Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: August 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
4 Sep 2023 3:00 PM GMT
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] ORDERS/JUDGMENTS Goods In Transit Can’t Be Treated As Non-Traceable In Presence Of Tax Invoice, E-Way Bill And Bilty: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Bhawani Traders vs. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 854 Of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 231 The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty order passed in Form MOU-09...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Case Title: M/S Bhawani Traders vs. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 854 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 231
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty order passed in Form MOU-09 under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the grounds that the goods in transit were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty.
Also Read - Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 3, 2023
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Sahil Traders vs. State of U.P., in which it was held that in the face of the tax invoice and the E-way bill produced by the petitioner, the goods may not have been treated as not traceable to a registered dealer.
Case Title: Tarkeshwar And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. and 5 Others [WRIT C No. 13852/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 232
The Allahabad High Court has held that every Court and Tribunal have inherent power to set aside an ex-parte order as it amounts to ‘procedural review’ and is distinct from the statutory power to review a case on merits.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that revenue authorities can recall an ex-parte order, passed without grant of notice or opportunity to the affected party, to correct the procedural defect for doing justice between the parties. ‘Procedural review’ is an inherent power of every Court and Tribunal “to correct procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceedings itself and consequently the order passed therein.”
Case Title: Garima Singh vs. Pratima Singh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [First Appeal No. 623/2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the right of the first wife to file an application under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaration of her husband's second marriage as void.
On the harmonious reading of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vinod Diwakar held:
“If the first wife is deprived of seeking a remedy under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would defeat the very purpose and intent of the Act. The protection offered to legally wedded wives under sections 5, 11, and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would become insignificant in such a scenario.”
Case Title: Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11837/2023] and Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 234
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV delivered a split decision on interim plea to stay the FIRs under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC against the officers of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., lodged by Mohit Singh, Director of Shipra Estate.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (IHFL) sanctioned 16 loan facilities of Rs.2801.00 Crores to "Shipra Group/Borrowers" comprising of Shipra Hotels Ltd., Shipra Estate Ltd. and Shipra Leasing Pvt. Ltd. for the purposes of construction and development of housing projects. Shares of various companies were pledged in favour of IHFL.
Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted 26 Years After Employee's Death: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Avnish Tandon vs. Assistant General Manager [Writ A No. 10831 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 235
The Allahabad High Court held that compassionate appointment is granted to tide over the immediate hardships of the family due to untimely demise of the earning hand and it cannot be granted after a lapse of 26 years from the death of the employee.
“...What is most important is that 26 years have indeed elapsed since the petitioner's mother passed away. During this long passage of time, as life goes on, it is a legitimate inference to draw that the financial crisis emanating from the petitioner's mother's untimely demise would have been tided over by the petitioner, in whatsoever way it was. There is, therefore, no existing exigency to bail out the family in economic distress now, in aid of which this Court may issue a mandamus to consider the petitioner's case”, held Justice JJ Munir.
Case Title: M/S Vaid Organics And Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 236
While rejecting a review application, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that review cannot be granted merely because the bench giving the decision relied on allegedly wrong precedence of the Apex Court. Review jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V Narayana Reddy and others (2022), the bench comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Manish Kumar held,
“the scope of a review application is limited. The Court may correct an error apparent on the face of the record or interfere on any other ground analogous to such ground, but it cannot correct an erroneous decision for that is the scope of appellate jurisdiction.”
Case title - Vivek Kumar Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 237 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23551 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Observing that genuine cases of such sexual offences are now an "exception", the Allahabad High Court said that since girls/women have the “upper hand” when it comes to the protection of the law, they “easily succeed” in implicating a boy or man in such cases.
The Court also noted that a large number of cases are coming in courts wherein girls and women “take undue advantage” by lodging FIRs on false allegations after indulging in a long physical relationship with the accused.
Case Title - Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7996 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a 'child' (a person below the age of 18 years) cannot be in a live-in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal.
The Court also said that there are several conditions for a live-in relation to be treated as a relation in nature of marriage and in any case, a person has to be major (above the age of 18 years) although he may not be of marriageable age (21 years).
Case Title: Azad Ahmad Khan vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ Writ C No. 1000800/2000]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 239
The Allahabad High Court has held that exemptions cannot be claimed from paying estate duty under Estate Duty Act, 1953 if waqif has a reserved right to amend the waqf deed and provisions therein to derive gains from the waqf property.
The petitioner is the adopted child of one Gulam Azad Khan who allegedly created a waqf-alal-aulad under the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913. As per the Waqf deed, Rs. 100 out of the total proceeds of M/s. General Engineering Works (waqf property) was to be spent towards almighty and rest of the proceeds were to be utilised as per the wishes of the waqif Gulam Ahmad Khan during his lifetime. Gulam Ahmad Khan also reserved the right to make changes in the waqf deed and sell off the assets entrusted to the waqf including M/s. General Engineering Works.
Case title - Vijay Pal Prajapati vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 57 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 240
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere non-payment of money paid under a contract cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution of a party to the agreement and, in any case, that "cannot be a ground for rejection of the anticipatory bail application" of the accused person.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while granting anticipatory bail to one Vijay Pal Prajapati, who has been accused of committing a breach of the agreement concerning the sale and marketing of excavated sand.
The Court also noted that nowadays it is becoming a general practice to set the criminal law into motion for "putting pressure on the parties to commercial transactions".
Case title - Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 241 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.7955 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 241
While upholding the Varanasi Court's July 21 order for an ASI Survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque Premises, the Allahabad High Court today said that the scientific survey of the disputed site is "necessary in the interest of justice" and it shall "benefit the plaintiffs and defendants alike" and it will also "come in aid of the trial court" to arrive at a just decision in the matter.
The Court also clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition of the Anjuman Mosque Committee would not affect the right of the parties to the Suit to remain present at the time of the scientific investigation to be made by the ASI.
Case Title: M/S Tikona Infinet Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another [Writ Tax No. - 859 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 242
The Allahabad High Court has held that the assessee ought to have waited for the relevant form to go live on the GST portal instead of making an illegal adjustment.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have raised a proper grievance on the GST portal help-desk and ought to have waited for the relevant Form to go live on the GST portal instead of making illegal adjustments by use of the Form GSTR-3B of the transferor and the transferee company. A mere shortage of working capital cannot be an excuse to bypass the legal procedure laid down under the law.
Case Title: Lalita vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 243 [Writ Tax No. - 862 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 243
The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which provides remedy to file objections against the attachment of property must be availed before approaching the Court.
CGST Department carried out an investigation against 3 persons including the petitioner and her husband for availing and passing on wrong Input Tax Credit by creating various firms without supply of goods. Petitioner’s current bank account has been provisionally attached exercising powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule- 159 (1) of the CGST Rules '2017'.
Students Should Be Given Opportunity To Reform, Instead Of Punitive Punishment: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Prakhar Nagar vs. State of UP & 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 244 [Writ C No. 21339/2020]
Case Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 244
The Allahabad High Court has held that purely punitive actions should not be taken by universities against students. Students are young adults who must be given an opportunity of reformation, it said.
“Purely punitive action was taken by the University against the petitioner, to the exclusion of opportunities to reform his conduct, explore possibilities of excellence and redeem his reputation. In matters pertaining to errant behavior by students such approach may make the action vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of disproportionality,” held Justice Ajay Bhanot.
Case Title: Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 2637 of 2023]
Case Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245
The Allahabad High Court has held that the activities carried out by lawyers are not ‘commercial activity’ and electricity rates charged from commercial establishments cannot be charged for lawyers' chambers for carrying out professional activities.
“An advocate or a legal practitioner is duty-bound to act as an officer of the Court. An advocate is prohibited to do any business or involve in any commercial activity and they are also restrained by the rules framed by the Bar Council of India from advertising their professional activities....” held a bench comprising of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Anish Kumar Gupta.
Further, the Court held that,
“… All these are the features, which categorically distinguish, the legal profession from the trade or business. Therefore, the legal profession by no stretch of imagination can be called as the commercial activity, trade or business...The respondents are directed to charge for the consumption of electricity by the lawyers in their chambers in the court premises as per the rate schedule LMV-I [domestic] as approved by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission.”
Case title - Shivam Kumar Pal @ Sonu Pal And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11560 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The Allahabad High Court last week imposed a cost of Rs. 10K on a woman who admittedly lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against 4 men falsely accusing them of committing the offences of rape, and unnatural sex against her.
The Court also said that the practice of lodging FIRs and falsely making serious allegations of rape cannot be permitted and that such a practice has to be dealt with a "heavy hand".
"The criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for setting personal disputes by filing first information reports which are admittedly false," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh remarked further.
Case Title: Social Forum on Human Rights vs. State of U.P. & Another [PIL No. 1308/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 247
The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a PIL moved by NGO Social Forum on Human Rights, challenging alleged misuse of powers under the ‘Police Commissionerate System’ by the Uttar Pradesh police against social workers.
A bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi orally advised the Petitioner that persons facing actions under Sections 107, 116 and 151 of CrPC have alternate remedies available to them and a PIL to this effect would not be maintainable. Following this, the plea was withdrawn.
Case Title: Amit Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 Others [Writ A No. 11797/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer order alleged to be passed in violation of State policy cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction since no statutory right is affected. State policies are administrative in nature and are distinguishable from statutory laws made by the legislature, it held.
“Transfer is indeed an exigency of service and interference by this Court in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permissible only in the event that the transfer is actuated by malafides in fact or is vitiated by malafides in law. Still, there is one more avenue, where this Court can interfere with a transfer order, and, that is where the transfer order is in breach of a statutory rule. However, in no event a transfer order can be interfered with on the ground of infraction of the State's transfer policy,” held Justice JJ Munir.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Har Dayal Singh And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1873 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 249
While dealing with an appeal of the State Government, the Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused persons under Section 302 of IPC on the ground that the trial court took a reasonable view in the case, which dates back to the year 1983.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the cases of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) and Dhanapal and Others vs. State (2009) concerning the principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal, the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla upheld the order of the acquittal passed by the Session Judge, Sahajahpur in the year 1984.
Case Title: M/S Bansal Construction Office v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250 [Arbitration And Conciliation APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 142 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250
The Allahabad High Court has held that the entire arbitration agreement will not cease to exist merely because the procedure of appointment of the arbitrator, as stated in the agreement, is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Section 12(5) of the Act read with 7th Schedule has been introduced so as to lend greater legitimacy to the process of arbitration by providing for an independent person to act as arbitrator and exclude the other party from becoming a judge in their own cause,” observed Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.
Case title - Jitendra Singh Visen and Others vs. State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [PIL- 1776/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to seal the entire Gyanvapi Mosque premises w/o affecting the ASI Survey order of the Varanasi Court that has been upheld by both, the Allahabad HC and the Supreme Court.
The PIL plea, which also sought a ban on entry of non-Hindus at the disputed site, had been moved by Chief of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh (VVSS), Jitendra Singh Visen, Rakhi Singh (Plaintiff no. 1 in the Shringar Gauri Worshipping suit 2022) and others through Advocate Saurabh Tiwary.
Fresh Representations Do Not Revive Stale Claims: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Mahendra Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252 [WRIT - A No. - 5351 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252
The Allahabad High Court has held that representations made after lapse of time cannot revive stale claim. Rejection of such representations cannot be challenged before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it held.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Tripura and others v. Arabinda Chakraborty and others and other cases, Justice Abdul Moin held
“…merely because representations have been submitted by an employee which came to be decided, the decision would not entail revival of stale claim.”
Case Title: Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11837/2023] and Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Settling conflicting views regarding the stay of FIR lodged by the Director of Shipra Estate against officers of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. over disputes in a loan facility availed by them- without granting time to the Advocate General and counsel for the complainant for seeking instructions- the Allahabad High Court has ruled that it is a fit case for grant of interim protection.
Justice Samit Gopal, the third judge to whom the matter was referred to following a split in the division bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV, ruled in favour of IHFL officers.
Case title - Ajay Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254 [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is very unfortunate that nowadays, in "maximum cases" women are filing false FIRs under the POCSO/SC-ST Act using it as a "weapon to grab money" from the state and this practice should stop.
The Court noted that such false FIRs are being lodged just for taking money from the State and the same has the effect of ruining the image of innocent persons in society.
"Looking to the rampant and daily increasing prevalence of such type of crimes of sexual violence, I think that it is high time that the State of U.P. and even the Union of India should become sensitive to this grave issue," the bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav further observed as it granted anticipatory bail to a Rape accused.
Case Title: Digvendra Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [Writ Tax No. - 1510 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 255
The Allahabad High Court allowed petitioner to avail benefits under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 despite a delay of 3 days in filing application under the Act. Condonation of delay, in unforeseen circumstances does not lead to extension of the scheme, held the Court.
The Parliament enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (2020 Act) for the resolution of disputed tax to relieve the taxpayers from paying interest and penalty on the escaped tax. As per the above Act, 2020, any person wanting to pay the disputed tax should submit a declaration u/s 4 of the 2020 Act before the designated authority. After receiving such declaration, the Authority shall grant a certificate to the declarant containing particulars of the tax arrears and the amount payable. Thereafter, the amount is to be paid by the deadline decided by the Ministry of Finance.
No Retrospective Application Of A Prospective Compassionate Appointment Scheme: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Priyanka Agarwal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 256
The Allahabad High Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the deceased employee's family retrospectively, if no such scheme existed on the date of death of the employee. The Court has set aside the order of a Single Judge, whereby the Insurance Company was directed to consider the claim of deceased employee's wife, even when the employee expired prior to the cut-off date of the compassionate employment scheme.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others [Writ C No. – 22731/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'beneficiary of acquired land' is not entitled to file reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894") in view of the specific bars under Section 25 and Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
A bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while adjudicating a petition filed in Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. And Others, has held that once there is a specific bar under Section 25 of the Act, 1894, the Court shall not award compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector.
Case Title: Chandra Bhan vs. Union Of India And Another [Writ Tax No. - 829 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 258
The Allahabad High Court had held that mere non-issuance of notices with DIN will not render them invalid if the petitioner has otherwise participated in the proceedings based on manual notices.
Petitioner challenged the re-assessment order on the ground that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued manually in violation of the circular issued by the Department. The notices ought to have been issued by applying the document identification number (DIN).
Case Title: M/S Desai Brothers Limited Ratanpur vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259 [WRIT TAX No. - 954 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259
The Allahabad High Court directed the GST Department to refund the amount based on physical application for refund under Section 54 of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 97-A of the UP GST Rules, 2017. The Court further held that the Department is liable to pay interest on the refund withheld in terms of Section 56 of the Act.
Petitioner was transporting certain quantities of 'beedi' from West Bengal to Haryana, passing through the State of U.P. The truck containing goods was detained in the State of UP on the allegation of improper documentation.
Case title - Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7241 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 260
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a 19-year-old alleged associate of 'Lashkar-e-Taiba' who was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of UP Police last year on the charges of spreading hatred, promoting anti-India feelings and providing and facilitating the acquisition of weapons through WhatsApp groups.
Considering the allegations against the accused (Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz), the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that although the right to practise and propagate religion is guaranteed under Article 19, however, from the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, it can't be said that the second part of Section 121-A IPC was not made out against the accused.
Case title - Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261 [WRIT - C No. - 13703 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court observed that the right to construct a Temple on private property is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and such construction cannot offend the religious sensibilities of any other community.
The bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I also said that the mere fact that a Masjid exists nearby the plot on which the Temple is proposed to be built, by itself, cannot raise an apprehension that communal peace or public order would be disturbed if a Temple is built on the private plot.
Case title - Dr. Shailendranath Mishra vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources And Development India Govt.New Delhi And Ors [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 692 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The Allahabad High Court earlier this month dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea to the Union of India as well as the UP Govt to fix and recognize the correct date and place of birth of revered Hindu saint and author of Ramcharitmanas, Mahakavi Goswami Tulsidas based on the majority of evidence and information available on record.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the PIL plea involves purely a question that is essentially academic upon which the petitioner himself is uncertain.
Case Title: M/S M.L. Chains v. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263 [Writ Tax No. - 638 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by an erring officer of the Income Tax Department for violating the principles of natural justice while cancelling the earlier Assessment Order and initiating fresh proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessment of the Petitioner was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 263 (Revision of order pre-judicial to revenue) of the Act was issued to the Petitioner by the Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (PCIT) on the ground that the case of the Petitioner was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
Case Title: Anand Agarwal And Another v. Dr. Narendra Malhotra And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264 [Arbitration And Concili. Appl.U/S11(4) No. -74 of 2022 ]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intent of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration can be derived from the clauses of their agreement read along with the letters exchanged between them.
Applicant and the Opposite Party entered into a partnership agreement on 01.12.2016. Clause 21 of the agreement stipulated that in case of any dispute among the partners, the law of arbitration prevailing at the time shall be applicable.
Case title - Pawan Khera vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7810 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 265
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Congress Spokesperson Pawan Khera's plea seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceedings in the case against him for his alleged 'Narendra Gautam Das Modi' remark made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February this year.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be evaluated by the Court in the present proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of pleadings, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
Case Title: Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs. M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266 [ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. -137 of 2022 ]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court held that to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, once the same has been rejected by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party has to challenge the final award. Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court is not maintainable to that effect.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held,
“From the statutory scheme, noticed above, it is abundantly clear that where objection to the jurisdiction of arbitrator is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the only way in which such challenge can be pursued is by challenging the award, as and when it is made by the arbitrator. The applicant cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory scheme by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, on the premise that the appointment of arbitrator itself is bad.”
Case Title: M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur [FAFO No. - 236 of 2002]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 267
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot was adjudicating an appeal arising from a claim application filed before the Railway Claim Tribunal, which was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application for restoration of the claim application but the same was rejected for being time barred. The Court condoned the delay on the part of the claimant while observing as under:
“By filing an application for setting aside the order dismissing the application in default and for restoring the matter, the provisions of the Limitation Act for filing application will not be applicable. There is a time limit of 30 days in filing the application. Therefore, it has to be filed within 30 days. If sufficient cause is made out, Tribunal has got power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and liberal approach has to be adopted by the Tribunal. Here, adequate reasons are given by the appellants for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay.”
E-Way Bill Expired Due To Vehicle Break Down: Allahabad High Court Quashes Seizure Memo
Case Title: M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 599 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act 2017 by which a penalty was imposed solely on the ground that no evidence had been adduced regarding the illness of the driver and the breakdown of the vehicle.
Petitioner regularly made inward supply from GAIL, Auraiya U.P. Inward supply from GAIL Auraiya U.P. was made for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared. E-way Bills were generated having validity up to 12.3.2023, and a GR was also prepared on the same day in which invoice numbers and Eway bills have specifically been mentioned.
Case title - Vidhu Shekhar Trivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Culture Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 6990 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ plea filed seeking the removal of certain mantras of Brahman Bhag from Shukla Yajurveda Samhita.
The bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar observed that such relief can not be granted by the High Court.
'Very Serious Crime': Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 20-Month-Old Child
Case Title: Mata Pher Rawat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2611 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of committing rape against a 20-month-old infant while she was sleeping alone.
Taking into account the fact that the victim received serious injuries on her private part, the bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh rejected the second bail application of the accused.
“…it is evident that the medical report indicates that the private part of the victim was ruptured and vaginal bleeding is found, the summary discharge report also indicates that the victim received serious injuries on her private part that is why she was referred for surgery, the crime appears to be very serious as the infant of about 20 months who was sleeping alone was raped by the applicant…,” the Court said as it opined that minor contradictions in the statements of 3 prosecution witnesses won’t help the accused-applicant who was lodged in the jail February 2020.
Case Title: Sunita Sharma and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271 [WPIL No. 1578/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which challenged the appointment of the Advocates by the State Government as Additional Advocate General (AAG), Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Additional Chief Standing Counsel (Addl. CSC), Standing Counsels (SC), Brief Holders Civil and Brief Holder Criminal.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava noted that an identical PIL was filed before a coordinate bench of the same court and is still pending.
"In view of the fact that a coordinate Bench of this Court is already seized of the issues raised in this petition as noticed herein above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ PIL and the same is dismissed."
Case Title: Paltoo Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT C No. 10192 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 272
The Allahabad High Court has held that remedy of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available against the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under Section 207 of the Code, 2006.
The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that the ‘proceeding decided’ in Section 210 (Power to call for the records) of the Code would include the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal.
Case Title: M. Devaraj vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma And 5 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 600 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 273
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely calling for an explanation from an officer does not amount to any legal injury if neither stricture has been passed nor disparaging or harsh remarks have been made against him.
The bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV held that sitting in intra-court appeal jurisdiction, it cannot set aside an interlocutory order merely because inconvenience may have arisen to the alleged erring officer. There must be injury caused to the officer because of the interlocutory order to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Case Title: Vishwajeet vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14479 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a minor who has been accused of posting comments against Goddess Durga on his Facebook Account.
Perusing his High School Marks-sheet and Aadhar card showing his year of birth to be January 2006, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi directed to release him on bail. He was arrested in September 2022.
Accused-Minor, booked under Sections 298, 505(i)(c) IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, was put behind bars on September 27, 2022, on the allegations that he was posting comments against Goddess Durga on his Facebook Account.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. [ WRIT - C No. - 35884 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person cannot be evicted from the household merely at the instance of the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The bench comprising Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,
“A Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the children and relatives to make available a residence to such senior citizens in pursuance of an application, filed under the abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that the District Magistrate as an appellate authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his ‘need’ and the right to eviction is the last step, where such authority finds that the need of a senior citizen is not being fulfilled.”
Case title - Neha Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7796 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Stressing that a person has a "constitutionally recognised" right to change his/her gender through surgical intervention, the Allahabad High Court directed the State DGP (Director General of Police) to dispose of an application filed by a female constable seeking permission to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar further said that if in modern society, we do not acknowledge this vested right in a person, to change one's identity, we would be "only encouraging gender identity disorder syndrome".
Compassionate Appointment Is Always On Regular Pay-Scale, Not Consolidated Pay: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ A No. 6719/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 277
The Allahabad High Court has held that compassionate appointment is in the nature of permanent employment and has to be granted on the regular pay scale. Being an exception to the rule of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be temporary in nature.
Petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on a consolidated pay of Rs.2550/- per month in 2004 by the Deputy Basic Education Officer, Etah. Thereafter, in 2010, he was granted a regular pay scale.
Case title - Govardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12619 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Observing that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 are being rampantly missed, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to form uniform guidelines by October 31 regarding the applicability of this Act
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi ordered thus as it observed that in the state of UP, there is no uniformity in the executive authorities of the districts of UP regarding the applicability of this "deterrent" enactment causing "unwarranted piling up of the cases", challenging the notices under this Act etc.
Case Title: Prabhat Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court set aside the dismissal of a government employee for allegedly entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, finding merit in the petitioner's argument that the punishment was unjust since the alleged second marriage was not sufficiently proven.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra further held that even if the second marriage was subsisting, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service as Rule 29 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules only provides for minor punishment in case of a second marriage of a government servant.
Case Title: Mahant Dinesh Das Disciple vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1904 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 280
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Mahant of Shri Thakur Ji Saket Bihari Mandir situated in Padrauna, Kushinagar, seeking directions for removal of unauthorized occupation over the temple land.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that the petitioner had invoked its PIL jurisdiction whereas the relief sought was of a private nature.
UP GST Act | Personal Hearing Mandatory Before Passing Adverse Orders: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B L Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P. and Another [Writ Tax No. - 981 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 281
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Authority to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Assesee before any adverse order is passed against him.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that “not only such opportunity would ensure observance of rules of natural of justice but it would allow the authority to pass appropriate and reasoned order as may serve the interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at the next/appeal stage, if required.”
Case title - Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 661 of 2003]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who was convicted by the trial court under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years over allegations of instigating/abetting the suicide of his wife.
Having analysed the evidence on record, the Court said that some more overt act, though maybe an indirect one, was required on the part of the accused to bring his acts or conduct within the meaning of the word 'instigation' and therefore, he was entitled to acquittal.
Case Title: Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283 [CAPITAL CASES No. - 3809 of 2015 with Reference No.10 of 2015]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283
The Allahabad High Court set aside the sentence of the death penalty imposed on a man accused of killing his mother-in-law and brother-in-law by setting them ablaze as the Court noted that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
“We find in the facts of the case that the court below has not subjected the testimony of witnesses to careful scrutiny and has accepted the prosecution case on its basis. The law with regard to the evaluation of the dying declaration has also not been applied correctly in the facts of the present case,” the bench Of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it gave a benefit of doubt to the accused.
Writ Petition Under Article 226 Maintainable Against Orders Of NGT: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M/s Hotel The Grand Tulsi and 15 Others v. State of U.P. And & others [Writ C No. 21979/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the orders passed by National Green Tribunals.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association as to the power of judicial review not being ousted by Section 22 of the NGT Act is in consonance with the ratio of the seven-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India.
Case title - Mahadev Enterprises Firm and 2 others vs. State of UP and 5 Others [WPIL/1953/2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the State government and its authorities to not interfere with Hindu devotees from offering sugarcane juice to Kashi Vishwanath Jyotir Lingam in Varanasi.
During the course of the hearing, a bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also said that it was imposing a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner, however, on the petitioner's insistence, the court said that it would reconsider the cost part.
Case Title: M/S Manoj Steel Traders vS. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [WRIT TAX No. - 391 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The Allahabad High Court has held that service of an order upon the advocate of an assessee will be deemed service for the purposes of the GST Act as the advocate is an authorized representative of the assessee.
Perusing Section 107 (Appeals to Appellate Authority) and Section 169 (Service of Notice in Certain Circumstances) of the UPGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held,
“From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evidently clear that the appeal against an order can be preferred within a period of three months from the date of communication. Section 169 (1)(a) of the UPGST Act provides that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely, by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person. Therefore, it is evident that the order communicated on an Advocate will be deemed service upon the petitioner.”
Case title - Abu Talib Husain And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18824 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mutawalli of the wakf board, despite being deemed to be a public servant, is not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC (Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants).
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that for applicability of Section 197 CrPC even for the person who is deemed to be a servant under any statute other than IPC, he must be removable by or with the sanction of Central or the State Government.
Case title - Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has said that the failure of the state police to serve the summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court is affecting the fundamental rights of the accused and their right to obtain bail in a timely manner.
"Rights of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being violated and fair administration of right of bail is being hampered as a consequence of these failures of the police department," the Court opined.
Case Title: Kusum Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 289
The Allahabad High Court has held that while invoking judicial precedents to decide a case with similar facts and circumstances, it was important to understand the relationship between logic and experience and reiterated that they cannot be applied mechanically.
Holding so, Justice Krishan Pahal rejected the anticipatory bail moved by the mother of the deceased who died in her house by suicide.
Case Title: Gurucharan Das vs. Tribhuvan Pal And 2 Others [ARCO No. 69/2020]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 290
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is bared by delay and laches.
Noting that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held
“What is, however, admitted on record is that a dispute did occur between the parties in the year 2000. The applicant was aware of the arbitration clause. However, the applicant choose not to invoke the arbitration clause and pursued his claim in suit, which has since been withdrawn. This Court finds substance in the objection of the opposite party that such dead and stale claim ought not to be allowed to be revived after such a long lapse of time. The limitation of three years expired in the year 2003. Filing of this petition, after 20 years is thus grossly barred by delay and latches.”
Case Title: Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - A No. - 12283 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 291
In a case seeking post retiral benefits, the Allahabad High Court has held that withholding retiral dues is not only arbitrary but also a sin in absence of provisions penalising such actions of employers, especially the State instrumentalities.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that such withholding was morally and socially obnoxious.
“Withholding of retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment to the retired employee must however feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our constitution.”
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Priyam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10907 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 292
The Allahabad High Court has held that though the post office acts as an agent of the recruiter, application forms must reach the concerned authority on or before the last date of submission.
Justice Vikas Budhwar added that a recruiter cannot be made to wait indefinitely on the pretext that the form was sent to the post office on time.
“Respectfully following the judgments in the case of the Neena Chaturvedi (supra) and Rajendra Patel (supra), applying the law culled out in the judgment in the case of Neena Chaturvedi (supra) and Rajendra Patel (supra) in the present facts of the case it is apparently clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the though the post office acts as an agent of the respondent but the respondents cannot be bound by any delay on the receipt of the application form and further the respondents cannot be allowed to wait for time immemorial in that regard.”
Tribunal Tried To Blow Hot And Cold At The Same Time: Allahabad High Court Upholds Levy Of Entry Tax
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 45 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad on the ground that it had made contradictory observations in its order regarding purchases made by the assesee.
“The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has tried to blow hot & cold at the same time. It may further be observed that the Tribunal, while recording the finding under the Entry Tax Act that the purchases have not been made from unregistered dealer by the respondent, has neither made any discussion, nor any material was brought on record to justify the said observation. Once it has been held that under the UP VAT Act purchases from unregistered dealer have been made, the Tribunal's observation that no purchase has been made and in the absence of any material and evidence, the entry tax cannot be levied, is perverse and cannot be justified in the eyes of law,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.
Case Title: Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges framed against him.
Case Title: J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 44 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a penalty order under Section 129 of the GST Act on the ground that the missing E-way bill is a minor technical fault and does not prove intention to evade tax in the absence of any other discrepancies.
Petitioner, in ordinary course of business, sent five consignments for which five invoices were issued. The goods were being transported from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh and passed through the State of UP, where they were intercepted as the e-way bill was not accompanying them. Consequently, a penalty order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema [FIRST APPEAL No. - 959 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating an appeal against interim maintenance awarded to the wife by the Family Court, has held that the minimum amount must be paid to the estranged wife from the date of the claim to preserve her life and liberty with dignity.
The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV has upheld the interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- awarded to the wife and children by the Family Court while observing,
“Insofar as the award has been made from the date of the application, again, we find no good ground to interfere with the same. Minimum amounts are required to be provided from the date of the claim being made to ensure the life and liberty of the respondent/estranged wife involved in a matrimonial discord situation is preserved with minimal dignity,”
Case Title: Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
The Allahabad High Court waived off the cooling-off for a married couple as they had mutually filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, after entering a Memorandum of Understanding amicably.
The court said the substantive right of the two parties that settle their conflict amicably must not be interfered with by citing procedure.
A bench comprising Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla observed,
“This Court may note that legitimacy or otherwise of an MOU arrived at between the parties out of their free will is not open to judicial scrutiny except on the ground of fraud. The very idea of settlement through mediation or amicable means runs and progresses through this realm of philosophy.”
Case Title: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1843 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his credentials as per Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952).
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi placed reliance on various Supreme Court judgments to hold that the public interest litigation has certain reservations.
“The jurisdiction of the public interest litigation is exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The said jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity. However, the courts while exercising this jurisdiction must exercise the same with extreme caution and responsibility.”
Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others [Civil Misc Review Application No. - 351 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on Jagran Prakashan to be paid to each employee who has been denied benefits of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia found that the petitioner company had preferred an appeal and a revision petition after the initial judgment imposed a cost on the company and that the issues arising in both writ petitions were common.
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S Vaid Organics And Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 236
Vivek Kumar Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Azad Ahmad Khan vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 239
Vijay Pal Prajapati vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 240
Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 241
M/S Tikona Infinet Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 242
Lalita vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Prakhar Nagar vs. State of UP & 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 245
Shivam Kumar Pal @ Sonu Pal And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Social Forum on Human Rights vs. State of U.P. & Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Amit Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 248
State of U.P. vs. Har Dayal Singh And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 249
M/S Bansal Construction Office v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Jitendra Singh Visen and Others vs. State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251
Mahendra Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252
Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Ajay Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 254
Digvendra Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Priyanka Agarwal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 256
Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of U.P. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 257
Chandra Bhan vs. Union Of India And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 258
M/S Desai Brothers Limited Ratanpur vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Dr. Shailendranath Mishra vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources And Development India Govt.New Delhi And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 262
M/S M.L. Chains v. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 and another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 263
Anand Agarwal And Another v. Dr. Narendra Malhotra And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Pawan Khera vs. The State Of U.P., Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 265
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs. M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 266
M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 267
M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Vidhu Shekhar Trivedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Culture Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Mata Pher Rawat vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Sunita Sharma and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Paltoo Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 272
M. Devaraj vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Vishwajeet vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Neha Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 277
Govardhan vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Prabhat Bhatnagar vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 279
Mahant Dinesh Das Disciple vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 280
M/S B L Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 281
Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282
Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283
M/s Hotel The Grand Tulsi and 15 Others v. State of U.P. And & others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Mahadev Enterprises Firm and 2 others vs. State of UP and 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 285
M/S Manoj Steel Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286
Abu Talib Husain And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Kusum Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Gurucharan Das vs. Tribhuvan Pal And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 291
Pankaj Kumar Priyam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 292
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/S Tirupati Construction Co. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294
J.K. Cement Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Pushpendra Singh vs. Smt. Seema 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 296
Eti Tyagi vs. Prince Tyagi 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298
Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. Shri Aman Kumar Singh And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 299
