Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534

Anuj Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 535

Abhilasha Shroti vs. Rajendra Prasad Shroti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536

Remo D Souza v.s State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 537

Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others v. The State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 538

Rajendra Singh Verma v. C.B.I 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Saurabh Sachan vs. Garima Sachan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540

Ascent Education Trust,Kanpur Thru. Chairman Mr. Gurusharan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 542

Kishan Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Madhubala Jaiswal vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 544

Anupam Srivastava And 7 Others vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd and 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 545

Ashok Kumar Katiyar v. Charan Jeet Singh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 546

Udai Narayan Sahu v. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 547

Vineeta Verma v. Brajnesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Ujala And Another vs State of UP and 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 549

Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Sweta Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue ,Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 551

Randhir Kumar Pandey v. Sri Purushottam Das Maheshwari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 552

The Sinha Development Trust And Another vs. State Of Up And 15 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553

Shiv Sagar v. Smt. Poonam Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 554

M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555

Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta v. Vandana Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 556

Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 557

Basant Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 558

M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd v. State Of Up And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559

Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560

Gorelal Alias Shyam Narain And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561

Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 562

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 563

Mohd. Pervej And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 564

Gosh Mohammad vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565

Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 566

Avani Pandey v. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 567

Shalini Agrawal v. State Of Upand 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 568

2024 LiveLaw (AB) 569

Ramnath Singh v. Parshuram Singh (Deceased) And 13 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 570

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 571

Smt Hasina Bano v. Mohammad Ehsan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 572

M/s Bir Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 573

Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 574

Smt. Poonam v. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Pankaj 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 575

Khidmate Khalq Educational Welfare Society And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576

Pooja Gautam v. Neeraj Gautam 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 577

Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 578

Smt. Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 579

M/S R D Enterprises v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 580

Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 581

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 582

Kajal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583

Hafeez Khan vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584

Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP along with connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585

Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Arvind Singh Sengar v. Smt. Prabha Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 5876

Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 588

Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589

Rabiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590

Arun Mishra vs. Honble Mrs Justice Sunita Agrawal, The Then Puine Judge Of This High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591

Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 592

Shahrukh Khan And Another vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593

Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 594

Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 595

Jitendra Kumar Keshwani v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 596

In Re v. Shri Yogendra Trivedi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 597

Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 598

'X' Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 599

Asif vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600

Mahavir Prasad v. Balveer Singh And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 601

Smt Kriti Goyal v. Dev Suman Goyal And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 602

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 603

Manoj vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 604

The Catholic Diocese Of Gorakhpur Through Its President v. Bhola Deceased And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 605

Kavita v. Rohit Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 606

Proviso To Order 6 Rule 17 Of CPC Will Not Apply To Suits Instituted Prior To Amendment In 2002: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Sinha Development Trust And Another vs. State Of Up And 15 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9021 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was inserted vide 2002 amendment will not apply to suits instituted prior to 2002.

Burden To Prove Insanity Of Spouse Is On Party Seeking Dissolution Of Marriage On Grounds Of Such Insanity: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shiv Sagar v. Smt. Poonam Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 455 of 2013]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 554

The Allahabad High Court has held that in case dissolution of marriage is sought due to the insanity of a spouse, the spouse seeking dissolution of marriage must prove the existence of such insanity in the case of the other spouse.

Marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005 and they have lived separately since January 2012. Appellant-husband instituted a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging insanity and cruelty by the wife. Appellant provided medical test reports and prescriptions from Dr. S.B. Joshi as documentary evidence for proving their wife's alleged insanity. Respondent-wife provided her educational qualifications along with other documentary and oral evidence to show that she is well educated.

UPVAT| "Vitamins And Minerals Pre-Mix" Are Unclassified Goods, Do Not Fall Under "Ores And Minerals", "Drugs And Medicines" Or "Chemicals": Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 196 of 2013]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 555

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Commercial Tax Tribunal holding that "vitamins and minerals pre-mix" are unclassified goods, do not fall under "ores and minerals", "drugs and medicines" or "chemicals” under Schedule II of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Family Court Refused To Sever Ties Between Parties Living Separately For A Decade, Showed Disregard For Their Feelings & Emotions: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta v. Vandana Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 11 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 556

The Allahabad High Court has held that where there is long period of separation, a decade in this case, the Family Court cannot refuse to grant decree of divorce and disregard the emotions and feelings of the parties who are no longer affectionate towards each.

The bench comprising of Justice Rajan Roy Singh and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held

“By refusing to severe the tie between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Family Court has not served the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it has shown disregard for the feelings and emotions of the parties, which are not affectionate towards each other.”

Not Mandatory For Widowed Daughter-In-Law To Live In Matrimonial Home To Claim Maintenance From Father-In-Law: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 696 of 2013]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 557

The Allahabad High Court has observed that agreeing to live in a matrimonial home is not a condition precedent for a widowed daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her father-in-law. It was observed that a widowed woman choosing to live with her parents will not lead to the conclusion that she separated from her matrimonial home.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed

“it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home. In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances. Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive of her own.”

No Spouse Expected To Continue Matrimonial Relationship At Risk Of Malicious Criminal Prosecution: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Basant Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 480 of 2010]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 558

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) a spouse cannot be expected to continue a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution as it may lead to loss of dignity and reputation, apart from other consequences like being arrested.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

“For the purpose of Section 13 of the Act, as amended by the U.P. Amendment, legally, no spouse whether male or female may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise, if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged.”

Recreational Gaming Activities Such As Poker Or Rummy Are Games Of Skill, Not Gambling: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Dm Gaming Pvt Ltd v. State Of Up And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559 [WRIT - C No. - 3880 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 559

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that “Poker and Rummy are absolutely a game of skill and not gambling.”

Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the office of the D.C.P. City Commissionerate, Agra by which it was denied permission to establish a gaming unit for rummy and poker.

Impact Of Delayed Receivables From AE Already Factored In Working-Capital: Allahabad HC Directs TPO To Adjudicate Interest On Receivables

Case Title: Phoenix Lamps Ltd vs DCIT

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 560

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that once working capital adjustment is granted to assessee, there is no need for further imputation of interest on outstanding receivables at the end of the year, as the same gets subsumed in working capital adjustment.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla reiterated that “In respect of bills raised on or after Apr 01, 2010 to its AEs, what was the date of realization and whether the same has been realized within the credit period allowed of 70 days. If not, interest is to be imputed on those bills also”

Co-Accused Can't Be Implicated U/S 149 IPC If There Is No Meeting Of Mind Concerning Any Common Object: Allahabad HC

Case title - Gorelal Alias Shyam Narain And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 561

The Allahabad High Court has observed that when the other co-accused were not present at the scene and when there was no meeting of mind concerning any common object, the co-accused could not be implicated under Section 149 IPC.

For context, Section 149 IPC makes every person who is a member of unlawful assembly at the time of committing the offence guilty of that offence.

236 Applications For Senior Designation Pending: Allahabad HC Observes While Dismissing Challenge To 2019 Senior Designations

Case Title: Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17736 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 562

While dismissing challenge to 2019 Senior Designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court on various advocates, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that 236 applications for senior designation are pending before the High Court which are to be processed.

Observing that even though Supreme Court has held that Senior Designations should be conferred at least once a year, in the Allahabad High Court the same had not been done since 2019.

Public Employment Attained By Submitting Forged Educational Certificate Is "Void Ab Initio": Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 1064 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 563

The Allahabad High Court, while entertaining the writ petition of a retired teacher, has held that public employment secured by providing a forged educational certificate would be null and void to begin with, disentitling such an employee from post-retiral benefits.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,

“….a person who secures an appointment by submitting a forged educational certificate, is not entitled to claim any opportunity of hearing…”

Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs. 2 Lakh Cost Each On Three For Making Incorrect Statements On Oath About "Very Senior Advocate"

Case Title: Mohd. Pervej And 2 Others v. State Of U.P.

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 564

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakh each on three petitioners who falsely stated on affidavit that their previous counsel refused to give a no objection certificate for engaging another counsel.

The petitioners field an affidavit in Court stating that they are not satisfied with the work of their earlier counsel and they had approached him to obtain No Objection, but he refused to do the same. Petitioners therefore filed an affidavit and engaged another counsel.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Supporting 'Hamas' On 'X' And Opposing Indian Govt For Backing Israel

Case title - Gosh Mohammad vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 565

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man who allegedly expressed his support for 'Hamas' on the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) while showing his resentment towards the Indian government for backing Israel.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted bail to accused Gosh Mohammad, is in jail in the present matter since October 2023, and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class with a maximum punishment of three years coupled with the fact that he does not have any criminal history to his name.

Choosing To Waive Inspection For All Tender-Applicants Not Malafide Or Arbitrary, Not Subject To Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others [WRIT- C NO. 22963 OF 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 566

The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'Sal' Purchase Committee choosing to waive inspection for all applicants during the tender process cannot be said to be mala fide or arbitrary. It was held that such waiver was not amenable to challenge under the writ jurisdiction.

Clause 6(g) of the tender document provides that “The technical bids will be evaluated on the basis of scrutiny of submitted documents and physical inspection of the stock of the bidders.” However, Clause 6(h) provided that physical inspection shall be carried out only of those vendors whose technical bids are in order.

Great Grandchild Not A 'Dependent' Of Freedom Fighters: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Avani Pandey v. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another [WRIT - C No. - 7708 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 567

The Allahabad High Court has held that a great grandchild is not a 'dependent of freedom fighters' under Section 2 (b) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993.

The Court relied on Krishna Nand Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others where the Allahabad High Court held that a great grandson is not included within the definition of 'dependent of freedom fighters'.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL For Inclusion Of Taekwondo, Judo Karate As Regular Courses For Girls In Class 1 To 8

Case Title: Smt Shalini Agrawal v. State Of Upand 2 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1058 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 568

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Taekwondo, Judo Karate Course as regular course for girls in class 1 to 8.

Petitioner approached the High Court claiming that introduction of the aforesaid as regular courses would help the girls in becoming independent, self-confident and help them in facing all difficulties they may encounter in their life.

Maintain Courtroom Decorum: Allahabad HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On An Advocate For 'Wasting' Court's Time

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 569

The Allahabad High Court imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for wasting the Court's precious time by filing a writ petition concerning the authentication, integrity, security, and verifiability of videography in the electoral process.

The Court also took exception to his conduct of appearing in the (through Video Conferencing) wearing his coat and band and arguing the matter without informing the Court that he was appearing in person. The Court directed him to be 'cautious' in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court.

No Need To File Two Second Appeals When Order Challenged In Cross Appeal Before First Appellate Authority Arises From Single Suit: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Ramnath Singh v. Parshuram Singh (Deceased) And 13 Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 507 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 570

The Allahabad High Court has held that when different appeals are filed from a decree passed in a single suit, the decree of the suit determines the rights of the parties. It has been held that there is no necessity to file two separate second appeals in such cases only because there were two appeals against the decree.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that

“if a single suit gives rise to different first appeals, without there being any counter-claim or another consolidated suit, the decree drawn in the said single suit would conclusively determine rights of the parties and irrespective of two first appeals arising from the single judgment/ decree, necessity to file two separate second appeals would not arise.”

High Court Is Appellate Authority U/S 19 Family Courts Act, Doesn't Have Wide Powers To Dissolve Marriage Under Article 142: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 715 of 2004]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 571

While dismissing a divorce appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that it does not possess power similar to that of the Supreme Court under Article 142 for dissolving marriages as it is only a court of appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree/order which it may deem necessary “for doing complete justice” in any pending case before it. Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides for appeals against the order of the Family Court to the High Court, provided the order is not an interlocutory order.

No Limitation U/S 7 Of Family Courts Act, 1984, For Filing Suit For Declaration Of Divorce: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt Hasina Bano v. Mohammad Ehsan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 495 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 572

The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no limitation under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for filing suit for declaration of divorce.

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Explanation (b) provides that a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person can be filed before the Family Court.

Acquisition Proceedings Initiated Under UP Awas Vikas Adhiniyam 1965, Cannot Be Held To Have Lapsed Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013: High Court

Case Title: M/s Bir Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 23248 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 573

The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisition proceedings initiated under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 cannot be held to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held

“While Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would not apply and the acquisition would not lapse but the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the New Act, 2013 and the date of reference for determining the compensation would be 01.01.2014 on which the New Act, 2013 was enforced.”

Long Separation Coupled With Criminal Prosecution Without Any Desire To Retrieve Relationship Shows Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari [FIRST APPEAL No. - 137 of 2011]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 574

The Allahabad High Court has held that long separation coupled with criminal prosecution and harsh words without any desire to retrieve the matrimonial relationship shows an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

While dealing with a matrimonial case of 21 years of separation, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held

“Desertion suffered over long years in a young marriage, accompanied with harsh words spoken and complete lack of desire and effort on part of the deserting spouse to cohabit as also lodging of criminal case alleging demand of dowry only after institution of divorce case proceeding by the other spouse and pursuing it in appeal to secure conviction (after initial acquittal) does indicate in any case, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down.”

Decree Of Divorce Can Be Sustained If No Cohabitation Occurs Between Parties For A Year After Grant Of Judicial Separation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Poonam v. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Pankaj [FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2009]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 575

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if no cohabitation occurs between the parties in the year after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights or decree of judicial separation, the decree of separation would be upheld.

Parties married on 08.12.2001. Respondent-husband alleged that the appellant-wife deserted him in 2002. Since the appellant did not revive the matrimonial relationship between the parties, he initiated proceedings seeking restitution of his conjugal rights.

Milad-Un-Nabi Juloos | State Authority Bound To Ensure Tranquillity When Peaceful Processions Are Carried Out: Allahabad HC

Case title - Khidmate Khalq Educational Welfare Society And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 576

The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is the job of the State Authority to ensure peace and tranquillity when peaceful processions are carried out.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus while directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Najibabad (District Bijnor), to pass a reasoned order by September 15 on an application seeking permission to carry out the procession of “Eid Miladun-nabi (PBUH)/Barawafat” on September 16.

No Error In Calling For Expert Opinion On Wife's Mental Health At Stage Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Upholds Trial Court Order

Case Title: Pooja Gautam v. Neeraj Gautam [FIRST APPEAL No. - 803 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 577

The Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court calling for expert opinion on the wife's mental health at the stage of evidence in divorce proceedings.

Appellant-wife approached the High Court challenging the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras allowing respondent-husband's application for her medical examination in divorce proceedings instituted by the husband.

Dispute Relating To Members And Management Of Public Trusts Not Arbitrable, Must File Suit U/S 92 CPC : Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 356 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 578

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not override Section 92 as Section 92 is a specific provision dealing with disputes regarding Trusts.

Family Court Cannot Grant Divorce Based On Earlier Consent When It Is Later Withdrawn During Divorce Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 155 of 2011]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 579

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Family Court cannot grant divorce based only on earlier consent given at the time of filing the divorce petition if the consent was withdrawn at a later stage in the divorce proceedings.

Parties were married in 2006. After the appellant disserted her husband, he instituted the divorce proceedings on grounds of infertility attributable to appellant-wife. In her written statement, appellant disputed the fact, and the case was referred to mediation which failed.

Second Provisional Attachment Notice Lacking Fresh Reasons Is Arbitrary: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S R D Enterprises v. Union Of India And 3 Others

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 580

The Allahabad High Court stated that issuing a second provisional attachment notice without providing new or fresh reasons is considered arbitrary.

The Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla observed that “the department cannot be allowed simpliciter to issue a second notice, and thereafter, third and fourth and continue with the provisional attachment for four to five years without giving any fresh reason for the said provisional attachment. If the same was allowed, Sub-section 2 of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would become otiose and have no relevance whatsoever.”

Receipt Of Arbitral Award By Party A Sine Qua Non For Limitation U/S 34(3) To Begin, General Clauses Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 8 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 581

The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.

The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if the words 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used to mean that service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It was, thus, held that this definition is not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act as it uses the phrase 'receipt of award by the party'.

[Voidable Marriage] 'Material Fact' U/S 12 HMA Includes Any Fact Which If Disclosed Results In Either Parties Not Consenting To Marriage: High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 582

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that a “material fact” for declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would include any fact, which would be relevant to the consent given for a marriage and which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage.

It further said that such a material fact must pertain to the character of the person.

IO Can't Be Forced To Get Statement Of A Particular Witness Recorded U/S 183 BNSS: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Kajal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583

The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is the investigating agency's prerogative to sponsor the witness whose statement they want to record under Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [Recording of confessions and statements] and that an IO could not be forced to get the statement of any witness recorded under the said provision.

Section 183 of BNSS is almost in pari materia with Section 164 of CrPC 1973, which also deals with Recording confessions and statements.

Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Spent Over 7.5 Yrs In Jail, Grants ₹1 Lakh To Him As Compensation

Case title - Hafeez Khan vs. State Of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584

Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 584

The Allahabad High Court acquitted one Hafeez Khan, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court in March 2019 in a murder case of a woman, as it noted that there was absolutely no evidence against him.

The Court also granted him Rs. 1 Lakh as a 'token of compensation' for the 'injustice' done to him since he had to spend more than 7.5 years in jail.

“Now that this Court has found that there was absolutely no evidence against him, it is a fit case for awarding costs of litigation as also to order payment of compensation for the confinement of the appellant for a period exceeding 7½ years without any evidence to prove his guilt cannot be fully compensated in terms of money but as a token of compensation for the injustice done to the appellant, we order that the State shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards compensation for the period spent by him in custody,” a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed in its 22-page judgment.

Trial Court Judges Often Convict Accused Despite Clear Grounds For Acquittal To Avoid Action By HC: Allahabad High Court

Case title – Virendra Singh And Others vs. State of UP along with connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 585

The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases where the accused deserves clear acquittal, presiding officers in trial court pass a judgment of conviction just because they want to avoid the issuance of notice and action by the High Court.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made this observation while dealing with certain criminal appeals filed against a 2010 judgment and order passed by a Sessions Court in Aligarh in a dowry death case.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Making Casteist Remarks Against Ex-President Ram Nath Kovind On FB

Case title - Sandeep Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 586

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Sandeep Tiwari, who has been accused of making certain abusive posts on Facebook against former president of India Ram Nath Kovind.

In its order, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan emphasised the importance of restraint and respect when discussing individuals holding high constitutional positions, particularly on social media.

[Divorce Law] Parties Staying Separately For Their Jobs Does Not Prove Desertion: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Arvind Singh Sengar v. Smt. Prabha Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 141 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 587

The Allahabad High Court has held that parties staying separately for jobs does not prove desertion.

The parties got married in 1999 and had a child in 2000. The husband was posted in Jhansi, whereas the wife was posted in Auraiya. Since the parties were living separately, the appellant-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed ex-parte in 2004. Later when the ex-parte order was recalled at the instance of the respondent-wife in 2006. The appellant withdrew the proceedings and instituted divorce proceedings in 2007 alleging desertion and cruelty.

The Court observed that the respondent-wife had led evidence regarding the husband visiting her when she was ill in June 2003 and going to her school for applying for medical leave thereafter. The Court held that the allegation that the respondent had deserted the appellant in June 2003 was rightly disbelieved by the Family Court.

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea For Perpetual Injunction By Tenant In Cases Of Eviction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5133 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 588

The Allahabad High Court has held that Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to hear suits for perpetual injunction filed by a tenant against their landlord when it comes to matters of eviction. The Court held that the same would not be barred by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

By an order passed on 15.11.2022, the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner for grant of perpetual injunction, attempting to restrain the landlord from evicting him. The said suit was not admitted on the ground that as per Section 38(1) of the Act, no civil court could entertain any proceedings if they were related to the provisions of the Act of 2021. The petitioner challenged the validity of the above order and the subsequent order dated 07.08.2023, whereby the First Additional District Judge, Raebareli, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.

SC/ST Act Being Misused For Financial Gains: Allahabad HC Bats For Pre-FIR Assessment Of Credibility Of Complaints

Case title - Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589

The Allahabad High Court reiterated its concerns over the misuse of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The court observed that the 1989Act, which was designed to provide immediate relief to victims of atrocities, is being misused by some individuals to obtain compensation.

Also Read - Allahabad HC Summons Ghaziabad DM For Violating Division Bench Order To Register Sale Certificates, Issuing Demand Notice Of Over ₹14 Crores

The Court underscored that the misuse of the 1989 law not only harms the credibility of the justice system but also hinders the progress toward achieving genuine equality for those who continue to face prejudice and marginalisation.

Allahabad HC Notes 'Trend' Of Filing Of Fresh FIRs Against Accused To Create Grounds For Bail Cancellation

Case title - Rabiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 590

The Allahabad High Court noted a 'trend' in which fresh FIRs/complaints are filed against an accused after he has been granted anticipatory/regular bail to create grounds for the cancellation of the bail.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused (by the HC in August 2023) booked in a 2023 FIR lodged under Sections 493, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

Allahabad HC Dismisses Advocate's 'Vexatious' Plea To Initiate Criminal Contempt Case Against Gujarat HC Chief Justice

Case title - Arun Mishra vs. Honble Mrs Justice Sunita Agrawal, The Then Puine Judge Of This High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 591

The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED a petition filed by an advocate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Justice Sunita Agrawal (former Judge, Allahabad HC; presently, Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court).

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I termed the petition as 'frivolous', 'vexatious', 'irresponsible', 'merit-less' and 'misconceived' and added that in the interest of proper functioning of the Institution, such applications should be discouraged by all means.

NI Act | Company Can Be Summoned Through Person In-Charge Of Its Affairs, No Separate Summon To The Company Required: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4898 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 592

The Allahabad High Court has held that a company is juristic person can be summoned through the person in-charge of its affairs and if such a juristic person summoned through the person in-charge, it cannot be said that the company has not been summoned for trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court held that once company is also made a party to the proceedings under Section 138 and 141 of the Act, if the signing Director signing the cheque is summoned, then it must be presumed that the company has been summoned.

Prosecution Can't Rely On Dying Declaration Unless Accused Is Confronted With Its Contents: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Shahrukh Khan And Another vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 593

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prosecution cannot rely on a dying declaration unless an accused is confronted with its contents.

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while acquitting a husband and mother-in-law in connection with a dowry death case.

Summoning A Serious Affair, More So When Issued After Rejecting Closure Report: Allahabad HC Quashes Murder Case Against Doctor Couple

Case Title: Dr. Rajesh Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 600 of 2020 ]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 594

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a Doctor couple– who are also owners of a hospital in Rajepur–in a case where the deceased who had accompanied his mother in the hospital, was allegedly removed and later died in a road accident thereafter.

The high court passed the order while hearing a plea moved by the doctor couple against the summoning order of the magisterial court as well as the sessions court order which had rejected their revision plea against the summoning order.

False Criminal Prosecution By Wife May Create Reasonable Apprehension Regarding Personal/ Family Safety, Constitutes Cruelty: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru [FIRST APPEAL No. - 251 of 2013]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 595

The Allahabad High Court has held that false criminal prosecution case by wife against the husband and his family may create reasonable apprehension in mind of the husband regarding the safety of his family and himself if he were to stay in the matrimonial relationship.

It was held that such false criminal prosecution is sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Criminal Court Can't Deal With Allegations Of Misappropriation Of Investor's Money By Share Broker, SEBI Act Prevails: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Keshwani v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION under Section 482 No. - 27298 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 596

The Allahabad High Court has held that that by virtue of Section 26 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which bars Court from taking cognizance regarding offences under the Act, the Trial Court cannot take cognizance of a case where broker is alleged to have misappropriated money of the investor. It was held that the SEBI Act being a special act will override IPC and CrPC.

Advocates Can't Be Discourteous Or Use Intemperate Language Against Judges: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: In Re v. Shri Yogendra Trivedi [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 7 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 597

In suo moto contempt proceedings against a lawyer, the Allahabad High Court has held that Advocates, being officers of the court must be courteous towards the Judges.

Special Appeals Against Contempt Court Order Maintainable Only When Finding On Merits Of Original Dispute Is Returned: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others [Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 598

The Allahabad High Court has held that Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are maintainable against order of the Single Judge in Contempt jurisdiction only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction and enters into merits of the original dispute between the parties.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh sitting at Lucknow held,

“Special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute, ensuring that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. The interpretation of each case must consider the specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and provide appropriate remedies for aggrieved parties.”

CMO, Doctors Often Not Aware Of Procedure In Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Cases: Allahabad HC Directs UP Health Secretary To Issue SOP

Case title – 'X' Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

Case citation: : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 599

Observing that often the Chief Medical Officers and doctors in the State of Uttar Pradesh are not aware of the procedure to be followed in cases of medical termination of pregnancy while examining the female, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh to issue Standard Operating Procedure for the same which is to be followed by all Chief Medical Officers and the Boards constituted by them.

Have Transferred Amroha DM For Approving Gang-Charts Sans Recording Satisfaction: UP Govt Informs Allahabad HC

Case title - Asif vs. State Of Up And 2 Others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 600

The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it has transferred the District Magistrate of Amroha, Mr Rajesh Kumar Tyagi, from the district and attached him to the secretariat, and has not been given any field posting.

This decision came after HC flagged that the DM concerned had approved gang charts against the accused in several cases without signing the documents or recording any justification for his approval, which was contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, as well as guidelines issued by the HC in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs State of UP.

Second Appellate Court Cannot Interfere With Factual Finding Of Lower Courts: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mahavir Prasad v. Balveer Singh And Anr. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 540 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 601

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that reappreciation of evidence by a Second Appellate Court is impermissible.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that

“…even when two views are possible, out of which one view has been taken by the courts after appreciating evidence on record, second Appellate Court would not substitute that view by its own view. Re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion is quite restricted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure…”

Matrimonial Dispute Remains Between Couple, No Impleadment Can Be Allowed In Divorce Proceedings U/S 13B Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Smt Kriti Goyal v. Dev Suman Goyal And 3 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 716 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 602

The Allahabad High Court has held that the divorce proceedings (matrimonial disputes) are only between the parties to the marriage, no third person can seek impleadment in proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

“Piquant as it may be, the impleadment sought may never be justified. A matrimonial dispute remains a dispute interse between the couple in question who may be finding difficulties in their matrimonial relationship. All other persons remain strangers to that dispute.”

Employee With Requisite Educational Qualification Eligible For Promotion Regardless Of Criteria Being Fulfilled Prior To Or During Service: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 17005 of 2018]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 603

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate that has the required educational qualification deserves to be promoted upon satisfying all other criteria. It was held that it is immaterial whether such criteria were fulfilled prior to the service or during it.

“….. a candidate if is already having qualification to his credit prior to entering into the service and, he is equally entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer within 5% quota provided within the rules,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.

Can't Keep Accused In Jail Indefinitely; Witnesses Not Being Produced In Trial Courts In Heinous Cases: Allahabad HC Seeks UP DGP Affidavit

Case title - Manoj vs. State of U.P.

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 604

The Allahabad High Court recently expressed concerns over the prosecution's non-production of witnesses before the trial court, even in cases of heinous crime, leading to indefinite detention without trials.

The Court emphasised that a person cannot be detained for an indefinite period if the prosecution is not making sincere efforts to produce the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.

No Transfer Of Immovable Property Via Affidavit: Allahabad HC Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On Catholic Diocese, State For Deprivation Of Land For 32 Yrs

Case Title: The Catholic Diocese Of Gorakhpur Through Its President v. Bhola Deceased And 4 Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 461 of 2014]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 605

The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur and the UP government, for illegally depriving a man of his property for more than 32 years.

The Court held that the transfer of immovable property cannot be done by way of an application or an affidavit under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 otherwise it will create chaos regarding rights in properties as guaranteed under various laws.

Absence Of "Ideal Family Relations" Doesn't Prove Allegations Of Cruelty, Courts Must Adjudicate On Facts: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kavita v. Rohit Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 543 of 2015]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 606

The Allahabad High Court has held that Courts can uphold the allegations of cruelty only based on proven facts and evidence. It is not for the Court to imagine ideal family or relations to determine infliction of cruelty, held the Court.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

“We may stay reminded of the principle that while administering family law, Courts are not required to imagine an ideal family or ideal family relations to judge whether the act complained is one that may amount to cruelty. Unless proven facts are such as may lead the Courts to the inference that the aggrieved parties are entitled to construe the act of cruelty committed on them, the Courts may not impose their own morality or opinion as to the conduct that may have been offered by the parties in the situation in which they existed.”