Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024 [Citations 128 - 200]
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 April 2024 9:24 PM IST
![Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024 [Citations 128 - 200]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408722-allahabad-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024 [Citations 128 - 200]")
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH Lifting Corporate Veil, Allahabad HC Orders ED Probe Against Directors Of Hacienda Project, Three C Universal For Defrauding Lotus 300 Flat Buyers Case Title: Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128 [WRIT - C No. - 41110 of 2019] Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB)...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128 [WRIT - C No. - 41110 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has lifted the corporate veil to hold the Promoters/Directors of M/s Hacienda Projects Private Limited and M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. who are in default, liable for defrauding flat-buyers of the Lotus 300 project in Sector 107, Noida.
The bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar has directed the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters/designated promoter/officer who are in default, companies/other entities in which money from Hacienda Projects is syphoned or parked.
Case Title: Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129 [WRIT - C No. - 25554 of 2019]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court has held that the concept of a separate legal identity of a company was to encourage trade and commerce and not as front for the directors to commit illegalities and defraud people.
While directing the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to proceed against all the directors/promoters or designated promoter/officers who are in default and against the companies/other entities in which money from M/s Cloud 9 Projects Private Limited was siphoned or parked, the Court held
“….the concept of separate corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commence, but not to commit illegalities or to defraud people. Therefore, where the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the Court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil.”
Case title - Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a legally wedded Muslim wife can not go outside marriage and her live-in relationship with another man would be 'Zina' (fornication) and 'Haram' (act forbidden by Allah) as per the Shariat Law.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal asserted thus while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. The Court added that the 'criminal act' of the woman "cannot be supported and protected" by the Court.
Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131 [WRIT TAX No. - 206 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order for putting up the stay application filed on 24.01.2024 in appeal pending for last four years on a separate date fixed. It was argued that purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated if the stay application is not decided.
Case title - Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1791 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court has directed a court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) in Varanasi to dispose of the petition in 8 weeks seeking unrestricted right to worship the 'Shiv Linga' purportedly found inside Gyanvapi Mosque premises in May 2022.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam ordered thus while hearing an application filed by one Vivek Soni and another under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had approached the High Court requesting expeditious disposal of their plea.
Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the applicant accused of availing excess input tax credit as the proceedings under Section 70 and Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were pending since long.
The Court held that the punishment for wrong availment of input tax credit is imprisonment which shall extend upto 5 years and fine under Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act. For a registered person, every second offence or thereof shall be punishable. The Court further relied on Section 138 of GST Act which provides that for compounding of all offences can be done before or after prosecution is commenced when payment is made by such person.
S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Case Title: M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the GPS tracking system showed slow movement of the truck due to mechanical issues in the engine, penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not have been imposed for not extending time-period in e-way bill. The Court held that not extending time period in such case was a technical breach.
Case Title: M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Goods and Services Tax Regime was launched in 2017, there were difficulties in downloading e-way bills. However, the difficulties were resolved and from April 2018 there were no difficulties in generating the same. The Court held that goods not accompanied by both tax invoices and e-way bill is not a common mistake. It shifts the burden on the assesee to show that there was no intention to evade tax.
Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.
Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138 [WRIT - C No. - 33840 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title - Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court has directed a Special Judge MP/MLA/ Civil Judge (SD), Pratapgarh to decide afresh a plea moved by a Public Prosecutor seeking to withdraw an abduction and attempt to murder case against Kunda MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (Raja Bhaiya), MLC Akshay Pratap Singh and others.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on an application moved by Raja Bhaiya, Akshay Pratap Singh and others challenging the order of a Special Court in March 2023 whereby the application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of the prosecution against the applicants had been rejected.
Case title - Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court recently provided clarity on the scope of "Exceptions" within the "Bail is the rule and Jail is an exception" principle of Criminal Jurisprudence. These exceptions are circumstances where the general rule of granting bail is overridden due to specific factors.
"These exceptions might include concerns about flight risk, potential danger to the community, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, or possibility of repeating offence. Essentially, while bail is generally favoured to ensure the presumption of innocence, exceptions exist when there are compelling reasons to detain someone before trial," a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed.
Case title - Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
In a significant relief for the slum dwellers of the Akbarnagar area of the Lucknow District, the Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that all persons being rehabilitated from Akbar Nagar slums and applying for EWS accommodation, be provided such an accommodation and the entire process of shifting be completed by March 31st.
Noting that those applying for EWS accommodation may face some financial constraints, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla reduced the initial registration deposit from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000.
Case title - Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 617 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an appeal against all the orders passed by the Child Welfare Committee, except where the order has been passed relating to foster care or sponsorship of foster care, shall lie to the children's court as per Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and not to the District Magistrate.
A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while noting that in numerous instances, Children's Courts erroneously dismiss legal challenges to CWC orders by citing Section 27(10) of the JJ Act, 2015 (appeals to the DM) even when they are legally bound to entertain such appeals.
Case Title: Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party.
Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144 [WRIT - C No. - 41540 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has issued modalities to be followed by Regional Passport Offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh on intimation of police reports to applicants with pending criminal 'proceedings' seeking for issuance of fresh passport, renewal or re-issue of passports.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court are pending against any alleged offence committed by the applicant. Section 10(3)(e) gives power to the passport authorities to revoke or impound a passport for the same condition as Section 6(2)(f).
Case Title: Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145 [WRIT - A No. - 2065 of 2010]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court awarded a salary plus cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to a peon working in school operated by District Basic Education Authorities, as she had been denied her full salary despite working full time as peon.
Petitioner had approached the High Court in 2010 seeking full salary as she was only paid Rs. 15 per month despite the salary being Rs. 165 per month. The respondent authority had appointed the petitioner as a “Full Time Peon”, however, subsequently the appointment was withdrawn as not being duly approved.
Case title - Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed International Shooter Vertika Singh's plea challenging Sultanpur Special MP/MLA Court's October 2022 order rejecting her defamation complaint against Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development, Smriti Zubin Irani.
A Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for not summoning Irani to face trial under section 499/500 IPC, as according to the trial court, there was no sufficient material/ground for proceeding further in the defamation case.
Case Title: Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 6450 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'proceedings' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be understood as criminal case registered after filing of chargesheet. It starts with the filing of the FIR, the Court observed.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court for any alleged offence committed by the applicant.
Case Title: M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148 [WRIT - C No. - 39170 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has awarded tender to the highest bidder who was above the reserve price as the tendering committee had failed to scrutinize tender documents and acted in a lax manner.
Petitioner participated in e-tender-cum-e-auction for short-term permit, also regarding Gata No.62 and 63/1 Area 42.00 acre, Village Khapatiha Kala, Tehsil Pailani, District Banda. Petitioner's bid was the second highest. The petitioner then filed an application stating that the highest bidder had not filed self-attested copies of the Aadhaar Card, Pan Card, and Character Certificate and therefore, its bid was liable to be rejected.
Case Title: Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 7895 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court has held that the cause of action under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises after expiry of 15 days granted to the drawer to pay the amount to the payee/cheque holder under clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act.
Section 142(1) of the NI Act provides that a complaint must be made within 1 month of the date from which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of Section 138. Clause (c) of Section 138 provides that action under Section 138 may be initiated if the drawer of the cheque fails to pay the amount due to the payee/ holder of the cheque within 15 days from the date of notice. Further, Section 142(1)(b) provides that if sufficient cause is shown, delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Court.
Case title - Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can't be dissolved by a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a Criminal Revision plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the family court directing him to pay Rs. 2200/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent in the plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151 [WRIT-C No.12727 OF 2012]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Placing reliance on its earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and other, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that there was a deficiency in stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale deed is upon the Department.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that in the absence of mandatory spot inspection under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, the burden was upon the Department to prove that the land was not being used for the purpose stated in the sale deed.
“Such being the case, the burden of proof that rested solely on the Revenue to indicate the nature of the land and the potential use of the land was not discharged properly. Furthermore, the reasoning provided by the authorities below for valuing the land on the basis of non-agricultural cannot be sustained as the same is based on another piece of the land that was much closer to the highway and certain constructions were made on that piece of land.”
Case title - Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the 'Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property'.
“So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made,” emphasised a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed.
Case Title: Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153 [WRIT - A No. - 4063 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court has refused to extend the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section category for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers held in 2020, as the process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.
The state of UP enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020), published in the Gazette on 31.08.2020, for implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of the society.
Case title - Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3277 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court reprimanded Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Gorakhpur for issuing a notice to a man under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act 1970 against a man based upon a solitary case registered against him. The Court also directed the state to pay Rs 20K to the man within 2 months.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP to ensure that the public servants exercising powers of the State "remain within the bounds of law" and violation of law may entail disciplinary proceedings against them.
Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155 [WRIT TAX No. - 7 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.
Petitioner's goods were intercepted, and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds that the bilty and invoice accompanying the goods had the earlier vehicle's number.
Case title - Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by a couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses, imposing a fine of 2K. The court emphasized that if such type of relationship gets the support of the Court, it will create chaos in society and destroy our country's social fabric.
"The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce, a person cannot get married with another person," a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it dismissed the protection plea.
Case title - Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has observed that before issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 of CrPC, the Court concerned must record its satisfaction that despite the service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the person concerned has deliberately avoided the proceedings.
Emphasizing that if any order issuing a 'proclamation' under Sections 82/83 CrPC lacks the procedure described above, such an order would be a nullity in the eyes of the law, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus:
"...any order of proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. must be passed on an application of a person concerned/ Investigating Officer etc. to the effect that after service of notice, summon, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant upon the person concerned, he/ she is avoiding the proceedings so a proclamation may be issued and on such application, which must be supported with an affidavit, the court concerned may issue proclamation under Sections 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. indicating the subjective satisfaction on the aforesaid aspect in the order itself."
Case title - Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158 [WRIT - C No. - 1546 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while dismissing a protection plea filed by a live-in relationship couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses.
"The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court," the court observed as it emphasised that such relationship cannot be supported by the orders of the Court.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159 [WRIT - C No. - 5548 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.
Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must be a legal and authorized occupier of the premises to seek such electricity connection.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Barabanki district by which cognizance of the offence under 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) was taken against the then Chief Development Officer (CDO) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district in connection with the alleged scam in the construction of public toilets.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in a revision plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the CJM, Barabanki.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 220 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge granting a blanket stay on the order passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil - Obra, District - Sonbhadra under Section 134 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The Court held that the stay could not have been granted as the stay application was pending before the Commissioner.
Respondent filed a writ petition seeking early disposal of the stay application pending before the Commissioner. The Single Judge had directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided within 6 months period with a further direction that during the pendency of the appeal, the order impugned shall remain stayed.
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162 [WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
“Curtailment of free trade has serious consequences. While the revenue authorities would be within their jurisdiction to exercise their power to seize and confiscate goods that may have been smuggled inside the customs frontiers, yet with respect to natural products, that are also grown inside the country, no presumption is available to presume or assume that such goods are smuggled unless the assessee or the citizen otherwise satisfies that they are of Indian origin.”
Case title - Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, the payment made by the Husband towards the monthly instalment of personal loan has to be added to his net monthly income.
The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I added that merely on the ground that a wife is a BA degree holder and has done some professional course, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.
Case title - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25862 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164
The Allahabad High Court directed all the Judicial Magistrates as well as Presiding Officers of Family Courts in the state, dealing with maintenance proceedings, to mandatorily pass a specific order directing the parties to file their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32.
"It seems appropriate to direct that when an application under Section 125 of CrPC or a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act or an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed before the Court concerned, it should by passing a specific order on the order-sheet direct the applicant to file his/her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed while directing the registry to circulate its order to all the Judicial Officers of the state.
Case title – Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2138 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only.
In other words, the HC held that only the accused who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC has a right to cross-examine a witness and the persons who were accused since before and who had already availed opportunity of cross-examining the said witness, have no right to cross-examine the said witness again.
“A bare reading of Section 319 (4) CrPC indicates that where a person is summoned under Section 319 (1) to face the trial, the proceedings shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard only in respect of such person and not in respect of all the accused persons,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held.
Case title - Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
In a relief to the founder and Group CEO of Future Group, Kishore Biyani, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings including a summoning order and a Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him in connection with a case related to a commercial transaction.
A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order on Biyani's application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Gorakhpur court's summoning and NBW issuance order passed in a criminal complaint moved against him under Section 120B, 463, 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC.
Case title - Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court has QUASHED a criminal defamation complaint case filed against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The complaint, filed by a Lucknow-based freelance Journalist (Mohd Kamran), alleged that MP Singh wrote letters to State Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defaming him.
A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that the letters in question appeared to be confidential and privileged communication between two constitutional authorities (Member of Parliament and Chief Minister). The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not suggest that MP Singh caused the letters in question to be published in the print media or digital media or on social media platforms.
Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court held that any such marriage can only be dissolved by a decree passed a competent Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“The marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955.”
Case Title: Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169 [WRIT - C No. - 31840 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere allegations of having 'bad character' do not disentitle a person from claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016.
“Fighters of Democracy” are defined under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act 2016 as the residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh who actively fought during the emergency period from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977 and were detained in political grounds in jail under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for participating in such activities.
Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 [Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.
“Capital goods are intended for long-term use and are typically subject to capitalization. However, inputs, are goods used in the day-to-day operations of the business and are not subject to capitalization,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171 [WRIT TAX No. - 50 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).
Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 contemplates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be given to an assesee if he so requests in writing “OR” any adverse decision is contemplated against such assesee.
Case Title: Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court has held that on a combined reading of Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 no permission of the Court is needed by the adult head of Hindu family for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in joint family property.
Section 6 of the Act provides that for a Hindu minor and the minor's property (excluding their undivided interest in joint family property), the father shall be the natural guardian and after him the mother is the natural guardian.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 214 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
The Allahabad High Court has held that the scope of judicial review in rejection of a candidature based on medical condition found during medical examination is limited. The Court held that unless the medical board or the department has violated any guidelines issued for conduction the examination, interference by Court is not justified.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“The limited issue which has to be examined by the medical board is as to whether on the date of medical examination the candidate was medically fit or unfit. Whether the candidate was accorded consideration in terms of the policy/rules for medical examination would be the issue. It is only the correctness of such opinion by the medical board which can be examined in the review medical board. Judicial review of such administrative action would not involve recognition of a right in a candidate to get himself operated upon, even after he has been validly found unfit on a particular medical exigency so as to get himself operated and thereafter apply for fresh consideration of his candidature.”
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174 [WRIT - A No. - 12559 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court has held that the general category is called “open category” because there can be migration from reserved category to general category but not vice versa.
Accordingly, it was held that a reserved category candidate scoring higher marks than a general category candidate will be given priority in open category selection process. However, vice versa is not applicable for selection in reserved category, where only candidates of reserved category shall be selected.
Case title - Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3099 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 for want of prosecution will amount to acquittal u/s 256(1) CrPC, and same can be challenged in appeal u/s 378(4) CrPC or is that order revisable u/s 397 CrPC?
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench while disagreeing with the order of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Vinay Kumar Vs. State of UP 2007 wherein it was observed that against the dismissal of complaint u/s 138 NI Act, an appeal lies u/s 378(4) CrPC and not a revision.
Case title - Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2250 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a summoning order as well as a charge sheet against 3 persons in a case related to their alleged act of raising anti-India slogans in a temple, while a religious preaching was going on there.
Denying them the relief, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the allegations against them are of hailing another country and raising slogans against our nation, and of abusing and threatening the persons present in religious preaching, which clearly make out a case of trial of the applicants.
Case title - Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
While DISMISSING the challenge made to the cancellation of the lease of Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar University's land in the state's Rampur District, the Allahabad High Court strongly criticized the acts of the then Cabinet Minister and Senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan for misusing his position to perpetuate personal gains.
The judgment, passed by a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, emphasises that the grant of lease of Government land to Jauhar Trust was an outcome of "abuse and misuse of power" by the then Cabinet Minister as he acted "without scruples" and under influence of the public office he held, succeeded in "circumventing the law".
Case title - Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
The Allahabad High Court has GRANTED BAIL to Masood Ahmed, a student leader, in connection with the 2020 Hathras 'Conspiracy' case wherein 4 persons including Masood and Siddiqui Kappan, a journalist, have been booked by the UP Police under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
While passing this order, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I took into account the fact that the Supreme Court has already granted bail to co-accused Kappan and that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Case Title: Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179 [WRIT - C No. - 39901 of 2018]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two interpretations of a fiscal or penal statute are possible, the interpretation which exempts the subject from penalty must be adopted rather than the one which imposes penalty.
The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“As regards interpretation of a penal or fiscal statute, it is well settled that if two views or constructions are possible, the Court must lean towards that view/construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is also well settled that if there is a reasonable doubt or ambiguity, the principle to be applied in construing a penal provision is that such doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person who would be subjected to penalty.”
Case Title: Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180 [WRIT - A No. - 37974 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period of service in Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh before its division in 1997 must be counted as continuity in service for the purpose of computation retiral benefits, especially pension.
Initially, the petitioner was appointed as 'Auto/Motor Mechanic' at Government Polytechnic, Sri Nagar, Garhwal where he continued till a fresh appointment was made as Anudeshak Motor Mechanic in Government Polytechnic, Jhansi in the same capacity. After retiring in 2015, the petitioner claimed retiral dues which were withheld by the authorities.
Case title - Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2447 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
The Allahabad High Court clarified that the criminal cases in which the accused are not charge-sheeted under the SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under the provisions of CrPC, even if the offence is being tried by the special court established under the SC/ST Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while dealing with an application filed by one Pramod seeking bail in a Murder case after his bail plea was rejected by the trial Court in December 2023.
Case title - Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
The Allahabad High Court has issued a show cause notice to an Oath Commissioner to show cause as to why he must not be removed from his post for executing affidavits without there being signature of Deponent and proper identification by Advocate.
Expressing serious displeasure at the conduct of the Oath Commissioners, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed,
“It is found that Oath Commissioners being appointed are not maintaining the standard of professionalism and are executing affidavits without signature of the Deponent in the affidavits. In the past occasions, the matter was referred to Competent Authority, however, despite reference, it has been informed that no action was taken in the previous matter. Inaction on the part of Competent Authority is resulting in encouragement to Oath Commissioners in executing affidavits without signature of Deponent.”
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To SHUATS Director Vinod Bihari Lal In An Attempt To Murder Case
Case title - Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51149 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology And Sciences (SHUATS) director Vinod Bihari Lal in a case lodged against him for allegedly attempting to murder, causing grievous hurt to a person.
A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal granted him relief while directing him to deposit Rs. 10 lacs before the trial court before his release. The Court further ordered that any violation of the bail conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of bail and the immediate release of the deposited amount to the State.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 184
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court EXPUNGED the remarks made by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, Ravi Kumar Diwakar in one of his orders pertaining to the 2010 Bareilly Riots case wherein he had praised UP CM Yogi Adityanath and stated that "religious person in power gives good results".
While expunging Judge Diwakr's "unwarranted" remarks "containing political over-tones and personal views", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that it is not expected from the judicial officer to express or depict his personal or pre-conceived notions or inclinations in the matter.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the quashing of termination of an employee after he had an unblemished service record of 30 years.
Petitioner was appointed in the Schedule Tribe category against posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale in 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale and was eventually promoted on the post of Deputy Controller on 31.07.2013.
Case title - Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2814 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
The Allahabad High Court granted short-term bail to 4 elderly murder accused, including two with 100% blindness, till their cases for premature release - pending before the State Government - are not decided.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad in line with the HC's order of January 10, 2024 [passed in the case of Ganesh Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016)].
Case Title: Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5882 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of the Family Court granting extension of time to defendant-wife for filing written statement beyond the statutory period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC during pendency of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides that a defendant shall file his written defense within 30 days from the receipt of summons. The proviso to Rule 1 provides that the defendant may be allowed to file written statement after a period of 30 days on any other day specified by the Court. However, such period cannot exceed 90 days from the date of receipt of summon.
Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188 [WRIT TAX No. - 228 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature.
The Court held that if the assessing authority is unable to obtain the registered email address from the income tax returns or from the designated portal of assesee or website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, then it is upon the assesee to provide the email address to the authority.
Allahabad High Court Declares 'UP Board Of Madarsa Education Act 2004' As Unconstitutional
Case title – Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
The Allahabad High Court single judge Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years.
Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant.
Case Title: Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [WRIT - A No. - 5017 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court has granted compassionate appointment to daughter-in-law as the son of the deceased was suffering from 75% disability. The Court held that daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is supposed to be treated like a daughter.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,
“As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family.”
Case title - Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held thus while perusing the mandate of Sections 28 and Section 17 (1) & (2) of the 1994 Act. For context, Section 28 bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority. Section 17 provides for the manner of appointment of an 'appropriate authority'.
Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.
For context, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Applicable To Live-In Relationships Too: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195 [WRIT - C No. - 1067 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The Allahabad High Court observed that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 applies not only to marriages but to relationships in the nature of marriage or live-in relationships.
A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal made this observation while dismissing a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple (petitioners) as it noted that the duo had not applied for registration of any conversion under the provisions of the 2021 Act.
Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 756 of 1982]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Allahabad High Court has held that suit for permanent injunction under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is not maintainable against the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a land as reserved forest area.
The Court held that such notifications can only be challenged before the Forest Settlement Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1927.
“….once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar.
Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197
The Allahabad High Court held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension.
The Court further held that such an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.
“The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others. [WRIT - C No. - 68334 of 2005]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court held that the effect and operation of any interim order passed is wiped out at the passing of the final order.
The bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal held that “once an appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, the interim order, if any, passed thereon automatically merges with the final order.”
The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra wherein the Supreme Court held that where stay is granted vide an interim order and the petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order is merged with the final order. It was held that beneficiary of the interim order must pay interest upon the vacation of the interim order on the amount withheld or not paid due to the interim order.
1996 Assault Case: Allahabad High Court Stays Conviction Of Actor & Congress Leader Raj Babbar
Case title - Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) stayed the conviction of actor and Congress politician Raj Babbar in connection with a 1996 case lodged against him for allegedly assaulting a polling officer when he was contesting the Lok Sabha election from Lucknow (then) as a Samajwadi Party candidate.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan on a plea moved by Babbar under Section 389(2) CrPC challenging an order of conviction passed by a Lucknow MP/MLA court in July 2022 wherein he was sentenced to two years in jail.
NOMINAL INDEX
Nirmal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Ashish Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Vivek Soni And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133
M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134
M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135
M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 140
- Raju Sahu And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Smt. Bhagonia Devi vs. Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Banda And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Vartika Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home. Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 147
M/S Suddhtam Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Sudesh Kumar vs. State of UP and another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150
M/S Uttaranchal Automobiles Private Limited vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Shivam Pandey And 11 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Ravi vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 154
M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Pradeep Agnihotri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 159
State of U.P. vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Radhey Shyam And Another v. Manish Sood And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 161
M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Haribhan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Kishore Biyani vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168
Muhammed Rasheed Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 169
M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170
M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171
Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Rajesh Kumar And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Akhilesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Faizan Ahmad @ Idrisi Faizan Shamshad Ahmad And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 176
Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Masood vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Om Prakash vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 179
Ram Narayan Kashyap vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Pramod vs. State Of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Shakti vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 183
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185
Succha Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Devraj Singh vs. Babli Devi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 187
Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Anshuman Singh Rathore vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Edu. New Delhi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 189
State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 190
Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192
Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194
Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195
Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197
Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198
Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199
Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200
