Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : August 12 To August 18, 2024
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
20 Aug 2024 10:08 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502 Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503 Ram Niwas Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Ram Niwas Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509
M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Gajendra Singh Negi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Geeta Devi vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Gulamuddin And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Jamna Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Orders/Judgments of the Week
Case Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court.
Case Title: Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501 [CRIMINAL WRIT-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. - 4 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner sought a declaration that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other criminal laws were violative of Article 13 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner appearing in person argued that the laws were non-reformative and more punishment oriented.
Case title - Ajeem vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 502
The Allahabad High Court observed that the purpose of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is to guarantee religious freedom to all persons, reflecting India's social harmony and spirit. The objective of this Act is to sustain the spirit of secularism in India.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further said that while the Constitution guarantees each person the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, however, this individual right does not translate into a collective right to proselytize, as religious freedom equally belongs to both the person converting and the individual being converted.
Allahabad High Court Rejects An Advocate's PIL Against Centre's Mandatory FASTag Policy
Case title - Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea moved by an advocate challenging the central government's decision to declare all the lanes in the Fee Plaza at Highways as FASTag lanes.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed thus:
“…(this) decision apparently cannot be faulted in view of fast changing scenario of the National Highways wherein in absence of FASTag facility, commuters used to line up for long hours at a particular Toll Plaza for passing through them.”
Case Title: Ram Niwas Singh And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504 [WRIT - A No. - 341 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the application of doctrine of relation back in service disputes where subsequent orders have been passed in favour of the employee relates to initial disputes.
While directing payment of salary arrears from year 1998 (date of stop order) to 2021(date when petitioners appointments were held valid), Justice Manish Mathur held that “doctrine of relation back would be applicable in service matters particularly when subsequent exoneration or order passed in favour of an employee relates to the initial dispute.”
Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505 [WRIT - C No. - 1213 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has held that after completing 5 years of PhD course, a student cannot be denied completion merely due to some alleged irregularity during the admission process.
While granting relief to the petitioner student, Justice Alok Mathur observed,
“the country is making its best efforts to grow from a developing nation to a developed one. Repeatedly, it is said that to become a developed nation huge research work is required to be conducted within the Country. Now, when the students are pursuing their research work and are at the verge of completion it is highly improper to restrain them from completing their research on legal technicalities.”
Case Title: Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506 [WRIT - C No. - 41137 of 2010]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court has held that oral gift under the Mohammedan Law which is reduced in writing on an unregistered document cannot be subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings for deficiency in stamp duty on any instrument under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A provides that where in any instrument presented for registration under the Registration Act, 1908, it is found that the market value mentioned is less than the value determined under the Stamp Act, such document shall be referred to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector proceeds to determine the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty to be paid by the party as per the conditions set in Section 47-A.
Allahabad High Court Holds Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Guilty Of Contempt
Case Title: Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507 [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 562 of 2016]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has held Retired Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 guilty of contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for assuming jurisdiction in respect of the assesee-applicant in respect of a different assessment year when the Writ Court had directed that he has no jurisdiction in respect of the assesee.
While directing one-week simple imprisonment along with file of Rs. 25,000/- against the opposite party, Justice Irshad Ali held that
“Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State.”
Case Title: M/S Bans Steel Through Its Proprietor Alpana Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508 [WRIT TAX No. - 577 of 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the goods in transit are not accompanied by proper documentation, including e-way bill, the authorities can survey the business premises of the assesee to determine the correctness of the transaction. However, it was held that if the e-way bill was produced before passing of seizure order under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, then contravention of the Act or Rules thereunder could not be claimed by the Department.
Case Title: Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 7 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509 [WRIT - A No. - 5951 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court has held that no notification transferring an employee involved in elections can be passed during the period where election notification is active except with prior permission of the State Election Commission. It was held that such transfer order is non est in law.
Petitioner was serving as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), when his transfer order issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda transferring him from Vikas Khand Wazirganj to Vikas Khand Mujehna, District-Gonda. The transfer was made pursuant to the election notification dated 15.07.2024 which notified the elections of the Panchayat.
Reply Not Considered In Totality: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Blacklisting Order
Case Title: M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510 [WRIT - C No. - 11037 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of blacklisting for indefinite period as the reply of the petitioner company was not considered in its totality but was rejected as being not satisfactory.
Observing that blacklisting has civil consequences for a company, the bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held that “an order of blacklisting is accordingly required to be passed taking into consideration all aspects and should not be passed in a casual and cavalier manner as the same has an impact on the person for which such blacklisting is done.”
Case title – Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511
While acquitting an accused in a 2006 Murder case, the Allahabad High Court observed that motive occupies a back seat where there is direct and credible evidence; however, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected, the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was essentially hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Sunil, a convict in the 2006 murder case of a woman. The Court determined that the case against the accused was not proven due to unreliable ocular testimony and a lack of a justifiable motive.
Case title – Gajendra Singh Negi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court ordered an inquiry against a judicial officer who issued a summons against two accused to face trial for the offence under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters Act, despite the officer being purportedly on leave that day.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to inquire under which circumstances the summoning order was passed and, if necessary, to call the then Presiding Officer for an explanation.
Case title – Geeta Devi vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court directed an investigation by a Senior IPC Officer into the 'mysterious' death of a 54-year-old police sub-inspector (S-I), who died in April this year after he allegedly shot himself with his service weapon at the Machhrehta police station in Sitapur.
A bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari directed the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the case's investigation is carried out by a senior IPS Officer of any other district after ensuring compliance with the top court's Lalita Kumari Judgment concerning lodging of FIR.
Case title - Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu man to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.
“Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property,” a bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam remarked.
Case title - Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rambhual Nishad And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) DISMISSED a plea moved by Senior BJP leader, former MP and Cabinet Minister Maneka Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy found the election plea to be barred by limitation, holding that Gandhi's election plea had been filed in contravention of Section 81 r/w S. 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It may be noted that Gandhi had moved the election petition with a seven-day delay.
Case title – Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Emphasizing that an accused has no right at the investigation stage, the Allahabad High Court last week said that an accused does not have the right to seek further/reinvestigation of a case by filing a plea under Section 173(8) CrPC.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed thus while relying upon the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in the case of State vs Hemendhra Reddy | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 wherein it was held that a court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation u/S. 173(8) CrPC.
Case title – Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in a particular case, if the FIR is lodged on or after July 1, 2024 (the date of commencement of 3 New Criminal Laws), for an offence committed before that date, it would be registered under the provisions of the IPC. Still, the investigation will continue as per Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court also held that in a particular case, if the investigation is pending on July 1, 2024, the investigation will continue as per the CrPC; however, the cognizance of the police report will be taken as per the procedure laid down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title – Gulamuddin And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against 6 Muslim men who had allegedly carried a Tiranga in their hands in a religious procession, on which Quranic verses (Ayat and Kalma) were inscribed.
In a prima facie observation, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the applicants' act was punishable under the Flag Code of India, 2002, and there was a violation of Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by the applicants.
Case Title: Banaras Industries vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Referring to the decision in case of Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1082 of 2022], the Allahabad High Court reiterated that even if excess stock is found at the business premises of the manufacturer, the proceedings u/s 130 of the UPGST Act cannot be initiated.
As per Section 130 of the UPGST Act, the Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. This provision lays down guidelines for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty.
Case title – Jamna Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a Pujari (Priest) who has been booked under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing unnatural sex with a 12-year-old orphan near a temple in February this year.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the victim's statements deposing as to how the alleged act had been performed by the accused, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal denied bail to the accused-applicant (Jamuna Giri).
