vacation of the interim order on the amount withheld or not paid due to the interim order.

1996 Assault Case: Allahabad High Court Stays Conviction Of Actor & Congress Leader Raj Babbar

Case title - Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) stayed the conviction of actor and Congress politician Raj Babbar in connection with a 1996 case lodged against him for allegedly assaulting a polling officer when he was contesting the Lok Sabha election from Lucknow (then) as a Samajwadi Party candidate.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan on a plea moved by Babbar under Section 389(2) CrPC challenging an order of conviction passed by a Lucknow MP/MLA court in July 2022 wherein he was sentenced to two years in jail.

Administrative Tribunals Act | Appeal Against CAT Order In Contempt Proceedings Lies Before Supreme Court, Not High Court: Allahabad High Court

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.

Teacher's Service After Regularization Can't Be Terminated Merely Due To Lack Of Qualification At Time Of Initial Appointment: Allahabad HC

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.”

Husband Can't Claim Deduction Of Insurance Premium, Loan EMI From Gross Salary For Determination Of Maintenance Amount U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

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.

Suit For Declaration Of Civil Death Not Barred By S. 34 Specific Relief Act Merely Because Further Relief Wasn't Claimed: Allahabad HC

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.

Resignation Tendered By Govt Employee Can Be Withdrawn At Any Time Before Its Acceptance: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation

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.”

ED Should At Least Provide Substance Of Accusation To Summoned Person If Not A Copy Of ECIR: Allahabad High Court

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.

'Second Wife' Can't Maintain Complaint Against 'Husband' U/S 498A IPC; 'Dowry Prohibition Act' May Get Attracted In Such Cases: Allahabad HC

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.

'Begar' Prohibited Under Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs Payment Of Salaries To Multi-Purpose Health Workers For Period Of Work

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.

'Human/Child Sacrifice Shocks Conscience Of Civilized Society': Allahabad HC Upholds Life Term For Man Who Killed 1-Yr Old Boy

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.

'Unfortunate; Should Be Dealt With Iron Hand': Allahabad HC Concerned Over 'Mushrooming' Of Fake Job Agencies To Exploit Unemployed Youth

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.

UP Urban Buildings Act | Amendment/Substitution In Pending Release Application Not A Second Application: Allahabad High Court

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.

Competitive Exams | Can't Hold A Question To Be Wrong As Long As It Can Be Understood By Candidates & Can Be Answered: Allahabad HC

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.

S.23(1)(B) Hindu Marriage Act | Divorce Petition Can't Be Dismissed If Acts Of Cruelty Once Condoned By Spouse Are Repeated: Allahabad High Court

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.

'Kanyadan' Ceremony Not Essential For Solemnization Of A Marriage As Per Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

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.

Disciplinary Authority Must Record Reasons For Disagreeing With Exoneration To Enable Employee To Defend Himself Effectively: Allahabad HC

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.”

Wife Who Waived Right To Claim Maintenance At Time Of Divorce By Mutual Consent Not Entitled To It Later: Allahabad HC

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.

Repeatedly Raising Same Issue Amounts To Manipulation & Misleading Of Court: Allahabad High Court Imposes 50K Costs For Filing Motivated PIL

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.”

UP Urban Planning & Development | Allowing Illegal Construction By Compounding Is Disturbing; Deviation From Building Bye-Laws Must Stop: Allahabad HC

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.”

'25% Of Monthly Pension As Maintenance To Wife Not Excessive': Allahabad HC Dismisses Husband's Revision Plea

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.”

Entry Tax | Indian Made Foreign Liquor Not Taxable Under UP Entry Of Goods Into Local Area Act 2007: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 619 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222

The Allahabad High Court has quashed assessment order taxing Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007 on grounds that it is not provided in the schedule to the Act.

Provisional assessment order against the petitioner was passed on 19.04.2006 under Section 4-A (Realization Of Tax Through Manufacturer) of the Uttar Pradesh Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 2000 read with Rule 41(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rule 2000. Final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2008 under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007.

S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HCv

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO.150 OF 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223

While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.

“High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount significance necessitate such intervention,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Confiscation & Penalty Order Must Be Quashed If Quantification Of Stock Based On Eye Estimate: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 916 of 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.

“When the Appellate Authority had come to the finding that the officers in the survey did not carry out the quantification of the stock in the correct manner, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to uphold the confiscation and penalty,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

S.16 UPVAT Act | Invoices, RTGS Details Not Sufficient For Deciding ITC Claim, Transportation Details Must Be Produced: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 110 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.

While dealing with Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 the Supreme Court in M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited held that burden to prove that claim for input tax credit and the genuineness of the transaction lies solely on the assesee. The Court held that mere production of invoices and payments made by cheques is not enough to prove that the assesee is entitled to ITC.

Hindu Leader Kamlesh Tiwari Murder | 'Case Of Extreme Communal Hatred': Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Alleged Conspirator

Case title - Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226

The Allahabad High Court has DENIED BAIL to a man accused of conspiring to kill Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari over his alleged remark made against Prophet Muhammad.

Observing that it is a case of "extreme communal hatred" wherein the deceased (Tiwari) was eliminated by way of a "brutal daylight murder", a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied bail to alleged conspirator Syed Asim Ali.

POCSO Act Cases Can't Be Quashed On Ground Of Victim Entering Into A Compromise With Accused: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227

The Allahabad High Court has observed that under the POSCO Act 2012, regarded as a "Special Statute", offences cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim.

"Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings [under the POCSO Act]," a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed.

UPVAT | Intention To Evade Tax Essential For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 54(1)(2): Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 40 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228

The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Section 54(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides for circumstances under which penalties can be imposed on an assesee. It is provided that where an assessing authority is satisfied that an assesee has committed any wrong mentioned therein, penalty can be imposed after giving due opportunity of hearing to such assesee.

No Show Cause Notice/Departmental Proceeding Can Be Initiated Against Retired Employee In Absence Of Rules/Regulations: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229 [WRIT - A No. - 19256 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229

The Allahabad High Court has held that in absence of any rule or regulation in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulation, 1975 and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976, neither a show cause notice can be issued nor departmental proceedings can be initiated against an employee after his retirement.

While quashing the proceedings against the retired employee, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “in lack of provisions in rules and regulations, after retirement, no show cause notice or departmental proceeding can be initiated against any employee.”

Termination Of Contractual Employee Governed By Contract, Cannot Be Adjudicated Under Article 226: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230 [WRIT - A No. - 13670 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230

The Allahabad High Court has held that a termination of a contractual employee by the employer in terms of the conditions of the contract or their violation cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there cannot be a violation of Article 14 or Article 16 where the terms of the contract are per se not arbitrary.

The Court held that such contractual disputes must be referred under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Arbitration Act | Section 6 Commercial Courts Act Is Enabling Provision, Doesn't Override Arbitration Agreement: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal

Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231

The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction.

It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.

Stamp Act | Interest Must Be Paid On Excess Duty Illegally Detained By Government: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232 [WRIT - C No. - 5832 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232

The Allahabad High Court has held that where revenue has illegally detained excess stamp duty collected by the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, interest must be paid by the Government even if there is no provision providing for such interest.

In September 2013, an order of refund of Rs.5,35,454/- was passed in favor of the petitioner. However, the amount was refunded in December 2023. Petitioner moved an application seeking interest on the delayed payment of the refund amount.

1974 Harness Rules | Allahabad High Court Asks Authority To Reconsider Married Daughter's Compassionate Employment Claim

Case Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [WRIT - A No. - 556 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233

The Allahabad High Court has held that the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) and Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not require the person seeking compassionate appointment to be dependent on the deceased employee.

While directing the authorities to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment moved by the married daughter of the deceased employee, Justice Abdul Moin held,

“Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.”

Working Journalists Act: What Allahabad High Court Held On Operation Of Industrial Disputes Act, Delegation Of Power By State Govt

Case Title: The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234 [WRIT - C No. - 292 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234

The Allahabad High Court has held that 1955 Act is a special act governing the conditions of work for newspaper employees including working journalists and non-working journalists and will have overriding effect over the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

“The Act of 1947 only supplements the cause of working journalists, but in no way it restricts in reaping the benefits provided under the Act 1955, especially under Section 17, which is a scheme of recovering of dues of an employee from its employer,” held Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.

Intra-Court Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order Issuing Notices In Contempt Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235 [CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 2 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235

The Allahabad High Court has held that intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order issuing notices to parties passed by a Single Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction.

In the contempt petition, Single Judge issued notices and directed district administration shall not stop construction of those persons, who are not the party in the First Appeal From Order No.334 of 2022. Aggrieved from the interim order, contempt appeal was filed before the Court on grounds that the vendees of various defendants were also bound by the decision of the High Court in FAFO.

Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236 Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236

The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator.

S.17 (1A) SARFAESI Act | Jurisdiction Of DRTs Can't Be Solely Decided Based On Location Of Asset: Allahabad High Court Clarifies

Case Title: Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237 [WRIT - C No. - 13556 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237

The Allahabad High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain application under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be based solely on the location of the secured asset.

The bench comprising of Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Manish Mathur held that the DRT in whose jurisdiction part cause of action has arisen shall also have jurisdiction over applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Moratorium U/S 14 IBC Applies Only To Corporate Debtor; Natural Persons Like Its Director Still Liable U/s 138 NI Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibit the proceeding u/s 138/141 NI Act only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus while dismissing a plea moved by one Gurmeher Singh challenging the proceeding of a Complaint Case u/s 138 NI Act pending before Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Gorakhpur.

Victim's False Depiction As A Minor Is Abuse Of Court Process: Allahabad HC Mandates Prompt Age Determination Report Filing In POCSO Cases

Case title - Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2322 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the police authorities/investigation officers must ensure that in every POCSO Act case, a medical report determining the victim's age is drawn up at the outset under the mandate of Section 164A of CrPC read with Section 27 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the same is submitted to the Court without any delay.

The Court directed thus while noting that the discrepancies in the victim's age in POCSO cases can substantially affect the rights and liberties of the accused.

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Abusing Lord Rama Considering His Unconditional Apology

Case title - Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12653 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240

Considering his unconditional apology tendered in the police station, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Riyaz alias Ovaisi, who has been accused of abusing Lord Rama on Facebook.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him the relief while noting that the accused does not have any prior criminal record and has been in custody since January 28, 2024. The Court also considered that all alleged offenses against him carry a maximum punishment of three years.

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged U/S 47 CPC In Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On State

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6346 OF 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for raising objections under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds which were decided in application under Section 34 but were not raised in appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

While dismissing the appeal, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held

“The tactics employed by the Petitioners (State of Uttar Pradesh) characterized by their persistent delay and obstructionist behaviour, merit unequivocal condemnation and necessitate the imposition of substantial costs. Delay tactics serve to perpetuate injustice by denying parties their rightful entitlements.”

Arbitration Is Hailed As A Faster Alternative To Traditional Litigation, But Reality In India Falls Short Of Object: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No.389 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242

The Allahabad High Court has held that interference in an arbitral award on grounds of violation of public policy can be done if it is against the substantive provisions of the Act.

The Court held that interference in arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of 'public policy' must be cautiously done as it can lead to excessive judicial review due the subjective and broad interpretation of 'public policy.'

Money Laundering Case | Allahabad HC Quashes ₹2.5 Crore Deposit Condition Imposed For Grant Of Anticipatory Bail

Case title - Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a condition imposed by a Special Anti-Corruption Court on an accused in a money laundering case, directing her to deposit a staggering ₹2.5 crore to secure anticipatory bail.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh granted relief to Meena Anand, taking note of the Supreme Court's various rulings against the imposition of onerous bail conditions.

Allahabad HC Clears Sapna Choudhary's Way For Renewal Of Passport, Sets Aside Magistrate Court's Order Refusing NOC

Case title – Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244

The Allahabad High Court directed the passport authorities to decide the application moved by Actress Sapna Choudhary for renewal/re-issue of her passport and pass an order within 1 month.

Asserting that the right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed set aside an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court's order refusing 'no objection' certificate for issuance of Passport.

District Judges Facing Peril Of Transfer Over 'Absurd' Bias Allegations, Difficult For Them To Freely Exercise Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 10451 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245

The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is fear in the District Judiciary in deciding cases as it may lead to administrative complaints and subsequent transfers.

“They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences. It is difficult for a Judge in the Civil Court to exercise his jurisdiction freely, if he constantly works not just aware of the professional routine of having his orders overturned by a superior Court, but the personal peril of harm to his career, if he were to pass orders of effective consequence which his conscience says he must,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Case Against SP Leader Accused Of Canvassing For Father Sans Permission During 2022 UP Polls

Case title – Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings in connection with a case against a Samajwadi Party (SP) leader and former UP Minister's daughter, Shreya Verma, who was accused of canvassing for his father in the Uttar Pradesh Vidhansabha elections of 2022 without obtaining the necessary permission.

A Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed found faults with the registration of the FIR against Verma and others under Sections 171H and 188 IPC. It observed that the police investigation, in this case, was without jurisdiction, and based on such an invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was also illegal.

Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Pay ₹25K Compensation To Man Illegally Detained By 'SDM' For 3 Days

Case title – Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247

The Allahabad High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to a man illegally detained for three days due to an 'arbitrary' act of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted in Jaunpur District.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I also directed the payment of litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/—to the man/petitioner in view of the HC's judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State Of U.P. and 3 Others 2021.

S.132B(1)(i) Income Tax Act | Power Of Assessing Authority To Decide Application For Release Of Seized Assets Not Automatically Abated After 120 Days: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [WRIT TAX No. - 1597 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248

The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.

The Court held that the word “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) is directory in nature as no stipulation is made for the automatic release of goods after the period of 120 days. It held that a levy of interest on the seized asset contemplated under Section 132B (4) does not make the “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) mandatory in nature.

[Income Tax Act] Supreme Court Decision In UOI v. Ashish Agarwal Applicable To Parties Who Challenged Notice U/S 148: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249 [WRIT TAX No. - 1238 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249

The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India.

In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the Union Government had challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court quashing the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue under Section 148 as being barred by the Finance Act 2021 which had introduced new provisions regarding reassessment proceedings with effect from 01.04.2021.

'Deliberate Act Of Religious Vilification': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Making Derogatory Remarks On Lord Shiva

Case title - Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a criminal case against one Owais Khan accused of making derogatory remarks about Lord Shiva on social media, citing it as a "deliberate act of religious vilification".

"It is incumbent upon the judiciary to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences," stated a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar as he stressed the importance of maintaining respect for religious beliefs of various communities.

[House Tax] Authorities Acted In Undue Haste By Giving Only One Day's Notice For Hearing: Allahabad High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [WRIT TAX No. - 520 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251

While quashing the enhanced assessment order regarding house tax passed by the authorities, the Allahabad High Court held that the authorities acted in undue haste by giving one day's notice for the hearing, which is not sufficient notice.

A notice regarding the enhancement of house tax was issued by the Department on 14.03.2024, fixing 16.03.2024 as the date for the hearing. The notice was served upon an employee of the petitioner on 15.03.2024. On the date of the hearing, the petitioner appeared before the tax Superintendent and sought 20 days adjournment.

[Stamp Act] S.47-A (3) Not Applicable In Case Of Gift Deed As “Market Value” Not Same As “Value Of Property”: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others [WRIT C No. 18282 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked where the property has been transferred by way of gift deed as Section 47-A is applicable to those instruments where stamp duty has been determined based on “market value” and not “value of the property” as is the case in a gift deed.

Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act provides that if the market value of the property stated in an instrument is less than the minimum value determined under the Act, the registering officer shall refer the same to the Collector for determining the market value and the duty payable on such instrument before registering it.

Defaulter Can't Initiate Criminal Proceedings Against Creditor/Auction Purchaser Against Auction Held Under SARFAESI Act, Must Go To DRT: Allahabad High Court

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.

Written Statement Jointly Filed Can't Be Amended At Behest Of One Defendant, Without Consent From Others: Allahabad High Court

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.”

'Nagar Ayukt Not Child Or Ward Sitting In Director's Lap': Allahabad HC Imposes ₹10K Cost For Not Granting Increment To Retired Employee

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.

'Scandalous & Irresponsible Allegations': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Implying Judicial Bias With ₹20K Costv

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'

[Industrial Disputes Act] Labour Court Can't Award Interest In Proceedings For Recovery Of Money From Employer U/S 33C(2): Allahabad High Court

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).

Person Convicted Of Moral Turpitude Not Suitable To Head Any Department, Much Less Education Institution: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad HC Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On 'CWC' For Sending Minor Girl Residing With Mother To Children's Home

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.

Employees/Officers Of Cooperative Society Aren't 'Public Servants', Can't Be Prosecuted U/S 409 IPC: Allahabad High Court

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.

Wrongful Utilization Of Input Tax Credit Amounting To ₹315 Cr May Affect County's Economy: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail

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.

[Central Excise Act] Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 35F For Filing Appeal Before CESTAT Can't Be Waived In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

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.

Representation Of Peoples Act Complete Code In Itseld, Limitation Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

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.

Industrial Disputes Act | Labour Court Has Ample Power To Examine Correctness Of Finding Of Inquiry Officer In Discharge Or Dismissal Order: Allahabad High Court

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.

Habeas Corpus Plea For Visitation Rights Ordinarily Not Maintainable Where Husband-Wife Dispute Pending In Family Court: Allahabad HC

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).

Court Under Section 19 Of MSMED Act, 2006 Empowered To Allow Predeposit In Installments: Allahabad High Court

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.

Service As Work Charge Later Regularized Can Be Considered For Qualifying Service For Pension, Not For Computation Of Pension: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Ex-MP Dhananjay Singh In Abduction & Extortion Case, Refuses To Stay Conviction

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.

Cyber Crime | Bank Officials Under An Obligation To Cooperate In Criminal Investigations: Allahabad 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.

Arbitration Act Aims For Speedy Redressal, Delay In Filing Appeal Can Only Be Allowed If Party Makes Very Strong Case For Delay: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India vs Shri Krishna Uchchter Madhyamic Vidhyalaya And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held that the Arbitration Act is a legislation for speedy redressal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the Appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for the delay. The High Court held that the Appellant didn't provide specific reasons for the delay or provide any document to explain the delay.

Statement Of Contractor Without Supporting Material Not Enough To Declare Transaction Benami: Allahabad HC Quashes Benami Transaction Proceedings

Case Title: Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271 [WRIT TAX No. - 11 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere statement of the contractor doing construction work cannot be relied upon to declare such construction as benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court held that “reasons to believe” in Section 24(1) of the Act must be based on cogent and relevant material.

Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provides that where based on material in his possession, the Initiating Officer has reason to believe that any person is a benamidar in respect of a property, he may record reasons in writing and issue notice to the person to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why the property should not be treated as benami property.

Victim's Testimony 'Unreliable', She Appears To Be A Consenting Party: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In 1984 Rape Case

Case title - Pasru @ Ismail vs. The State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272

Citing the unreliability of the victim's testimony, the Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had been found guilty by the trial court (in 1986) of raping an alleged minor girl in January 1984 and was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the trial court had committed patent illegality in accepting the unreliable testimony of the alleged victim/prosecutrix.

Allahabad HC Temporarily Restrains 2 Women From Publishing Claims Of Daughter & Wife Relation With Actor Ravi Kishan

Case title - Priti Ravindra Shukla vs. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273

The Allahabad High Court has temporarily restrained two women (25-year-old 'Shinova' and 54-year-old 'Aparna') from publishing any fresh claim that they are the daughter and wife of actor and BJP Member of Parliament Ravi Kishan.

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order on a plea filed by Kishan's wife who had moved the HC challenging last week's order of a Civil Court in Lucknow declining to issue any direction restraining the alleged mother-daughter duo from publishing any material against Kishan and his family members.

'Unfortunate That He Remained In Jail For 12 Years Despite Lack Of Evidence': Allahabad HC Acquits Murder-Rape Convict

Case title – Nanhaku Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274

While acquitting a man convicted by a trial for the murder and rape of an 11-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court termed it as “unfortunate” that despite there being no evidence against the accused-appellant, he had been forced to remain in jail for over twelve years.

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi also noted its inclination to make “harsh” observations against the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Officer. However, the court refrained from doing so since the bench did not hear them.

Student Declaring That He Read Info Available Online Can't Claim Violation Of Natural Justice: Allahabad HC Upholds Cancellation Of Admission

Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar vs. Allahabad Central University Through Its Registrar And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 117 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275

The Allahabad High Court has held that a student who has made a declaration that he has read information available online cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice at the time of admission cancellation based on the rules stated in the brochure which was available online with the form.

Petitioner-appellant was granted provisional admission and allotted a roll number in MA political science in Shyama Prasad Mukharjee State Degree College in non-subject category. Though he had appeared in viva prior to written examinations, he was informed by the Convenor of the College that his admission stood cancelled.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Private Bodies Under Insolvency Unless It Be In Discharge Of Public Duties: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Reddy Veerraju Chowdary vs. Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional, C.A. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276 [WRIT - A No. - 15614 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private company under insolvency in a contractual dispute unless it be the breach of some law or a statutory rule.

“The interim Resolution Professional just represents the Company and in no way changes its character or the rights relating to the contact of employment inter se the petitioner and the Company. The dispute between the petitioner and the Company about the petitioner resigning and walking away, without handing over charge, arises out of the contract of employment. The Company being essentially a private body and no face or establishment of the State, a breach of the contract of employment, either by the petitioner or the Company, unless it be the breach of some law or a statutory rule, would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Cases Against CFO, CEO & MD, And Senior Executive Vice President Of Larsen And Toubro Limited

Case Title: Mr. R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director And Chief Financial Officer vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277

The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal cases filed against the CFO, CEO & MD, and Senior Executive Vice President of Larsen and Toubro Limited.

Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Vijay Dhanuka and others v. Najima Mamtaj and others, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, the Court held that though the High Court has extraordinary powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court must not go into disputed question of fact under Section 482.

[United Provinces Excise Act 1910] Cancellation Of License Can't Be Due To Suspicion, Must Be Based On Cogent Material: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 816 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cancellation of license under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 cannot be based on suspicion. The Court held that without there being any cogent material or evidence such harsh penalty of cancellation of license must not be invoked.

Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 provides for cancellation of any license granted under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue or under the Opium Act, 1878 of such licensee whose license, permit or pass has been cancelled under clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1),

Allahabad High Court Quashes ARTO's Order Banning Registration Of E-Rickshaw, E-Auto In Mathura & Agra

Case Title: Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P. along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279 [WRIT - A No. - 69 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Mathura, banning the registration of e-rickshaws and e-autos in Mathura and Agra as being passed without jurisdiction.

Essentially, the ARTO Mathura, issued a notification on November 07, 2023, under Rule 178 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, banning registration of e-Rickshaws and e-Autos in Mathura and Agra on account of their mushroom growth causing incessant traffic jams.

Allahabad HC Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Of Alleged Unrestricted Jail Meetings With Wife

Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Uttar Pradesh Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Abbas Ansari in connection with a case alleging that his wife had been unrestrictedly visiting him in jail and he would use her mobile phones to threaten various persons including the witnesses and officials who were connected with the prosecution of the applicant.

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that considering Ansari's profile, background and family antecedents, the allegations against him “may not be completely without substance”.

Party Not Contacting Counsel For 6 Yrs, Can't Seek Delay Condonation Alleging Lawyer Didn't Inform About Disposal: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a special appeal which was filed against order the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition for a delay of 6 years.

Petitioners filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was dismissed vide an ex-parte order by the revisional authority in 2016. Thereafter, in 2022, petitioners filed a recall application against the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application. In the delay condonation application it was alleged that the counsel did not inform them about the dismissal of the case.

Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL For Release Of Justice Rohini Commission Report On OBC Sub-Categorisation

Case Title: Eklavya Educational Foundation And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 667 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction to Union Government for publishing report dated 21.07.2023 of Justice Rohini Commission.

On 2^nd October 2017, Justice Rohini Commission, headed by Justice G. Rohini, was formed for sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups to ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among OBCs in India.

'Saptapadi' Ceremony Is An Essential Ingredient To Constitute A Valid Hindu Marriage: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283

The Allahabad High Court observed that the Saptapadi ceremony ((taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire)) is one of the essential ingredients of a valid marriage under Hindu law.

With this, the bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed a petition filed by one Nisha challenging the summoning order and further proceedings in a case under Sections 494 (Bigamy) IPC.

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Strengthening PFI To Establish 'Gazwa-E-Hind' In India

Case title - Muneer Alam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 284

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 284

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Muneer Alam) who was arrested in July 2023 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (PFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.

The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saurabh Lavania granted him bail, noting that four co-accused have already been granted bail in connection with the same FIR.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Suicide Abetment Accused In Custody For 6+ Years, Directs Trial Conclusion By Aug 31

Case title - Aniket Dixit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 285

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 285

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a student (accused of abetting suicide) who spent over 6 years in custody without conclusion of trial. The Court also slammed the State Police Sub Inspector for being non-cooperative in the early conclusion of the trial.

A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi further directed the trial Judge to conclude the trial by 31st August 2024; otherwise, the Court added, an adverse inference would be drawn against the Presiding Officer.

'Sets A Perilous Precedent': Allahabad HC On Non-Execution Of 100+ NBWs Against Meerut MLA In A Criminal Case

Case title - Rafique Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8390 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286

The Allahabad High Court denied relief to Meerut MLA Rafiq Ansari in a 1995 case, noting that the Samajwadi Party leader failed to appear in Court despite the issuance of 100+ non-bailable warrants between 1997 and 2015.

"...non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and egregious precedent", observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh.

License Fee Can't Be Imposed Retrospectively: Allahabad HC Directs Refund Of Deposit For Authorities' Failure To Impose Penalty For Almost 20 Yrs

Case Title: Baba Global Limited v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [WRIT - C No. - 47105 of 2011]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286

The Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to refund Rs. 26 lakhs once deposited by the petitioner pursuant to an interim by the High Court in another writ petition. The Court held that a license fee cannot be retrospectively charged from the licensee prior to the date of grant of license and any penalty that is sought to be imposed for want of license can only be imposed in due course following procedure of law.

Allegations Of Irregularities In Disciplinary Proceedings Must Be Substantiated With Evidence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union Of India Through Home Secy. and others [WRIT - A No. - 4562 of 1998]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 287

While hearing a writ petition pending since 1998, the Allahabad High Court has held that by merely alleging irregularity during a disciplinary procedure, the petitioner cannot evade responsibility to show that prejudice has been caused to him.

The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be set aside on mere apprehension or likelihood of causing prejudice to the delinquent employee.

1984 Attempt To Murder Case | Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In Absence Of Trial Court Records

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Hirdai Narain And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 289

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 289

The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the sole living accused in a 1984 attempt to murder case after it received a report from the trial court that the entire papers of the record of the Sessions Trial have been weeded out and only original judgment was available on the record.

This incident occurred in 1984, and the sole living accused was acquitted in March 1987. Subsequently, the State Government preferred an appeal to the HC that year.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses With Cost PIL To Enforce Demolition Order Citing Suppression Of Pending Litigation Between Private Parties

Case Title: Ram Surat vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 29 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 290

The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25000 on a litigant who filed public interest litigation suppressing the fact of pending litigation between him and the private parties.

Petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking compliance of a demolition order passed by the respondent authorities. It was pleaded that the land in question was supposed to be a park where construction had been raised by private respondents. Petitioner submitted that even though a demolition order had been passed, it had not been implemented for a very long time.

[Arbitration Act] Requirement To Provide Reasons By Arbitrator U/s 31(3) Hinges On Pleadings And Available Documents On Record: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State of U.P. vs Nath Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 291

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 291

The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the requirement to provide reasons by the arbitrator, in accordance with Section 31(3) of the Act, hinges on the pleadings and available documents on record.

It held that if the party neither expressly denied the claim of the other party nor supported its case accurately, then it's evident that the award cannot be deemed flawed, especially when the arbitrator is not expected to speculate on matters that are not presented before it.

[Arbitration Act] Court Can't Interfere Under Section 37 When Interpretation Is Plausible One, Section 37 Is Confined To Grounds Under Section 34: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors/Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 292

The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the extent of intervention in appellate proceedings according to Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the grounds permissible under Section 34 for contesting the award.

It held that the award need not be invalidated unless it is tainted by an evident "patent illegality" discernible on the surface of the record, with the caution that setting aside the award should not be solely based on erroneous legal application or evidence appreciation.

Allahabad High Court Directs UGC, GOI To Ensure Implementation Of Guidelines For Reform Of Students Facing Disciplinary Action

Case Title: Raunak Mishra v. Banaras Hindu University And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13741 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 293

The Allahabad High Court has issued directions to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Government of India to ensure the circulation and implementation of Guidelines dated 12.04.2023 issued by UGC, which contains provisions regarding the reformation of delinquent students.

The Court also directed Banaras Hindu University to formulate the reformation program for students facing disciplinary inquiry within 6 months in accordance with the Guidelines dated 12.04.2023 and the judgments of the Allahabad High Court.

Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Money Laundering Case

Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. Directorate Of Enforcement, Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 294 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6914 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 294

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) denied bail to Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) MLA from Mau, Abbas Ansari in connection with a case lodged against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Single Judge Justice Jaspreet Singh denied him the relief, considering the comprehensive money trail the Enforcement Directorate (ED) put forth in the case against him.

“…considering the material available on record including the flow charts which clearly demonstrates the origin of funds and it also explains how it finds its way into the accounts of the applicant and its use by the applicant, and there is material against the applicant to link him with the movement and trail of funds to and from the two firms M/s. Vikas Construction and M/s. Aaghaaz.”

Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 4 Men Accused Of Throwing Acid On Woman Bank Manager

Case title - Man Singh vs. State of U.P and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 295

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 295

The Allahabad High Court rejected bail petitions filed by four men accused of subjecting a woman bank manager to an acid attack in 2022 (in UP's Kaushambi district) after she purportedly refused to sanction such loan applications which were not qualified for it.

Single Judge Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied them bail while considering the evidence collected during the investigation about the purchase of acid, the actual involvement of some applicants, and the supporting roles assigned to other applicants.

Entitlement To Gratuity Not Dependent On Retirement Age But Number Of Years Of Service : Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sehrun Nisha v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 296 [WRIT - A No. - 6402 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 296

The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.

“Retirement at sixty years is not an entitling fact, which leads the employee to acquire a right to receive gratuity, which he otherwise does not have. An employee gets his right to gratuity according to the number of the years that he serves,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Dowry Death | 'No Direct Involvement': Allahabad HC Acquits Mother-In-Law After 5 Yrs In Jail, Upholds Husband's Conviction

Case title - Vedram And Anr. vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 297

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 297

While dealing with a case of dowry death, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the mother-in-law of the deceased as it found that she was living separately from her son and his wife (deceased) at the time of the crime in September 2015.

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi noted that there was a lack of specific allegations against her and that she had already separated from the family before the death of the deceased, indicating that she had no direct involvement in the alleged demands for dowry.

Allahabad High Court Strikes Down 2004 Amendment To S.169(3) UPZALR Act Mandating Registration Of Wills

Case Title: Pramila Tiwari vs. Anil Kumar Mishra And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 298 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8279 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 298

The Allahabad High Court has struck down the 2004 amendment to Section 169(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 to the extent that it mandates for registration of Wills. The Court held that the mandate to register Wills is against Section 17 read with Section 40 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

Section 169(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was amended to read as “Every will made under provisions of sub section (1) shall, not withstanding anything contained in any law, custom or usage, [be in writing, attested by two persons and registered]”

Tax Dues Can't Be Collected From Director Of Company Under Liquidation Unless Provided By Some Statute: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299 [WRIT TAX No. - 638 of 2017]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299

Relying on its earlier decision in A.S. Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that tax dues cannot be collected from director of company under liquidation unless it has been provided in any statute.

The Allahabad High Court in A.S. Solanki had held that in a case where it was ascertained that the corporate veil had been used for malafide intent, the corporate personality shall be lifted so that the individuals responsible could be held liable. However, this doctrine could not be applied as a matter of course and be used to recover the dues of a company when they were unrecoverable, from the personal assets of the Directors.

UPVAT | Computation Of Correct ITC Be Examined By Assessing Authority Not Later Than Stage Of Making Regular Assessment Order: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300 [WRIT TAX No. - 683 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300

The Allahabad High Court has held that computation of correct input tax credit can only be done till the passing of the regular assessment order by the Assessing Authority and not at a later stage. The Court held that reverse input tax credit is neither a 'rate of tax' nor a 'turnover' which can be subjected to reassessment under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Section 29 of the UPVAT Act empowers the Assessing Authority to initiate reassessment proceedings against an assesee if there is “reason to believe” that whole or part of the turnover has escaped assessment or has been assessed to tax at a lower rate than prescribed or if deductions and exemptions have been wrongly allowed.

S.144B(6) Income Tax Act | If Assessee “Requests” Then Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Is Mandatory, Not Optional: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 627 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301

The Allahabad High Court has held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when show cause notice is issued regarding why assessment may not be completed as proposed. The Court held that once the assesee “requests” for an opportunity of personal hearing, it becomes incumbent on the Assessing Authority to grant that opportunity under Section 144B(6)(viii).

Special Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order Of Hearing Decided By Single Judge: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Ms Elgin Mills Company Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 302 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 468 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 302

The Allahabad High Court has held that a special appeal is not maintainable against the order of hearing established by a single judge in an interim order.

“The Submission made pertaining to the preferential claim of the appellant, does not affect the order passed by the learned Single Judge indicating the sequence in which the matters are to be heard inasmuch as the status of appellant's claim based on Section 529A of the Act of 1956 has not been decided or determined only on account of the sequence in which the applications are to be considered by the learned Single Judge,” held the division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.

UP Land Ceiling Act Proceedings Can't Continue Based On Notice Issued In Dead Person's Name U/S 9 (2): Allahabad HC

Case title - Bhanvi Saran Singh And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303

The Allahabad High Court has observed that no proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 could continue based on a notice issued under Section 9 (2) in the name of a dead person.

For context, Section 9 (2) deals with the issuance of notice (at any time after October 10, 1975) to the tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date to submit within 30 days of such notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed.

Mere Mention Of Certain Sections In Title Of Claim Made Before Labour Court Will Not Determine Its Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 358 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 304

While dismissing the special appeal field by Jagran Prakashan against the order of the Single Judge, the Allahabad High Court has held that mere mention of certain sections in the title of an application/claim and reference made to a Labour Court will not determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that jurisdiction can be determined by the substance of the arguments and averments made in such application/claim and reference.

Reversing Acquittal, Allahabad High Court Sentences 2 Men To Life Imprisonment In 1978 Murder Case

Case title - Ayodhya And Ors. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 305

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 305

The Allahabad High Court overturned the verdict of a trial court in Gorakhpur and sentenced two men to life imprisonment in connection with a 1978 murder case. The Court noted that the trial court had not examined the prosecution's evidence from the correct perspective regarding the two accused.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad concluded that the prosecution had fully established the guilt of the 2 accused based on the evidence presented at the trial stage. Hence, they were liable to be convicted.

Fraud By Court-Staff Has Far-Reaching Detrimental Effect On Justice System; It Erodes Public Trust In Judiciary: Allahabad HC

Case title - Suresh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 306

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 306

The Allahabad High Court has observed that court staff fraud has far-reaching detrimental effects on the justice system and erodes public trust in the judiciary.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar said that when court staff abuse their authority for personal gain, it compromises the integrity of judicial decisions and raises questions about the legitimacy of legal proceedings.

Divorced Daughter Not Entitled To Compassionate Appointment Unless Divorce & Dependency On Father Is Proven: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 13833 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 307

The Allahabad High Court has held that unless a divorced daughter can establish that she was dependent on her father before his demise, she would not be entitled to a compassionate appointment post his demise. The Court held that the divorced daughter must also prove the factum of divorce before the authorities while seeking compassionate appointment.

“Likewise, if on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

[Arbitration Act] Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Recall Or Modify Its Award Under Section 33: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs Musafir And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 308

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 308

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the arbitral tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that none of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, give the arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. It held that any act which the arbitral tribunal is not empowered to do under the Arbitration Act is void ab initio.

UP Amendment To S. 438 CrPC Doesn't Bar Grant Of Anticipatory Bail To Accused Booked U/S 376(3) IPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Krishna vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 309

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 309

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 which revived the provision of anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) in the State (with effect from June 6, 2019), doesn't bar the grant of PRE-ARREST BAIL to an accused booked for an offence under subsection (3) of Section 376 IPC.

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed this while granting anticipatory bail to a 17.5-year-old boy who has been accused of molesting a 16-year-old girl.

[Arbitration Act] Once Arbitral Tribunal In Place, Court's Consideration Of Section 9 Application Should Be Limited: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ganga Prasad Memorial Trust and another vs DHK Eduserve Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 310

The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the grounds urged in the application.

Further, the bench held once an Arbitral Tribunal is established, the court cannot entertain an application under Section 9 unless the remedy under Section 17 proves to be inefficacious.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To 4 Persons Accused Of Issuing Fraudulent Halal Certificates, Hurting Religious Sentiments

Case title - Muhammed Tahir Zakir Chauhan vs. State Of U.P. Trhu. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 311

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 311

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to four office bearers of the 'Halal Council of India' (HCI), an organisation that has been accused of issuing fraudulent Halal certificates without the authority of law and thereby hurting religious sentiments.

Those granted bail are Habib Yusuf Patel (president of the council), Muidshir Sapadia (vice president), Mohammed Tahir Zakir Hussain Chauhan (general secretary), and Mohammad Anwar (treasurer). All 4 are facing an FIR under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 298, 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC.

Allahabad High Court Denies Renewal Of Future License To Liquor Shop Which Predates School In Its Proximity

Case Title: Master Atharva Minor v. State of U.P. and 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 335 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 312

While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation filed by an LKG student, the Allahabad High Court denied renewal of the liquor license to a country liquor shop as it was situated very close to a school, even though the liquor shop predated the school.

“The mere fact that the shop has been used as a liquor shop in a financial year prior to the school came into existence, is not sufficient for invoking the proviso for the purpose of granting licence year after year inasmuch as the licence is issued to the licencee on his fulfilling the eligibility under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 and not to the shop in question,” held the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.

Petitions For Expeditious Disposal Of Cases Can't Be Allowed Routinely, Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Prity Pandey v. Addl. Principal Judge,Court No. 2, Family Court, Lko. And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2373 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 313

While deciding a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for expeditious disposal of case before the Family Court, the Allahabad high Court observed that directions to the Trial Courts cannot be passed routinely to decide cases expeditiously as they are burdened with heavy dockets themselves.

The Court held that such petitions for expeditious disposal must only be allowed if extra ordinary circumstances are shown to exist for granting relief of expeditious disposal.

“This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial courts are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,” observed Justice Alok Mathur.

Magistrates Acting Like Post Office While Directing Registration Of FIR: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 314

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Magistrates are acting like a “post office” while directing registration of FIRs against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court Grants 'Default Bail' To 11 Alleged AQIS-JMB Operatives Booked Under UAPA

Case title - Mohammed Aleem @ Abdul Aleem And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.T.S. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 315

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 315

The Allahabad High Court granted 'default bail' to 11 alleged operatives of AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) and JMB (Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh) under Section 167(2) CrPC while holding the Special Court's orders extending the time to complete the investigation vis-a-vis the accused in the case as 'illegal', as the same was passed in their absence.

Stressing the special court's duty to hear the accused persons while considering the application for an extension of time to complete the investigation, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that this defect had rendered the order passed by the Special Court as illegal.

Maintenance Orders U/S 125 CrPC Can Be Recalled U/S 127; Bar U/S 362 CrPC Not Applicable In Such Cases: Allahabad HC

Case title - Rajkumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10290 of 2019]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an order passed under Section 125 CrPC may be final or interim and can be recalled or altered under Section 127 CrPC. Therefore, a bar of Section 362 CrPC is not applicable in such cases.

Perusing the mandate of Section 362 CrPC, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that if any provision is provided under CrPC that permits the recall or alteration of the judgement or final order, then the bar u/s 362 CrPC will not apply to those provisions, as is the case with Section 125 CrPC.

Fixing 6% Simple Interest Per Annum On Excess/Less Determination Of Provisional Tariff Ultra Vires The Electricity Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: U.P.Power Corporation Limited Thru M.D. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Thru Secy. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 317 [WRIT - C No. - 7368 of 2006]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 317

The Allahabad High Court has struck down Regulation 5A of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) (First Amendment), Regulations, 2006 to the extent it provides 6% per annum simple interest on excess/ less determination of provisional tariff as ultra vires Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that manner in which Appropriate Commission is to determine tariff. Section 62(6) provides that if any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.

PIL In Allahabad High Court Seeks Judicial Committee For Recovering Money, Assets Embezzled From Union/State Exchequer

Case Title: Prateek Shukla vs. Union Of India And 21 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 318 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 975 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 318

A public interest litigation was filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking constitution of a judicial committee comprising of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court for recovering the money and assets which have been embezzled and “looted” from the Union and State Exchequers.

One Prateek Shukla filed the PIL alleging that more than Rs. 100 Lakh crore had been embezzled by the bureaucrats, politicians, individuals and businessmen since the independence of India. Petitioner pleaded that though he had filed RTIs in various states inquiring about the scams, no reply was given to him as the information is barred under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

S.129(3) UPGST | Burden To Prove Double Movement Of Goods Based On Same Documents Lies On Department: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319 [WRIT TAX No. - 574 of 2019]

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319

Relying on its earlier decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove double movement of goods based on same documents lies on the department.

The Allahabad High Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others held that the positive burden to prove that goods had been transported on an earlier occasion lies on the Assessing Authority. The Court had observed that since no inquiries were made from the assesee, toll plaza, purchasing dealer or any other source as to whether goods had been transported earlier, presumption could not have been drawn by the authorities merely based on the e-way bill.

S.16 GST | Authorities Not Estopped From Taking Action Against Wrongful Claim Of ITC Based On Non-Existent Firms: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320 [WRIT TAX No. - 128 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320

The Allahabad High Court has held that the authorities are not estopped from taking action against wrongful claim of input tax credit merely because the firms with which transactions were alleged to have been done were registered at the time of the alleged transactions.

Observing that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that “mere fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier been granted to the petitioner merely because the firms were registered, would not create any estoppel against the authority taking appropriate action for claiming refund of the benefit wrongly availed by the petitioner on the ground of receiving inward supplies from non-existent firms.”

[S.9 Guardians And Wards Act] “Ordinary Residence” Not Temporary Residence Of Minor When Application For Custody Filed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dheeraj vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321 [First Appeal No. 373 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321

The Allahabad High Court has held that “ordinary residence” of minor under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 will not include the temporary residence where the minor may have moved temporarily, even for education, at the time of filing of application for custody under the Act.

Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides that application regarding guardianship of the person of the minor shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 provide the jurisdiction when application is sought to be made for the property of the minor.

Though Legal Issue Can Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Proceedings, It Depends On Facts: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gaursons Promoters P. Ltd. vs. Aakash Engineers And Contractors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 144 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322

The Allahabad High Court has held that though a legal issue going to the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in appellate proceedings but the same is dependent on the facts of the case.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held

“There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that a legal issue going into the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in the appellate proceedings. However, the question is dependent upon the facts of a particular case.”

Delay In Filling Appeal Under Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned Without Good Reason: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Nirankar Dutt Tyagi and Anr. vs. N.H.I. Unit Dehradun and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 593 of 2023 ]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323

While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has held that a delay in filling the appeal could not be condoned without finding compelling reasons for the same.

Special Appeal/ Letters Patent Appeal Against Order U/S.11 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Moksh Innovations Inc. Lko. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E City Property Management And Services (P) Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Property Manager And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324

The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable.

The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed by Section 11(7) is still in force.

S.5 Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Application U/S 34 Arbitration Act, Timeline Provided To Be Adhered Strictly: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sh. Dharmveer Tyagi And Others vs. Competent Authority, Dfcc, Special Land Acquisition (Joint Officer Organization) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 257 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral award. Proviso to Section 34(3) empowers Court to condone a delay of 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is show, “but not thereafter.”

S.33-G UP Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act A Beneficiary Provision To Regularize Teachers Serving For Decades: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Tirthraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326 [WRIT - A No. - 8517 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 which was added by way of amendment in 2016 was added a beneficiary scheme for teachers who had spent decades serving as teachers.

The provision governs substantive appointments of teachers on posts other than that of the Principal/ Headmaster. Sub-section (a) thereof provides for regularization of teacher, other than the principal or headmaster, who has been appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturers grade or trained graduate grade, on or after 7.8.1993, but not later than 25.1.1999 on short term Vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 198, which was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy.

[Income Tax] Once Books Of Accounts Not Objected To Before Tribunal, AO Can't Disturb Gross Profit Rates Applied By Assesee: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327 [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 35 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the acceptance of books of accounts by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have not been objected to by the Assessing Authority before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disturb the gross profit rate as declared by the assesee.

The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

“in absence of any other objection found in the books of accounts of the assessee as may have been pressed before the Tribunal, there survives no room to reject the books of accounts of the assessee. Consequently, there is no intrinsic evidence to enhance the gross profit rate. Once the books of accounts of an assessee are found accepted the Assessing Officer may have remained within the confines of his powers ad not disturbed the gross profit rate as that would remain in the nature of the result of the book entries and not an original entry by itself.”

S.2(e) UPVAT | Plant, Machinery Sold After Closure Of Business Are Capital Goods, Excluded From Levy Of Tax: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No.123 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328

The Allahabad High Court has held that plant and machinery sold after the closure of business are capital goods under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and are excluded from levy of tax under the amended definition of 'business' under Section 2(e) of the Act.

The definition of 'business' under Section 2(e)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was amended in 2014 to include any transaction, even after the closure of business, if it relates to sale of goods acquired during the period in which business was carried out. Section 2(f) defines 'capital goods' as plant, machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tool, appliance or electrical installation used for manufacture or processing of any goods for sale by the dealer.

[Indian Stamp Act] Collector Quasi-Judicial Authority, Has No Statutory Power To Review/Recall Order: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Shivani Chaurasia And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329 [WRIT – C No. 13775 OF 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329

The Allahabad High Court has held that the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are quasi-judicial in nature and unless statute specifically provides, the Collector (Stamp) has no power to review or recall his order.

The Court held that no statutory power to review/ recall its order has been given to the Collector (Stamp) under the Indian Stamp Act.

“Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Appointing High Court Has Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate U/s 29A: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Settled Position Till Larger Bench Decides Issue

Case Title: M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs UP Jal Nigam and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator.

While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger bench, the High Court held that the current position continued to be governed by previous judgments such as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises.

Practice Of Electro-Homeopathy Not Banned In UP But Such Practitioners Can't Use 'Doctor' Prefix: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar S/O Ram Khelawan Singh And Anr. v. Union Of India Thru Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 331 [WRIT - C No. - 6856 of 2009]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 331

The Allahabad High Court has held that the practice of Electro Homeopathy is not banned in the State of Uttar Pradesh but such practitioners of electro homeopathy cannot use 'doctor' prefix before their names.

The bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla further held that the practice will be governed by Government order dated 25.11.2003. It said,

“although no institution can confer a diploma or degree in Electro Homeopathy, however, as there is no ban, the petitioners can always practice Electro Homeopathy as an alternative therapy within the parameters of order dated 25.11.2003. This Court also finds that in the absence of any statutory provisions, there could not be any conferring of diploma or degrees in Electropathy or Electro Homeopathy in India, however, there is no bar in issuance of Certificate for the said study.”

'SC/ST Act Misused For Personal Vendetta': Allahabad HC Quashes 'Counterblast' FIR Lodged Against A Couple By Govt Servant

Case title - Alka Sethi And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Expressing its concerns regarding the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings against a couple initiated allegedly at the behest of a government servant.

“This Court will be failing in its duty, if such kind of activities are allowed to take place in the State of U.P. by none other than the government servant. Here the connivance of land mafias, the Revenue Officers and the then S.H.O. seems to be playing a major role, wherein a couple has wrongly been implicated in the criminal proceedings and they have been forced to run from pillar to post,” a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar observed as it allowed a quashing plea filed by one Alka Sethi and her husband (Dhruv Sethi).

Though Demand Of Dowry Punishable, Taunting For Giving Less Dowry Not A Penal Offence By Itself: Allahabad High Court

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 333

While quashing criminal complaints against the relatives of the husband, the Allahabad High Court observed that though the demand of dowry is a punishable offence, taunting for giving less dowry is not a penal offence by itself.

The Court held that allegations against the family members must be clear and unambiguous, highlighting the specific roles played by each member to attract criminal prosecution.

In Family Land Disputes, Initial Burden Of Proof Is On Those Claiming Property Is Joint Hindu Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Bahal and others v. D.D.C. And Others [WRIT - B No. - 3434 of 1981]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 334

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in Hindu family land disputes, the person claiming the property in question to be a Joint Hindu Family Property would have the initial burden of proof to establish the same.

The Court relied on Kunj Bihari v. Ganga Sahai Pande where Allahabad High Court held that “The legal proposition which emerges therefrom is that initial burden is on the person who claims that it is joint family property but after initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the party claiming that the property was self acquired and without the aid of joint family property.”

Alleged Act Of 'Intentional Insult' Under SC/ST Act Not Offence Unless Committed In Public View: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335

The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) only if it is committed in public view.

A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while quashing Criminal proceedings against the 3 persons (applicants) in respect of offence under sections 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act.

Allahabad High Court Orders Police Protection For Man In Live-In Relationship With A Trans Woman

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Affirming the right of individuals to live their lives freely, including choosing their partners, the Allahabad High Court recently ordered police protection for a man involved in a live-in relationship with a transwoman.

In its order, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh asserted that living with a person of one's choice is one sphere of life where Constitutional Courts “positively enforce the Constitutional law dictate, to negate and contain any societal prejudices” that may otherwise violate a citizen's fundamental rights.

S.42 Arbitration Act | Party Filing S.9 Application In One Court Can't Dispute Jurisdiction Later While Dealing With S.34 Application: Allahabad HC

Case Title: M/S Devi Dayal Trust And Others V. M/S Rajhans Towers Pvt. Ltd. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 2199 OF 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 337

The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.

Section 42 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in Part-I of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under Part-I has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.

Disciplinary Authority/Full Court Not Obligated To Give Reasons For Rejecting Representation: Allahabad HC Upholds Dismissal Of District Judge

Case Title: Umesh Kumar Sirohi v. State Of U P And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 338 [WRIT - A No. - 10665 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 338

While upholding dismissal of judicial officer on charges of demand of dowry and trying to influence his subordinate in a case instituted by his wife, the Allahabad High Court held that Disciplinary Authority being Full Court of the High Court is not obligated to supply reasons for rejecting the comments made by the delinquent judicial officer on the inquiry report.

Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, and the decision of a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Madhav Prasad v. Deputy Director, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the Disciplinary Authority / Full Court was not obligated to record its express reasons-to reject the representation made by the delinquent or to accept the Inquiry Report or to award particular penalty.”

'Unbecoming Of A Judge; He Auctioned His Dignity': Allahabad HC Quashes 'False' FIR Lodged By A CJM Against Govt Officials

Case title - Manoj Kumar Gupta And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 339

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 339

While quashing an FIR lodged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda against the serving officials of the state's Electricity Department, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday made strong remarks about the Judicial officer's conduct.

A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that CJM Banda Bhagwan Das Gupta levelled “wild and tailored” allegations of fraud, cheating, fabrication of documents, and extortion of money against the officials “to teach a bitter lesson” to them and to make them “understand the power and position of a CJM.

Irked At Perfunctory Probe, Allahabad HC Orders Specialized Training For IO To Enhance Skills In Murder Case Investigations

Case title - Bhudev vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 340

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 340

The Allahabad High Court censured an Investigating Official for hastily filing a chargesheet under Section 306 IPC after dropping the charge under Section 302 IPC, initially specified in the FIR.

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further directed the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Agra, to send the IO for special training to prepare him for investigating offences, especially under Section 302 IPC.

Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Party For Filing False Affidavits Before Revenue Authority To Grab Widow's Property

Case Title: Santosh Kumar And 2 Others v. Board OfRevenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial And 10 Others [WRIT - B No. - 523 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 341

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a party for trying to grab the land of a widow by filing false affidavit before various quasi-judicial authorities. The Court held that the petitioners had misused the process of law by intentionally defrauding the authorities.

[Hindu Marriage Act] Withdrawal Of Divorce Petition By Wife Does Not Abate Counterclaim Filed By Husband: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ishita Dua v. Tarun Kumar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 342 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 374 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 342

The Allahabad High Court has held that withdrawal of divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not automatically abate the counterclaim filed by the husband as dismissal or discontinuance of a suit under Order VIII Rule 6D CPC includes withdrawal of suit as a suit is “dismissed as withdrawn”.

The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held

“Insofar as the term 'discontinued or dismissed' is concerned. Once the withdrawal application is allowed, the suit stands discontinued for all practical purposes. Even otherwise, the withdrawal of the suit is always as dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, withdrawal of the suit would fall within the two words, i.e., 'discontinued or dismissed'.”

Does Demand Notice Sent Via 'Courier' Constitute A Valid Service In Cheque Dishonor Cases? Allahabad HC Answers

Case title - Rajiv Malhotra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 343

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 343

The Allahabad High Court has unequivocally ruled that a demand notice sent to the cheque drawer via courier service is valid in cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The court, however, made it clear that in cases of notice sent through courier, the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked until an amendment is made under the said provision to include the courier service apart from the registered post.

[S.85 Finance Act 1994] Limitation Period Prescribed In Special Statutes Prevails Over Limitation Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1368 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344

The Allahabad High Court has held that the limitations prescribed under special statutes, such as Finance Act, 1994 will prevail over the limitations mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court held that statutes such as the Finance Act, 1994 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 were enabled to address specific areas of law and that they often contained detailed provisions regarding procedural aspects such as limitation.

Fake Birth Certificate Case | Allahabad HC Stays SP Leader Azam Khan's Conviction, Suspends Sentence Of Son, Wife; Grants Them Bail

Case title - Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 345

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 345

The Allahabad High Court stayed the conviction of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in connection with the fake birth certificate case.

However, the court did not suspend the conviction of his wife (Tanzeen Fatima) and son (Abdullah Azam), though their pleas for suspension of the sentence were allowed, and all three were granted bail.

However, Azam Khan and his son will remain in jail due to a pending case against them and only his wife will be released from jail.

Assured Career Progression Different From Increment, Govt Servants Not Entitled To ACP Post-Retirement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chandrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 346 [WRIT - A No. - 19066 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 346

The Allahabad High Court has held that government employees would not be entitled to Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) after their retirement. The Court held that Assured Career Progressions are distinct from Increments and cannot be awarded in the same way.

“If a government servant, who has already retired from service and becomes entitled to his ACP, a day after his retirement, he too has no right to it,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

Can't Adjudicate Correctness Of Response, But Can Rectify Examiner's Failure To Correct Response: Allahabad HC Awards Additional Marks To 2022 UPPCS(J) Candidate

Case Title: Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 347

While entertaining a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court awarded two additional marks to a candidate who had appeared for the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2022, thereby qualifying him for selection. The Court further directed for the petitioner's selection against the vacancies available in the General Category, for which he was eligible.

Storing & Circulating Indecent Videos Of Women Becoming A Serious Menace In Society: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mange @ Ravindra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 348

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 348

The Allahabad High Court has raised a grave concern over the escalating issue of storing and circulating indecent videos of women, deeming it a serious menace to society.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also said that the poor quality of investigations into I.T.-related offences and cyber offences is becoming a “major fault line” in the functioning of investigations.

Arbitration Act | Once Party Aware Of Contents Of Award, Can't Claim Extension Of Limitation By Invoking S.31(5): Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 8 of 2020]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 349

The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.

Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be delivered to each party.

S.16(2) Arbitration Act | Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings Against Decathlon For Premises In Lucknow

Case Title: Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 350 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2475 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 350

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.

S.75(4) CGST | Allahabad HC Directs Commissioner To Take Disciplinary Action Against Adjudicating Authorities Violating PONJ Without Justifiable Reasons

Case Title: Ns Agro And Engineering Products v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 672 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 351

While dealing with the non-compliance of mandatory provision for opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Allahabad High Court directed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh to take remedial action, including disciplinary proceedings against erring adjudicating authorities for violating principles of natural justice without justifiable reasons.

“Reason To Believe” U/S 148A(C) Income Tax Act Amended To “Info Which Suggests”; Thorough Consideration Of Assessee's Reply Not Necessary: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Rahul Sachan v. Income Tax Officer [WRIT TAX No. - 799 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 352

The Allahabad High Court has held that a pointwise consideration of objections that may be raised by an assessee in response to a notice issued to him under Section 148 A(b) is not necessary while passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relates to procedure of inquiry to be followed by an Assessing Officer prior to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for income that may have escaped assessment. Section 148A provides an opportunity of hearing to the assesee before deciding whether a case for reassessment of tax returns can be made against an assessee by an assessing officer.

Cheques Dishonored With Endorsements 'Insufficient Fund', 'Account Closed', 'Signature Mismatch' Attract S. 138 NI Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Vijay Kumar vs. State Of Up Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 353

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 353

The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the cheque is dishonoured and returned with the endorsements - case referred to drawer, instruction for stoppage of payment, exceeds arrangement, insufficient fund, signature differed or mismatch or account closed - then it will be sufficient for prima facie case for issuing process under Section 138 NI Act.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that despite the bank's above-mentioned endorsements for returning the cheque, summoning the cheque drawer under Section 138 of the NI Act is proper.

Option Once Exercised For A Financial Year May Not Be Withdrawn Midway: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354

The Allahabad High Court has held that an option, once exercised for a financial year, may not be withdrawn midway.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh has observed that the only recourse that applicant may have taken may be to apply to the jurisdictional authority to discontinue the benefit of the compounding scheme from the beginning of the next financial year, i.e., 1.4.1998. For the option to be exercised, the applicant ought to have made that application before the date i.e. 1.4.1998, and in any case before making the deposit of the compounding fee for the month of April, 1998. Having done otherwise, the applicant lost the opportunity to withdraw from the compounding scheme for the financial year 1998–99.

Qualification/ Service Condition Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Employer: Allahabad High Court Upholds Recruitment Process Of IIT-Kanpur

Case Title: Ram Pratap Singh v. Union of India and 4 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 345 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 355

The Allahabad High Court upheld the recruitment process adopted by IIT-Kanpur for the post Executive Engineer as no challenge to the parent IIT Rules, 2018 was made by the appellant. The Court held that IIT-Kanpur, being the employer, is empowered to make rules for recruitment of its staff as it is within its expertise as to what the institution requires.

Observing that IIT Kanpur is a premier institution in the country, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,

“Prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the authority. It is not open to the Courts to direct the authority to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.”

Franchise Agreement Granted Non-Exclusive Licence Rather Than Transfer Of Right To Use Goods, VAT Not Payable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356

The Allahabad High Court has held that the franchise agreement granted a non-exclusive licence rather than a transfer of the right to use goods and the transaction does not attract Value Added Tax under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (UPVAT Act).

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has observed that the respondent-department had received royalty amount from various dealers under the franchise agreement and service tax has been duly paid by it on the same. If the payments have been subjected to service tax, they cannot be recharacterized as the sale of goods to levy VAT or sales tax.

Failure To Cite Judgment Does Not Render Original Judgement Flawed: Allahabad High Court

Case No.: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has observed that the review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgement; rather, it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgement does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.

[Income Tax Act] Proceedings U/S 148A Summary In Nature, Assessing Authority To Only See If It Is “Fit Case” For Reassessment: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 479 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358

The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 148A of the Income tax Act, 1961 are summary in nature. The Court held that at the stage of passing order under Section 148A(d), the Assessing Authority has to only see if it is a “fit case” for initiation of reassessment proceedings or not.

The Court held that the Assessing Authority need not go into the correctness of the material but only record its satisfaction as to the relevancy of the material for assuming jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.

Allahabad HC Denies Bail To 'Maulvi' Accused Of Forcibly Changing Religion Of Mentally Unsound Minor

Case title - Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd Shad vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13628 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 359

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a mosque Maulvi accused of enticing a mentally unsound minor boy and forcibly keeping him in a 'Madarsa' after changing his religion.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain denied him relief, noting that there are specific allegations against the accused and the alleged victim also made allegations against him in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

Over Dimensional Cargo Can't Be Penalized For Reaching Earlier Than Estimated Time: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360 [WRIT TAX No. - 1348 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360

The Allahabad High Court has held that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be penalized by the authorities for reaching its destination in less time than estimated by travelling at a higher speed when there is no intention to evade tax.

Clause 2.4 of the Circular issued by Commissioner, State Tax dated 17.01.2024 provides that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be detained and penalty cannot be imposed only because the goods have reached the intended place earlier than the estimated time.

Remedies Sought Under Domestic Violence Act Of Civil Nature, Amendment To Application U/S 12 Are Allowed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. ­ 339 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361

The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and amendments to applications made to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act are allowed to be made.

“The proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complain/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provisions, as a necessary concomitant,” held Justice Dr.Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.

Mere Performance Of Obscene Act Not Sufficient, 'Annoyance Of Others' Needed To Constitute Offence U/S 294 IPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Monu Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362

The Allahabad High Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the mere performance of an obscene or indecent act is not sufficient; further proof must establish that it was to the annoyance of others, as 'annoyance to others' is essential to constitute an offence under this section.

The Court added that when the section says "annoyance to others" is a prerequisite to invoking the provision, the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se" will not arise until or unless there is evidence on record to show whether a person at a given time witnessing a particular obscene act was annoyed or not.

Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ankit Singh And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10631 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363

The Allahabad High Court has elucidated on provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and observed that groom and his family are being prosecuted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 merely based on the statements made by the bride and her family. However, due to the bar under Section 7(3), no action is being taken against the bride and her family for giving the dowry which is also an offence under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.”

Noting His 'Precarious' Economic State, Allahabad HC Modifies Life Sentence Of Man Who Raped 5-Yr Old Girl To 14-Yr RI

Case title - Gaurav Yadav @ Phadka vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364

The Allahabad High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted of raping a 5-year-old girl from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment considering his 'precarious' financial situation, as it noted that his mother is a vegetable seller and there is no other earning member in the family.

Additionally, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi considered that the convict is a first offender, and the possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out.

Arbitration Act | Misplacement Of File By Lawyer Not Sufficient Ground For Condoning 966 Days Delay: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 33 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 365

The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.

“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on the appellant to ensure that necessary precautions and timely measures are in place to prevent such eventualities from affecting crucial legal processes. The appellant's advocate, being a legal professional, is expected to maintain a higher standard of care in managing case files, especially those that are time- sensitive,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Allahabad HC Quashes FIRs Against Officer Bearers Of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, Says Dispute Between District Admin And Sabha Is Civil In Nature

Case title - Anoop Srivastava 10 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 366

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the FIRs lodged against the office bearers of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha by the District Administration, Agra under Sections 147, 332, 353, 447 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Law 1932 & Section 11 Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act 1960.

The bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi relied on the earlier order of the Allahabad High Court in Radhasoami Satsang Sabha v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others, wherein the demolition orders passed by the Tehsildar, Agra against Radhasoami Satsang Sabha were set aside on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.

[Mining Lease] Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Only When Documents Found Fabricated: Allahabad High Court Directs Refund Of Rs. 90 Lakhs

Case Title: M/S Pragyason Constructions Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21022 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 367

The Allahabad High Court has held that earnest money deposited for mining lease can only be forfeited when the documents of an individual are found to be false or fabricated upon investigation.

The bench comprising of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji held that “forfeiture of earnest money could be ordered only when, upon the verification, any document or certificate filed by an individual was found false, fabricated or incorrect”.

Arbitral Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Incorrect Application Of Law Or Misinterpretation Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.

Provisions Of Rent Control Act Inapplicable In Determining Mesne Profits Once Tenancy Is Terminated U/S 106 Of Transfer of Property Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Punjab National Bank Earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sanjeevani Shiksha Samiti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 76 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369

The Allahabad High Court has held that once tenancy is terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply in determining mesne profits with regard to rent payable for the property. It was held that the prevalent market rate would be considered while determining the rate for the mesne profit.

Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “once after service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1992, tenancy is terminated, the status of tenant would only be trespasser and mesne profit shall be determined, based upon market rate prevailing in the area. Provisions of Rent Control Act would not be applicable.”

Valid Electricity Connection Cannot Be Disrupted Indefinitely While Replacing Overhead Wires With Underground Cables: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shekhar Kapoor And 10 Others v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370 [WRIT - C No. - 11053 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370

The Allahabad High Court has observed that disruption of valid electricity connection cannot be done indefinitely only because overhead wires were to be replaced with underground cables.

While widening the roads under the Smart City Development Project in Moradabad, the respondent authorities had removed several overhead wires, which lead to disruption of electricity supply to the shops of the petitioners. Further, a portion of certain building situated at the station road, where the shops were situated, was demolished and the debris had been left by the authorities.

'Prosecution Couldn't Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Convicts In 44 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Rajesh And Others vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the conviction of three murder convicts sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in June 1982 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this order while allowing the criminal appeal filed by three convicts, two of whom are now in their 60s.

[Arbitration Act] Arbitrator Obligated U/S 31(5) To Deliver Signed Copies Of Award To Parties, Irrespective Of No Specific Requests: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 264 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party involved in the arbitration. This statutory duty is not contingent upon a party's request for the award; rather, it is an imperative that must be fulfilled by the Arbitrator irrespective of any such request. The failure to comply with this statutory obligation can lead to significant procedural irregularities, potentially undermining the arbitral process and the enforceability of the award,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

S.11 Hindu Marriage Act | Parents Of Husband Can Contest Proceedings For Declaring Marriage Void After His Death: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 394 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373

The Allahabad High Court has held that after the death of the husband who had filed for declaration (of marriage as void) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, his parents have a right to pursue the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as such matrimonial disputes include questions of inheritance.

While hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the order of the Family Court, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“the Legal Representative who is not "either of the parties" and was not one of the spouse to the marriage in question can pursue the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act that marriage should be declared void and therefore, their application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would be maintainable.”

S.13 Hindu Marriage Act | Once Finding Of Cruelty Recorded, Divorce To Be Granted Irrespective Of Proof Of Desertion: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt. Piu Kundu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 31 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the finding regarding cruelty has been recorded by the Family Court, marriage between the parties ought to be dissolved. The Court held that only because desertion is not proved, the marriage cannot be restituted.

The Court held that the grounds of divorce provided in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act are mutually exclusive and if any one of the grounds is made out, the divorce ought to be granted. It held that use of the word 'or' after each ground makes them disjunctive.

[UP Minor Minerals Act] Forfeiture Of Deposit Not Authorised Once Letter Of Intent Is Cancelled: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Deep Builders And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375 [WRIT - C No. - 33710 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375

While examining the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that once a Letter of Intent has been issued for a mining lease and a security deposit been made, the relevant authority does not possess the power to forfeit such deposit made by the lessee, upon cancellation of the Letter of Intent.

“Upon a consideration of the submissions made and upon a careful scrutiny of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2017 and 2019, we are unable to discern any power of forfeiture,” held the Division Bench comprising of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Facilitation Council Award For Lack Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 19 MSME Act

Case Title: Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376[WRIT - C No. - 10525 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act.

Admission Made In Written Statement Cannot Be Withdrawn By Way Of Amendment Application Made Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 38 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that admissions made in written statements cannot be withdrawn by an amendment even in the case of a typographical error or a change in arguing counsel.

Opposite party filed a case in the small causes court in which the revisionists had filed a written statement on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, it was found that due to a typographical error, the documents annexed with the written statement contained the word 'tenant' rather than the phrase 'license deed'.

'Dekhte Hi Goli Maar Di Jayegi' & 'Trespassers Will Be Shot' Signboards Outside Defence Stations Not Proper: Allahabad HC

Case title - Etvir Limbu vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18482 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that putting messages like 'dekhte hi goli maar di jayegi' and 'trespassers will be shot' on signboards erected outside installations/stations is not proper and that the Central Government should use “light words” instead to convey such strict warnings.

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav said that while it is true that trespassers are not allowed to enter the premises of armed forces for the purpose of security, such messages/words have a detrimental impact on children, so the Central Government may take caution in writing these types of words.

[Matrimonial Dispute] Allahabad HC Orders Forensic Examination Of CDs Filed By Husband Alleging Wife's Involvement In Pornography

Case title - Shiv Ram vs. Smt.Pinki And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

The Allahabad High Court directed a forensic examination of CDs/DVDs submitted by the husband, which allegedly contain sexual videos implicating his wife.

The husband seeks to present this evidence supporting his suit for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a case under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his two minor daughters.

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380 [WRIT TAX No. - 570 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380

The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Section 33A of the Central Excise Act provides that opportunity of hearing be given to a party in a proceeding under the Act, if desired by them. Further, it lays down the procedure for granting adjournment in adjudication proceedings to either of the parties on the condition that a single party can only be granted a total of three adjournments during such proceedings.

Allahabad High Court Permits VC, Executive Council Members Of KGMC To Move Discharge Applications Before Contempt Court

Case Title: Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 125 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381

While dealing with a special appeal against issuance of notices by the contempt Court, the Allahabad High Court permitted the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow to move for discharge of notices before the Contempt Court since the contempt proceedings are still pending.

Rule 5 of Chapter- XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides for issuance of notice of charges in contempt cases where a prima facie case of contempt of Court is made out against the person concerned within a year of alleged act of contempt of court.

[Commercial Courts Act] Disputes Related To Immovable Property Used Exclusively For Trade Are 'Commercial Disputes: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mamta Kapoor and Another v. Vinod Kumar Rai 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 4127 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382

The Allahabad High Court, while considering the case of a hotel, has held that a dispute related to an immovable property that is used exclusively for the purpose of trade or commerce would fall under the ambit of a 'Commercial Dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

“Agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce fall under the purview of “commercial disputes” as definer by Section 2(c)(vii) of the CC Act. This categorization highlights the specific nature of such agreements and their inherent connection to commercial activities,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Adult's Right To Solemnise Marriage Or Live With Person Of Choice Protected Under Article 21: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Naziya Ansari And Another vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9396 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383

In a significant remark, the Allahabad High Court has said that no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish as “this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution”

Observing thus, a bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also criticised a Judicial Magistrate for sending an adult woman (petitioner no. 1) to her uncle's home after the uncle (respondent no. 3) lodged an FIR against her husband (petitioner no. 2).

Cheques Of Erstwhile 'Allahabad Bank' Invalid After Sept 30 2021, Their 'Dishonor' Won't Attract Offence U/S 138 NI Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Archana Singh Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that cheques from the erstwhile 'Allahabad Bank' (which merged with 'Indian Bank' on April 1, 2020) became 'invalid' after September 30, 2021. Consequently, the dishonour of such cheques will not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus in light of the mandate of Section 138 NI Act, the proviso (a) of which states that a cheque must be presented to the Bank 'during its validity'.

Petition U/S 483 CrPC Seeking Direction To Family Court For Expeditious Disposal Of S. 125 CrPC Plea Is Maintainable: Allahabad HC

Case title - Shiva Pankaj And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application filed under Section 483 CrPC seeking a direction to the Family Court to expedite the disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC, would be maintainable.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Therefore, a Section 483 CrPC application seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable.

Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged By Filing A Plea U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad HC Reiterates

Case title - Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Gupta And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge that order.

Perusing the mandate of Section 14-A of the Act, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the provision starts with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)” and that in In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, another full bench of the HC has held that “while the constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not “ousted” by Section 14A, they cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under Section 14A”.

Complete Penetration With Emission Of Semen & Rupture Of Hymen Not Necessary To Constitute Rape: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pradum Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to constitute an offence of rape, complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and the rupture of the hymen is not necessary.

Observing thus, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan rejected the bail petition of a man accused of committing rape and oral sex with a 10-year-old girl.

Beneficiaries Of Waqf To Be Impleaded In Matters Related To Sale Of Waqf Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Ameena Jung and Anr. vs. Faridi Waqf Thru. Mutwalli Mrs. Anush Faridi Khan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388 [CIVIL REVISION No. - 22 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388

The Allahabad High Court has held that the beneficiaries of a Waqf have the right to be impleaded in matters relating to the sale of property of the Waqf. Justice Jaspreet Singh held that such beneficiaries were covered by the concept of necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court held that “where a mutawalli was seeking the permission to de-list certain properties from the register of Waqf then is such a case, at least those parties who, in the knowledge of the mutawalli, were the direct beneficiaries and would be affected ought to have been impleaded.”

State Machinery Should Cancel Licence Of Journalists Involved In Blackmailing, Anti-Social Acts: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

The Allahabad High Court said the State Machinery should cancel the licenses of journalists who are involved in anti-social activities like blackmailing the common man to get financial benefits in the garb of their licenses.

A bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed made this observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against two persons, a journalist and a newspaper distributor by profession, who are facing a case under Sections 384/352/504/505 IPC, 3(2)(Va), and 3(1) (S) SC/ST Act.

Person Seeking Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Given Second Chance To Qualify Physical Efficiency Test After Having Failed Once: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police) [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 390

The Allahabad High Court has held that no second chance can be granted to a person seeking compassionate appointment for qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test, having failed it in the first try.

Holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that

“It is essentially to reach immediate succor to a bereaved family. In other words, the sudden passing away of a government servant creates a financial vacuum and it is to lend a helping hand to the genuinely needed members of the bereaved family that an appointment is provided. It is never meant to be a source of conferring any status or an alternate mode of recruitment.”

Lawyers To Ensure Dignity Of Court Even When Challenging Its Order: Allahabad High Court Deprecates Disrespectful Drafting Of Review Application

Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391

The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of disrespectful drafting of review applications which lower the dignity of the Court.

While hearing a review application against his earlier order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,

“Although a litigant is well within its right to challenge the validity of any order in accordance with the law and in case the order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record, the litigant would be well within its right to say so, but while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”

Restrictions On Grant Of Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Do Not Apply To Constitutional Courts: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the restrictions on the grant of bail contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) only apply to the special courts dealing with NDPS cases and do not apply to the Constitutional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court).

“I am of the considered view that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi concluded.

UP Recognised Basic School Rules: Allahabad HC Upholds Deemed Approval Of Docs Submitted By Appointee If No Response From Authority Within 30 Days

Case Title: Smt. Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393 [WRIT - A No. - 16849 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393

The Allahabad High Court, while examining the case of appointment of a principal, has held that if documents sent for approval to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) are not approved within a period of 30 days, then as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules, 1978, they shall be held to have been approved.

“It has not been disputed that the documents were sent for approval and after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication has been received, then as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of Rules, 1978, it will be deemed that the approval has been granted,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.

'Sexual Offences' Under IPC Are Women-Centric To Protect Dignity & Honour But Male Partner Not Always At Fault: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, emphasizing that while laws on sexual offences are rightly women-centric, it does not mean that the male partner is always at fault.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that the burden of proof in such cases lies with both the complainant and the accused.

The bench stated, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them. It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage.”

1982 Murder Case | 'Faulty' Investigation, 'Contradictions' In Testimonies Of PWs: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused

Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.

Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offence Sans Magistrate's Permission Is Illegal; Subsequent Nod Is Immaterial: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, and subsequent permission by the Magistrate cannot cure this illegality.

Referring to the provision under sub Section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature, and if such permission isn't taken, merely accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognisance of the offence does not validate the proceeding.

UP Anti-Conversion Law Won't Achieve Its Purpose If Prosecutions Under 2021 Act Are Frequently Interfered With: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Anti-Conversion Law, enacted in 2021, will fail to achieve its intended purpose if the courts frequently interfere with prosecutions under the Act at their initial stage.

Emphasizing that such interferences, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, could undermine the effectiveness of the law, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:

“The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.”

Administrators Often Lose Objectivity When Visited With Judicial Command: Allahabad HC On Rejection Of Compassionate Appointment Claim After Filing Of Writ

Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”

The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.

[U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules] Employee Shall Be Entitled To Pay If Initial Approval Of Appointment Not Recalled: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.

“The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.

'Documents Forged': Allahabad HC Dismisses NEET Aspirant's 'Torn OMR Sheet' Plea, NTA Mulls Action Against Her

Case title - Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED (being not pressed) a writ petition moved by a NEET aspirant (Ayushi Patel) after it was revealed that she submitted forged documents in her petition alleging the NTA failed to declare her result. In her plea, the candidate also claimed that her OMR answer sheet was torn.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan dismissed the petitioner's petition, deeming it a “really sorry state of affairs” that she filed the petition enclosing the forged and fictitious documents.

Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Not State Under Article 12, Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401 [WRIT - A No. - 19131 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram as it is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no statue regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.

Justice J.J. Munir relied on the decisions in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P. and Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog & Others where the Allahabad High Court has held that Shri Gandhi Ashram, parent body of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not state within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against the Ashram.

Accused's Act Of Absconding Alone Doesn't Establish His Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Conviction In 25 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Setting aside a conviction in a 25-year-old murder case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that only on the basis of the absconding of the accused, he cannot be held to be guilty.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.

Gravity Of Offence Not A Relevant Consideration While Dealing With Bail Plea Of Juvenile Accused: Allahabad HC

Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.

'Highly Dangerous To Convict Him On This Kind Of Evidence' Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 46 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2751 of 1980]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

While underscoring the critical importance of robust and credible evidence in securing convictions, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man previously convicted of murder in a case dating back 46 years.

“We think it is highly dangerous to convict the appellant on this kind of evidence when there are strong circumstances to show that the testimony of the sole eyewitness needs corroboration, either from ocular testimony or documentary/scientific evidence,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

Court Can't Add Or Subtract Sections In Police Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offences U/S 190 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the offences cannot be added or subtracted by the concerned Magistrate or Judge in the police report when they are being considered under Section 190 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj reasoned that at the stage of taking cognisance of offences based on the police report, no hearing is provided to the complainant or the accused and hence, adding the offences without hearing the accused “would certainly prejudice them”.

Use Of Blank Printed Proforma For Passing Judicial Order Is Unacceptable: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Cognizance & Summoning Order

Case title - Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the use of blank printed proforma for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is unacceptable, being indicative of nonapplication of judicial mind in passing the order.

“While passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner,” a bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said.

Prosecution Failed To Prove Chain Of Incriminating Circumstances: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 42 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 42-year-old murder case, emphasising that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.

The Court also stressed that to attract the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove that a fact was especially in the knowledge of the accused, and it has to be seen whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

NDPS Act | Can Convict Accused Based On Testimony Of Police/DRI Witnesses If It Inspires Confidence: Allahabad HCv

Case title - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused's conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) if such testimony inspires confidence.

With this, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan upheld the conviction of 3 men who were found guilty of the offences under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

UP Police Exam Paper Leak | 'Nothing Incriminating Recovered From His Possession': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To An Accused

Case title - Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit, who was held earlier this year for allegedly trying to manipulate a police constable examination and leaking the question papers.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him relief, noting that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and that the co-accused (Monu Kumar and Rajneesh Ranjan), who were also apprehended along with the applicant, have already been released on bail by the High Court.

Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Who Secretly Took Daughter's Blood Sample For Private DNA Test To Deny Paternity, Avoid Maintenance

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.

Order On Miscellaneous Applications U/S 17 Regarding Court Fee Is Appealable U/S 18 SARFAESI Act: Allahabad High Court

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.

Acquisitions Made Under UP Avas Vikas Act But Not Finalized Till January 1, 2014 Are Governed By Land Acquisition Act 2013: Allahabad HC

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.

Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death Cases

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”.

[Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court

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.

India's Majority Population Would Be In Minority One Day If Conversions In Religious Congregations Not Stopped: Allahabad HC

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.

NOMINAL INDEX

Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 1

Kapil Dev Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 2

Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3

M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 4

M/S Flavuro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5

Devendra Pratap Yadav Thru. His Father And Pairokar Arjun Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 6

Sunil Dutt Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 7

Sumit And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 8

M/S. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 9

Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal,Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No. 7, Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 10

Rajit Ram Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 11

Diwakar Singh vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 12

Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13

M/S Eastern Machine Bricks And Tiles Industries vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 14

Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17

Maulana Mohammad. Shabib Hussain @ Syed Mohd. Shabibul Husaini vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 18

Saurabha Srivastava And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 19

Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20

Sharp Industries vs. Bank Of Maharashtra And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 21

Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad And Another vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 22

Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 23

Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24

Akbar Ali Transport Services vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 25

Brij Mohan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 26

Mohit Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 27

Keshav Ugan Jha vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 28

Abdul Kadeer Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 29

Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 30

M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vS. M/S Peethambra Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 32

Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34

XXX Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 35

Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36

Prabhagiya Nideshak Van vs. Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 37

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

Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53

M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54

Ved Prakash Govil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 55

Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 56

M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57

Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58

M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59

Atul Kumar Singh Alias Atul Rai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 60

Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority Payment Of Wages Act 1936 And Additional Labour Commissioner and 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 61

Satendra Kumar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 62

Sumant Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 63

Pankaj Rastogi v. Mohd. Sazid And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 64

Nikita @ Najrana And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 66

M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67

M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68

Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 69

Raj Kumar Saroj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 70

Executive Officer Nagar vs. Stainli Khan And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 71

Aman vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 72

M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73

M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74

Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75

Sagar Savita vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 76

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77

M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78

Suresh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 79

Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80

Ashok Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 81

Satyapal And Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 82

Rajendra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 83

2024 LiveLaw (AB) 84

Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85

Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86

Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 87

Arpit Shukla v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 88

Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 89

Shivam Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 90

M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91

Shivangi Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 92

Urvashi v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 93

The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94

Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95

M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96

Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97

2024 LiveLaw (AB) 98

Tufel Ahamd vs. Abu Rafat And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 99

Israr Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 100

Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 101

Syed Waseem Rizvi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 102

C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103

Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 104

Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archna Gupta And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 105

Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106

M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 107

Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart And Another v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 108

ABC vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109

Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110

Dinesh Paswan vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111

M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112

M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113

M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 114

M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 115

Deepak Sharma v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116

Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117

Deepak Sharma vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 118

M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 119

M/S Neeraj Potato Presarvation And Food Products Pvt.Ltd. v. U.P. Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Faciliation Council And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 120

Jatan Kumar Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 121

Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122

Pinki And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 123

Syed Hamidul Bari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124

Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125

M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 126

M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 127

Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128

Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129

Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130

Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131

Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132

Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133

M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134

M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135

M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136

M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137

Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138

Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139

Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140

- Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141

Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142

Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143

Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144

Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145

Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146

Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147

M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148

Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149

Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151

Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153

Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154

M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157

Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159

State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161

M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162

Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164

Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165

Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167

Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168

Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169

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

Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193

Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194

Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195

Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196

The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197

Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198

Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199

Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

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

M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223

M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224

Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225

Syed Asim Ali vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 226

Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227

Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228

Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 229

Mahesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 230

North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 231

Vinod Kumari v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 232

Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233

The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 234

International Service Fellowship Usa vs. Harendra Kumar Masih 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 235

Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 236

Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237

Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238

Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239

Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241

Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242

Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243

Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245

Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246

Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247

Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248

M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249

Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250

Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251

Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252

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

National Highways Authority Of India vs Shri Krishna Uchchter Madhyamic Vidhyalaya And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 270

Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271

Pasru @ Ismail vs. The State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 272

Priti Ravindra Shukla vs. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 273

Nanhaku Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 274

Akhilesh Kumar vs. Allahabad Central University Through Its Registrar And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275

Reddy Veerraju Chowdary vs. Insolvency Professional/Resolution Professional, C.A. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 276

R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director And Chief Financial Officer vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 277

Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278

Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P. along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 279

M/S Pragyason Constructions Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 367

National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

Punjab National Bank Earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sanjeevani Shiksha Samiti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369

Shekhar Kapoor And 10 Others v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370

Rajesh And Others vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372

Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373

Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt. Piu Kundu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374

M/S Deep Builders And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375

Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377

Etvir Limbu vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378

Shiv Ram vs. Smt.Pinki And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380

Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381

Mamta Kapoor and Another v. Vinod Kumar Rai 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382

Naziya Ansari And Another vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383

Archana Singh Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

Shiva Pankaj And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Gupta And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

Pradum Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

Mrs. Ameena Jung and Anr. vs. Faridi Waqf Thru. Mutwalli Mrs. Anush Faridi Khan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388

Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police)

M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391

Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393

Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

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