Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: May 2024 [Citations: 280-366]
Sparsh Upadhyay
19 Jun 2024 10:31 AM IST
![Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: May 2024 [Citations: 280-366]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408722-allahabad-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: May 2024 [Citations: 280-366]")
NOMINAL INDEXAbbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280 Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281 Eklavya Educational Foundation And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282 Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283 Muneer Alam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy....
NOMINAL INDEX
Abbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280
Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281
Eklavya Educational Foundation And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282
Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283
Muneer Alam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Aniket Dixit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 285
Rafique Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286
Baba Global Limited v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union Of India Through Home Secy. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 288
State of U.P. vs. Hirdai Narain And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Ram Surat vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 290
State of U.P. vs Nath Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 291
Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors/Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 292
Raunak Mishra v. Banaras Hindu University And 2 Other 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 293
Abbas Ansari vs. Directorate Of Enforcement, Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 294
Man Singh vs. State of U.P and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Sehrun Nisha v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 296
Vedram And Anr. vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Pramila Tiwari vs. Anil Kumar Mishra And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 298
Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301
M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Ms Elgin Mills Company Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Bhanvi Saran Singh And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Ayodhya And Ors. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Suresh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 306
National Highways Authority Of India Vs Musafir And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 308
Krishna vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 309
Ganga Prasad Memorial Trust and another vs DHK Eduserve Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 310
Muhammed Tahir Zakir Chauhan vs. State Of U.P. Trhu. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 311
Master Atharva Minor v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 312
Prity Pandey v. Addl. Principal Judge,Court No. 2, Family Court, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 313
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 314
Mohammed Aleem @ Abdul Aleem And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.T.S. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Rajkumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316
U.P.Power Corporation Limited Thru M.D. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Thru Secy. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 317
Prateek Shukla vs. Union Of India And 21 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 318
M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319
M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320
Dheeraj vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Gaursons Promoters P. Ltd. vs. Aakash Engineers And Contractors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Nirankar Dutt Tyagi and Anr. vs. N.H.I. Unit Dehradun and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323
M/S Moksh Innovations Inc. Lko. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E City Property Management And Services (P) Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Property Manager And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Sh. Dharmveer Tyagi And Others vs. Competent Authority, Dfcc, Special Land Acquisition (Joint Officer Organization) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Tirthraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Shivani Chaurasia And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329
M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs UP Jal Nigam and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Rajesh Kumar S/O Ram Khelawan Singh And Anr. v. Union Of India Thru Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Alka Sethi And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Ram Bahal and others v. D.D.C. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335
2024 LiveLaw (AB) 336
M/S Devi Dayal Trust And Others V. M/S Rajhans Towers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Umesh Kumar Sirohi v. State Of U P And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Manoj Kumar Gupta And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Bhudev vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 340
Santosh Kumar And 2 Others v. Board Of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Ishita Dua v. Tarun Kumar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Rajiv Malhotra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 343
M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Chandrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Mange @ Ravindra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 350
Ns Agro And Engineering Products v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Rahul Sachan v. Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Vijay Kumar vs. State Of Up Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 353
M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Ram Pratap Singh v. Union of India and 4 others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356
M/S Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd Shad vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 359
M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Monu Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Ankit Singh And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Gaurav Yadav @ Phadka vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Anoop Srivastava 10 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Allahabad HC Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Of Alleged Unrestricted Jail Meetings With Wife
Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Uttar Pradesh Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Abbas Ansari in connection with a case alleging that his wife had been unrestrictedly visiting him in jail and he would use her mobile phones to threaten various persons including the witnesses and officials who were connected with the prosecution of the applicant.
A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that considering Ansari's profile, background and family antecedents, the allegations against him “may not be completely without substance”.
Case Title: Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a special appeal which was filed against order the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition for a delay of 6 years.
Petitioners filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was dismissed vide an ex-parte order by the revisional authority in 2016. Thereafter, in 2022, petitioners filed a recall application against the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application. In the delay condonation application it was alleged that the counsel did not inform them about the dismissal of the case.
Case Title: Eklavya Educational Foundation And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 667 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction to Union Government for publishing report dated 21.07.2023 of Justice Rohini Commission.
On 2nd October 2017, Justice Rohini Commission, headed by Justice G. Rohini, was formed for sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups to ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among OBCs in India.
Case title - Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Saptapadi ceremony ((taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire)) is one of the essential ingredients of a valid marriage under Hindu law.
With this, the bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed a petition filed by one Nisha challenging the summoning order and further proceedings in a case under Sections 494 (Bigamy) IPC.
Case title - Muneer Alam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Muneer Alam) who was arrested in July 2023 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (PFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.
The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saurabh Lavania granted him bail, noting that four co-accused have already been granted bail in connection with the same FIR.
Case title - Aniket Dixit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 285
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a student (accused of abetting suicide) who spent over 6 years in custody without conclusion of trial. The Court also slammed the State Police Sub Inspector for being non-cooperative in the early conclusion of the trial.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi further directed the trial Judge to conclude the trial by 31st August 2024; otherwise, the Court added, an adverse inference would be drawn against the Presiding Officer.
Case title - Rafique Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8390 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to Meerut MLA Rafiq Ansari in a 1995 case, noting that the Samajwadi Party leader failed to appear in Court despite the issuance of 100+ non-bailable warrants between 1997 and 2015.
"...non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and egregious precedent", observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh.
Case Title: Baba Global Limited v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [WRIT - C No. - 47105 of 2011]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to refund Rs. 26 lakhs once deposited by the petitioner pursuant to an interim by the High Court in another writ petition. The Court held that a license fee cannot be retrospectively charged from the licensee prior to the date of grant of license and any penalty that is sought to be imposed for want of license can only be imposed in due course following procedure of law.
Case Title: Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union Of India Through Home Secy. and others [WRIT - A No. - 4562 of 1998]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 287
While hearing a writ petition pending since 1998, the Allahabad High Court has held that by merely alleging irregularity during a disciplinary procedure, the petitioner cannot evade responsibility to show that prejudice has been caused to him.
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be set aside on mere apprehension or likelihood of causing prejudice to the delinquent employee.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Hirdai Narain And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 289
The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the sole living accused in a 1984 attempt to murder case after it received a report from the trial court that the entire papers of the record of the Sessions Trial have been weeded out and only original judgment was available on the record.
This incident occurred in 1984, and the sole living accused was acquitted in March 1987. Subsequently, the State Government preferred an appeal to the HC that year.
Case Title: Ram Surat vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 290 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 29 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 290
The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25000 on a litigant who filed public interest litigation suppressing the fact of pending litigation between him and the private parties.
Petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking compliance of a demolition order passed by the respondent authorities. It was pleaded that the land in question was supposed to be a park where construction had been raised by private respondents. Petitioner submitted that even though a demolition order had been passed, it had not been implemented for a very long time.
Case Title: State of U.P. vs Nath Construction And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 291
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 291
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the requirement to provide reasons by the arbitrator, in accordance with Section 31(3) of the Act, hinges on the pleadings and available documents on record.
It held that if the party neither expressly denied the claim of the other party nor supported its case accurately, then it's evident that the award cannot be deemed flawed, especially when the arbitrator is not expected to speculate on matters that are not presented before it.
Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors/Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 292
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the extent of intervention in appellate proceedings according to Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the grounds permissible under Section 34 for contesting the award.
It held that the award need not be invalidated unless it is tainted by an evident "patent illegality" discernible on the surface of the record, with the caution that setting aside the award should not be solely based on erroneous legal application or evidence appreciation.
Case Title: Raunak Mishra v. Banaras Hindu University And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13741 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 293
The Allahabad High Court has issued directions to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Government of India to ensure the circulation and implementation of Guidelines dated 12.04.2023 issued by UGC, which contains provisions regarding the reformation of delinquent students.
The Court also directed Banaras Hindu University to formulate the reformation program for students facing disciplinary inquiry within 6 months in accordance with the Guidelines dated 12.04.2023 and the judgments of the Allahabad High Court.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Money Laundering Case
Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. Directorate Of Enforcement, Allahabad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 294 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6914 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 294
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) denied bail to Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (SBSP) MLA from Mau, Abbas Ansari in connection with a case lodged against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Single Judge Justice Jaspreet Singh denied him the relief, considering the comprehensive money trail the Enforcement Directorate (ED) put forth in the case against him.
“…considering the material available on record including the flow charts which clearly demonstrates the origin of funds and it also explains how it finds its way into the accounts of the applicant and its use by the applicant, and there is material against the applicant to link him with the movement and trail of funds to and from the two firms M/s. Vikas Construction and M/s. Aaghaaz.”
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 4 Men Accused Of Throwing Acid On Woman Bank Manager
Case title - Man Singh vs. State of U.P and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 295
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 295
The Allahabad High Court rejected bail petitions filed by four men accused of subjecting a woman bank manager to an acid attack in 2022 (in UP's Kaushambi district) after she purportedly refused to sanction such loan applications which were not qualified for it.
Single Judge Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied them bail while considering the evidence collected during the investigation about the purchase of acid, the actual involvement of some applicants, and the supporting roles assigned to other applicants.
Case Title: Sehrun Nisha v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 296 [WRIT - A No. - 6402 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 296
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.
“Retirement at sixty years is not an entitling fact, which leads the employee to acquire a right to receive gratuity, which he otherwise does not have. An employee gets his right to gratuity according to the number of the years that he serves,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case title - Vedram And Anr. vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 297
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 297
While dealing with a case of dowry death, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the mother-in-law of the deceased as it found that she was living separately from her son and his wife (deceased) at the time of the crime in September 2015.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi noted that there was a lack of specific allegations against her and that she had already separated from the family before the death of the deceased, indicating that she had no direct involvement in the alleged demands for dowry.
Case Title: Pramila Tiwari vs. Anil Kumar Mishra And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 298 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8279 of 2022]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 298
The Allahabad High Court has struck down the 2004 amendment to Section 169(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 to the extent that it mandates for registration of Wills. The Court held that the mandate to register Wills is against Section 17 read with Section 40 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Section 169(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was amended to read as “Every will made under provisions of sub section (1) shall, not withstanding anything contained in any law, custom or usage, [be in writing, attested by two persons and registered]”
Case Title: Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299 [WRIT TAX No. - 638 of 2017]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299
Relying on its earlier decision in A.S. Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that tax dues cannot be collected from director of company under liquidation unless it has been provided in any statute.
The Allahabad High Court in A.S. Solanki had held that in a case where it was ascertained that the corporate veil had been used for malafide intent, the corporate personality shall be lifted so that the individuals responsible could be held liable. However, this doctrine could not be applied as a matter of course and be used to recover the dues of a company when they were unrecoverable, from the personal assets of the Directors.
Case Title: Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300 [WRIT TAX No. - 683 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300
The Allahabad High Court has held that computation of correct input tax credit can only be done till the passing of the regular assessment order by the Assessing Authority and not at a later stage. The Court held that reverse input tax credit is neither a 'rate of tax' nor a 'turnover' which can be subjected to reassessment under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Section 29 of the UPVAT Act empowers the Assessing Authority to initiate reassessment proceedings against an assesee if there is “reason to believe” that whole or part of the turnover has escaped assessment or has been assessed to tax at a lower rate than prescribed or if deductions and exemptions have been wrongly allowed.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 627 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The Allahabad High Court has held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when show cause notice is issued regarding why assessment may not be completed as proposed. The Court held that once the assesee “requests” for an opportunity of personal hearing, it becomes incumbent on the Assessing Authority to grant that opportunity under Section 144B(6)(viii).
Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Ms Elgin Mills Company Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 302 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 468 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 302
The Allahabad High Court has held that a special appeal is not maintainable against the order of hearing established by a single judge in an interim order.
“The Submission made pertaining to the preferential claim of the appellant, does not affect the order passed by the learned Single Judge indicating the sequence in which the matters are to be heard inasmuch as the status of appellant's claim based on Section 529A of the Act of 1956 has not been decided or determined only on account of the sequence in which the applications are to be considered by the learned Single Judge,” held the division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Case title - Bhanvi Saran Singh And Others vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court has observed that no proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 could continue based on a notice issued under Section 9 (2) in the name of a dead person.
For context, Section 9 (2) deals with the issuance of notice (at any time after October 10, 1975) to the tenure-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date to submit within 30 days of such notice, a statement in respect of all his holdings in such form and giving such particulars as may be prescribed.
Case Title: Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Shri Krishna Mohan Trivedi And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 358 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 304
While dismissing the special appeal field by Jagran Prakashan against the order of the Single Judge, the Allahabad High Court has held that mere mention of certain sections in the title of an application/claim and reference made to a Labour Court will not determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that jurisdiction can be determined by the substance of the arguments and averments made in such application/claim and reference.
Reversing Acquittal, Allahabad High Court Sentences 2 Men To Life Imprisonment In 1978 Murder Case
Case title - Ayodhya And Ors. vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 305
The Allahabad High Court overturned the verdict of a trial court in Gorakhpur and sentenced two men to life imprisonment in connection with a 1978 murder case. The Court noted that the trial court had not examined the prosecution's evidence from the correct perspective regarding the two accused.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad concluded that the prosecution had fully established the guilt of the 2 accused based on the evidence presented at the trial stage. Hence, they were liable to be convicted.
Case title - Suresh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 306
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 306
The Allahabad High Court has observed that court staff fraud has far-reaching detrimental effects on the justice system and erodes public trust in the judiciary.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar said that when court staff abuse their authority for personal gain, it compromises the integrity of judicial decisions and raises questions about the legitimacy of legal proceedings.
Case Title: Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 13833 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 307
The Allahabad High Court has held that unless a divorced daughter can establish that she was dependent on her father before his demise, she would not be entitled to a compassionate appointment post his demise. The Court held that the divorced daughter must also prove the factum of divorce before the authorities while seeking compassionate appointment.
“Likewise, if on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs Musafir And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 308
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 308
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the arbitral tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that none of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, give the arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. It held that any act which the arbitral tribunal is not empowered to do under the Arbitration Act is void ab initio.
Case title - Krishna vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 309
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 309
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 which revived the provision of anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) in the State (with effect from June 6, 2019), doesn't bar the grant of PRE-ARREST BAIL to an accused booked for an offence under subsection (3) of Section 376 IPC.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed this while granting anticipatory bail to a 17.5-year-old boy who has been accused of molesting a 16-year-old girl.
Case Title: Ganga Prasad Memorial Trust and another vs DHK Eduserve Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the grounds urged in the application.
Further, the bench held once an Arbitral Tribunal is established, the court cannot entertain an application under Section 9 unless the remedy under Section 17 proves to be inefficacious.
Case title - Muhammed Tahir Zakir Chauhan vs. State Of U.P. Trhu. Its Prin. Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 311
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 311
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to four office bearers of the 'Halal Council of India' (HCI), an organisation that has been accused of issuing fraudulent Halal certificates without the authority of law and thereby hurting religious sentiments.
Those granted bail are Habib Yusuf Patel (president of the council), Muidshir Sapadia (vice president), Mohammed Tahir Zakir Hussain Chauhan (general secretary), and Mohammad Anwar (treasurer). All 4 are facing an FIR under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 298, 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC.
Case Title: Master Atharva Minor v. State of U.P. and 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 335 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 312
While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation filed by an LKG student, the Allahabad High Court denied renewal of the liquor license to a country liquor shop as it was situated very close to a school, even though the liquor shop predated the school.
“The mere fact that the shop has been used as a liquor shop in a financial year prior to the school came into existence, is not sufficient for invoking the proviso for the purpose of granting licence year after year inasmuch as the licence is issued to the licencee on his fulfilling the eligibility under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 and not to the shop in question,” held the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Case Title: Smt. Prity Pandey v. Addl. Principal Judge,Court No. 2, Family Court, Lko. And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2373 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 313
While deciding a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for expeditious disposal of case before the Family Court, the Allahabad high Court observed that directions to the Trial Courts cannot be passed routinely to decide cases expeditiously as they are burdened with heavy dockets themselves.
The Court held that such petitions for expeditious disposal must only be allowed if extra ordinary circumstances are shown to exist for granting relief of expeditious disposal.
“This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial courts are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,” observed Justice Alok Mathur.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 314
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Magistrates are acting like a “post office” while directing registration of FIRs against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P.
Allahabad High Court Grants 'Default Bail' To 11 Alleged AQIS-JMB Operatives Booked Under UAPA
Case title - Mohammed Aleem @ Abdul Aleem And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.T.S. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 315
The Allahabad High Court granted 'default bail' to 11 alleged operatives of AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) and JMB (Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh) under Section 167(2) CrPC while holding the Special Court's orders extending the time to complete the investigation vis-a-vis the accused in the case as 'illegal', as the same was passed in their absence.
Stressing the special court's duty to hear the accused persons while considering the application for an extension of time to complete the investigation, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that this defect had rendered the order passed by the Special Court as illegal.
Case title - Rajkumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10290 of 2019]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an order passed under Section 125 CrPC may be final or interim and can be recalled or altered under Section 127 CrPC. Therefore, a bar of Section 362 CrPC is not applicable in such cases.
Perusing the mandate of Section 362 CrPC, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that if any provision is provided under CrPC that permits the recall or alteration of the judgement or final order, then the bar u/s 362 CrPC will not apply to those provisions, as is the case with Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: U.P.Power Corporation Limited Thru M.D. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Thru Secy. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 317 [WRIT - C No. - 7368 of 2006]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court has struck down Regulation 5A of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) (First Amendment), Regulations, 2006 to the extent it provides 6% per annum simple interest on excess/ less determination of provisional tariff as ultra vires Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that manner in which Appropriate Commission is to determine tariff. Section 62(6) provides that if any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.
Case Title: Prateek Shukla vs. Union Of India And 21 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 318 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 975 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 318
A public interest litigation was filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking constitution of a judicial committee comprising of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court for recovering the money and assets which have been embezzled and “looted” from the Union and State Exchequers.
One Prateek Shukla filed the PIL alleging that more than Rs. 100 Lakh crore had been embezzled by the bureaucrats, politicians, individuals and businessmen since the independence of India. Petitioner pleaded that though he had filed RTIs in various states inquiring about the scams, no reply was given to him as the information is barred under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Title: M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319 [WRIT TAX No. - 574 of 2019]
Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Relying on its earlier decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove double movement of goods based on same documents lies on the department.
The Allahabad High Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others held that the positive burden to prove that goods had been transported on an earlier occasion lies on the Assessing Authority. The Court had observed that since no inquiries were made from the assesee, toll plaza, purchasing dealer or any other source as to whether goods had been transported earlier, presumption could not have been drawn by the authorities merely based on the e-way bill.
Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320 [WRIT TAX No. - 128 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has held that the authorities are not estopped from taking action against wrongful claim of input tax credit merely because the firms with which transactions were alleged to have been done were registered at the time of the alleged transactions.
Observing that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that “mere fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier been granted to the petitioner merely because the firms were registered, would not create any estoppel against the authority taking appropriate action for claiming refund of the benefit wrongly availed by the petitioner on the ground of receiving inward supplies from non-existent firms.”
Case Title: Dheeraj vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321 [First Appeal No. 373 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321
The Allahabad High Court has held that “ordinary residence” of minor under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 will not include the temporary residence where the minor may have moved temporarily, even for education, at the time of filing of application for custody under the Act.
Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides that application regarding guardianship of the person of the minor shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 provide the jurisdiction when application is sought to be made for the property of the minor.
Case Title: Gaursons Promoters P. Ltd. vs. Aakash Engineers And Contractors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 144 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has held that though a legal issue going to the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in appellate proceedings but the same is dependent on the facts of the case.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held
“There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that a legal issue going into the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in the appellate proceedings. However, the question is dependent upon the facts of a particular case.”
Case Title: Nirankar Dutt Tyagi and Anr. vs. N.H.I. Unit Dehradun and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 593 of 2023 ]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323
While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has held that a delay in filling the appeal could not be condoned without finding compelling reasons for the same.
Case Title: M/S Moksh Innovations Inc. Lko. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E City Property Management And Services (P) Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Property Manager And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable.
The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed by Section 11(7) is still in force.
Case Title: Sh. Dharmveer Tyagi And Others vs. Competent Authority, Dfcc, Special Land Acquisition (Joint Officer Organization) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 257 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral award. Proviso to Section 34(3) empowers Court to condone a delay of 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is show, “but not thereafter.”
Case Title: Tirthraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326 [WRIT - A No. - 8517 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 which was added by way of amendment in 2016 was added a beneficiary scheme for teachers who had spent decades serving as teachers.
The provision governs substantive appointments of teachers on posts other than that of the Principal/ Headmaster. Sub-section (a) thereof provides for regularization of teacher, other than the principal or headmaster, who has been appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturers grade or trained graduate grade, on or after 7.8.1993, but not later than 25.1.1999 on short term Vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 198, which was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy.
Case Title: The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327 [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 35 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the acceptance of books of accounts by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have not been objected to by the Assessing Authority before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disturb the gross profit rate as declared by the assesee.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“in absence of any other objection found in the books of accounts of the assessee as may have been pressed before the Tribunal, there survives no room to reject the books of accounts of the assessee. Consequently, there is no intrinsic evidence to enhance the gross profit rate. Once the books of accounts of an assessee are found accepted the Assessing Officer may have remained within the confines of his powers ad not disturbed the gross profit rate as that would remain in the nature of the result of the book entries and not an original entry by itself.”
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328 [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No.123 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has held that plant and machinery sold after the closure of business are capital goods under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and are excluded from levy of tax under the amended definition of 'business' under Section 2(e) of the Act.
The definition of 'business' under Section 2(e)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was amended in 2014 to include any transaction, even after the closure of business, if it relates to sale of goods acquired during the period in which business was carried out. Section 2(f) defines 'capital goods' as plant, machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tool, appliance or electrical installation used for manufacture or processing of any goods for sale by the dealer.
Case Title: Smt. Shivani Chaurasia And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329 [WRIT – C No. 13775 OF 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court has held that the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are quasi-judicial in nature and unless statute specifically provides, the Collector (Stamp) has no power to review or recall his order.
The Court held that no statutory power to review/ recall its order has been given to the Collector (Stamp) under the Indian Stamp Act.
“Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs UP Jal Nigam and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator.
While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger bench, the High Court held that the current position continued to be governed by previous judgments such as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar S/O Ram Khelawan Singh And Anr. v. Union Of India Thru Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 331 [WRIT - C No. - 6856 of 2009]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High Court has held that the practice of Electro Homeopathy is not banned in the State of Uttar Pradesh but such practitioners of electro homeopathy cannot use 'doctor' prefix before their names.
The bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla further held that the practice will be governed by Government order dated 25.11.2003. It said,
“although no institution can confer a diploma or degree in Electro Homeopathy, however, as there is no ban, the petitioners can always practice Electro Homeopathy as an alternative therapy within the parameters of order dated 25.11.2003. This Court also finds that in the absence of any statutory provisions, there could not be any conferring of diploma or degrees in Electropathy or Electro Homeopathy in India, however, there is no bar in issuance of Certificate for the said study.”
Case title - Alka Sethi And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Expressing its concerns regarding the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings against a couple initiated allegedly at the behest of a government servant.
“This Court will be failing in its duty, if such kind of activities are allowed to take place in the State of U.P. by none other than the government servant. Here the connivance of land mafias, the Revenue Officers and the then S.H.O. seems to be playing a major role, wherein a couple has wrongly been implicated in the criminal proceedings and they have been forced to run from pillar to post,” a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar observed as it allowed a quashing plea filed by one Alka Sethi and her husband (Dhruv Sethi).
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 333
While quashing criminal complaints against the relatives of the husband, the Allahabad High Court observed that though the demand of dowry is a punishable offence, taunting for giving less dowry is not a penal offence by itself.
The Court held that allegations against the family members must be clear and unambiguous, highlighting the specific roles played by each member to attract criminal prosecution.
Case Title: Ram Bahal and others v. D.D.C. And Others [WRIT - B No. - 3434 of 1981]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in Hindu family land disputes, the person claiming the property in question to be a Joint Hindu Family Property would have the initial burden of proof to establish the same.
The Court relied on Kunj Bihari v. Ganga Sahai Pande where Allahabad High Court held that “The legal proposition which emerges therefrom is that initial burden is on the person who claims that it is joint family property but after initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the party claiming that the property was self acquired and without the aid of joint family property.”
Case title - Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) only if it is committed in public view.
A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while quashing Criminal proceedings against the 3 persons (applicants) in respect of offence under sections 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act.
Allahabad High Court Orders Police Protection For Man In Live-In Relationship With A Trans Woman
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Affirming the right of individuals to live their lives freely, including choosing their partners, the Allahabad High Court recently ordered police protection for a man involved in a live-in relationship with a transwoman.
In its order, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh asserted that living with a person of one's choice is one sphere of life where Constitutional Courts “positively enforce the Constitutional law dictate, to negate and contain any societal prejudices” that may otherwise violate a citizen's fundamental rights.
Case Title: M/S Devi Dayal Trust And Others V. M/S Rajhans Towers Pvt. Ltd. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 2199 OF 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.
Section 42 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in Part-I of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under Part-I has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Sirohi v. State Of U P And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 338 [WRIT - A No. - 10665 of 2021]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 338
While upholding dismissal of judicial officer on charges of demand of dowry and trying to influence his subordinate in a case instituted by his wife, the Allahabad High Court held that Disciplinary Authority being Full Court of the High Court is not obligated to supply reasons for rejecting the comments made by the delinquent judicial officer on the inquiry report.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others, and the decision of a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Madhav Prasad v. Deputy Director, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the Disciplinary Authority / Full Court was not obligated to record its express reasons-to reject the representation made by the delinquent or to accept the Inquiry Report or to award particular penalty.”
Case title - Manoj Kumar Gupta And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 339
While quashing an FIR lodged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda against the serving officials of the state's Electricity Department, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday made strong remarks about the Judicial officer's conduct.
A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that CJM Banda Bhagwan Das Gupta levelled “wild and tailored” allegations of fraud, cheating, fabrication of documents, and extortion of money against the officials “to teach a bitter lesson” to them and to make them “understand the power and position of a CJM.
Case title - Bhudev vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 340
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 340
The Allahabad High Court censured an Investigating Official for hastily filing a chargesheet under Section 306 IPC after dropping the charge under Section 302 IPC, initially specified in the FIR.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further directed the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Agra, to send the IO for special training to prepare him for investigating offences, especially under Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar And 2 Others v. Board OfRevenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial And 10 Others [WRIT - B No. - 523 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a party for trying to grab the land of a widow by filing false affidavit before various quasi-judicial authorities. The Court held that the petitioners had misused the process of law by intentionally defrauding the authorities.
Case Title: Ishita Dua v. Tarun Kumar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 342 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 374 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court has held that withdrawal of divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not automatically abate the counterclaim filed by the husband as dismissal or discontinuance of a suit under Order VIII Rule 6D CPC includes withdrawal of suit as a suit is “dismissed as withdrawn”.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held
“Insofar as the term 'discontinued or dismissed' is concerned. Once the withdrawal application is allowed, the suit stands discontinued for all practical purposes. Even otherwise, the withdrawal of the suit is always as dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, withdrawal of the suit would fall within the two words, i.e., 'discontinued or dismissed'.”
Case title - Rajiv Malhotra vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has unequivocally ruled that a demand notice sent to the cheque drawer via courier service is valid in cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The court, however, made it clear that in cases of notice sent through courier, the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked until an amendment is made under the said provision to include the courier service apart from the registered post.
Case Title: M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1368 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court has held that the limitations prescribed under special statutes, such as Finance Act, 1994 will prevail over the limitations mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court held that statutes such as the Finance Act, 1994 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 were enabled to address specific areas of law and that they often contained detailed provisions regarding procedural aspects such as limitation.
Case title - Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court stayed the conviction of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in connection with the fake birth certificate case.
However, the court did not suspend the conviction of his wife (Tanzeen Fatima) and son (Abdullah Azam), though their pleas for suspension of the sentence were allowed, and all three were granted bail.
However, Azam Khan and his son will remain in jail due to a pending case against them and only his wife will be released from jail.
Case Title: Chandrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 346 [WRIT - A No. - 19066 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court has held that government employees would not be entitled to Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) after their retirement. The Court held that Assured Career Progressions are distinct from Increments and cannot be awarded in the same way.
“If a government servant, who has already retired from service and becomes entitled to his ACP, a day after his retirement, he too has no right to it,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Shivam Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 347
While entertaining a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court awarded two additional marks to a candidate who had appeared for the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2022, thereby qualifying him for selection. The Court further directed for the petitioner's selection against the vacancies available in the General Category, for which he was eligible.
Case title - Mange @ Ravindra vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court has raised a grave concern over the escalating issue of storing and circulating indecent videos of women, deeming it a serious menace to society.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also said that the poor quality of investigations into I.T.-related offences and cyber offences is becoming a “major fault line” in the functioning of investigations.
Case Title: Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 8 of 2020]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 349
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.
Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be delivered to each party.
Case Title: Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 350 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2475 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.
Case Title: Ns Agro And Engineering Products v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT TAX No. - 672 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 351
While dealing with the non-compliance of mandatory provision for opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Allahabad High Court directed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh to take remedial action, including disciplinary proceedings against erring adjudicating authorities for violating principles of natural justice without justifiable reasons.
Case Title: Rahul Sachan v. Income Tax Officer [WRIT TAX No. - 799 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has held that a pointwise consideration of objections that may be raised by an assessee in response to a notice issued to him under Section 148 A(b) is not necessary while passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relates to procedure of inquiry to be followed by an Assessing Officer prior to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for income that may have escaped assessment. Section 148A provides an opportunity of hearing to the assesee before deciding whether a case for reassessment of tax returns can be made against an assessee by an assessing officer.
Case title - Vijay Kumar vs. State Of Up Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the cheque is dishonoured and returned with the endorsements - case referred to drawer, instruction for stoppage of payment, exceeds arrangement, insufficient fund, signature differed or mismatch or account closed - then it will be sufficient for prima facie case for issuing process under Section 138 NI Act.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that despite the bank's above-mentioned endorsements for returning the cheque, summoning the cheque drawer under Section 138 of the NI Act is proper.
Option Once Exercised For A Financial Year May Not Be Withdrawn Midway: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court has held that an option, once exercised for a financial year, may not be withdrawn midway.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh has observed that the only recourse that applicant may have taken may be to apply to the jurisdictional authority to discontinue the benefit of the compounding scheme from the beginning of the next financial year, i.e., 1.4.1998. For the option to be exercised, the applicant ought to have made that application before the date i.e. 1.4.1998, and in any case before making the deposit of the compounding fee for the month of April, 1998. Having done otherwise, the applicant lost the opportunity to withdraw from the compounding scheme for the financial year 1998–99.
Case Title: Ram Pratap Singh v. Union of India and 4 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 345 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Allahabad High Court upheld the recruitment process adopted by IIT-Kanpur for the post Executive Engineer as no challenge to the parent IIT Rules, 2018 was made by the appellant. The Court held that IIT-Kanpur, being the employer, is empowered to make rules for recruitment of its staff as it is within its expertise as to what the institution requires.
Observing that IIT Kanpur is a premier institution in the country, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,
“Prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the authority. It is not open to the Courts to direct the authority to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.”
Case Title: Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court has held that the franchise agreement granted a non-exclusive licence rather than a transfer of the right to use goods and the transaction does not attract Value Added Tax under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (UPVAT Act).
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has observed that the respondent-department had received royalty amount from various dealers under the franchise agreement and service tax has been duly paid by it on the same. If the payments have been subjected to service tax, they cannot be recharacterized as the sale of goods to levy VAT or sales tax.
Failure To Cite Judgment Does Not Render Original Judgement Flawed: Allahabad High Court
Case No.: M/S Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has observed that the review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgement; rather, it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgement does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 479 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 148A of the Income tax Act, 1961 are summary in nature. The Court held that at the stage of passing order under Section 148A(d), the Assessing Authority has to only see if it is a “fit case” for initiation of reassessment proceedings or not.
The Court held that the Assessing Authority need not go into the correctness of the material but only record its satisfaction as to the relevancy of the material for assuming jurisdiction for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.
Allahabad HC Denies Bail To 'Maulvi' Accused Of Forcibly Changing Religion Of Mentally Unsound Minor
Case title - Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd Shad vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13628 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a mosque Maulvi accused of enticing a mentally unsound minor boy and forcibly keeping him in a 'Madarsa' after changing his religion.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain denied him relief, noting that there are specific allegations against the accused and the alleged victim also made allegations against him in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Case Title: M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360 [WRIT TAX No. - 1348 of 2022]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court has held that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be penalized by the authorities for reaching its destination in less time than estimated by travelling at a higher speed when there is no intention to evade tax.
Clause 2.4 of the Circular issued by Commissioner, State Tax dated 17.01.2024 provides that Over Dimensional Cargo cannot be detained and penalty cannot be imposed only because the goods have reached the intended place earlier than the estimated time.
Case Title: Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 339 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and amendments to applications made to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act are allowed to be made.
“The proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complain/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provisions, as a necessary concomitant,” held Justice Dr.Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
Case title - Monu Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the mere performance of an obscene or indecent act is not sufficient; further proof must establish that it was to the annoyance of others, as 'annoyance to others' is essential to constitute an offence under this section.
The Court added that when the section says "annoyance to others" is a prerequisite to invoking the provision, the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se" will not arise until or unless there is evidence on record to show whether a person at a given time witnessing a particular obscene act was annoyed or not.
Case Title: Ankit Singh And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10631 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Allahabad High Court has elucidated on provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and observed that groom and his family are being prosecuted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 merely based on the statements made by the bride and her family. However, due to the bar under Section 7(3), no action is being taken against the bride and her family for giving the dowry which is also an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.”
Case title - Gaurav Yadav @ Phadka vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted of raping a 5-year-old girl from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment considering his 'precarious' financial situation, as it noted that his mother is a vegetable seller and there is no other earning member in the family.
Additionally, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi considered that the convict is a first offender, and the possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out.
Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 33 of 2022]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.
“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on the appellant to ensure that necessary precautions and timely measures are in place to prevent such eventualities from affecting crucial legal processes. The appellant's advocate, being a legal professional, is expected to maintain a higher standard of care in managing case files, especially those that are time- sensitive,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case title - Anoop Srivastava 10 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the FIRs lodged against the office bearers of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha by the District Administration, Agra under Sections 147, 332, 353, 447 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Law 1932 & Section 11 Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act 1960.
The bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi relied on the earlier order of the Allahabad High Court in Radhasoami Satsang Sabha v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others, wherein the demolition orders passed by the Tehsildar, Agra against Radhasoami Satsang Sabha were set aside on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
