Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 - April 21, 2024
Sparsh Upadhyay
22 April 2024 8:53 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237 Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238 Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239 Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240 State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh 2024...
NOMINAL INDEX
Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239
Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241
Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242
Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245
Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case Title: Ram Pal Soni And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237 [WRIT - C No. - 13556 of 2021]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 237
The Allahabad High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain application under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be based solely on the location of the secured asset.
The bench comprising of Justice Jaspreet Singh and Justice Manish Mathur held that the DRT in whose jurisdiction part cause of action has arisen shall also have jurisdiction over applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Case title - Gurmeher Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 238
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibit the proceeding u/s 138/141 NI Act only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus while dismissing a plea moved by one Gurmeher Singh challenging the proceeding of a Complaint Case u/s 138 NI Act pending before Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Gorakhpur.
Case title - Aman @ Vansh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2322 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 239
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the police authorities/investigation officers must ensure that in every POCSO Act case, a medical report determining the victim's age is drawn up at the outset under the mandate of Section 164A of CrPC read with Section 27 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the same is submitted to the Court without any delay.
The Court directed thus while noting that the discrepancies in the victim's age in POCSO cases can substantially affect the rights and liberties of the accused.
Case title - Riyaz Alias Ovaisi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12653 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 240
Considering his unconditional apology tendered in the police station, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Riyaz alias Ovaisi, who has been accused of abusing Lord Rama on Facebook.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him the relief while noting that the accused does not have any prior criminal record and has been in custody since January 28, 2024. The Court also considered that all alleged offenses against him carry a maximum punishment of three years.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Shri Raj Veer Singh [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6346 OF 2022]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 241
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for raising objections under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds which were decided in application under Section 34 but were not raised in appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
While dismissing the appeal, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“The tactics employed by the Petitioners (State of Uttar Pradesh) characterized by their persistent delay and obstructionist behaviour, merit unequivocal condemnation and necessitate the imposition of substantial costs. Delay tactics serve to perpetuate injustice by denying parties their rightful entitlements.”
Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. M/S Yauk Engineers [Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No.389 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 242
The Allahabad High Court has held that interference in an arbitral award on grounds of violation of public policy can be done if it is against the substantive provisions of the Act.
The Court held that interference in arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of 'public policy' must be cautiously done as it can lead to excessive judicial review due the subjective and broad interpretation of 'public policy.'
Case title - Meena Anand vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 243
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a condition imposed by a Special Anti-Corruption Court on an accused in a money laundering case, directing her to deposit a staggering ₹2.5 crore to secure anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh granted relief to Meena Anand, taking note of the Supreme Court's various rulings against the imposition of onerous bail conditions.
Case title – Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 244
The Allahabad High Court directed the passport authorities to decide the application moved by Actress Sapna Choudhary for renewal/re-issue of her passport and pass an order within 1 month.
Asserting that the right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed set aside an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court's order refusing 'no objection' certificate for issuance of Passport.
Case Title: Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 10451 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is fear in the District Judiciary in deciding cases as it may lead to administrative complaints and subsequent transfers.
“They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences. It is difficult for a Judge in the Civil Court to exercise his jurisdiction freely, if he constantly works not just aware of the professional routine of having his orders overturned by a superior Court, but the personal peril of harm to his career, if he were to pass orders of effective consequence which his conscience says he must,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case title – Shreya Verma And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings in connection with a case against a Samajwadi Party (SP) leader and former UP Minister's daughter, Shreya Verma, who was accused of canvassing for his father in the Uttar Pradesh Vidhansabha elections of 2022 without obtaining the necessary permission.
A Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed found faults with the registration of the FIR against Verma and others under Sections 171H and 188 IPC. It observed that the police investigation, in this case, was without jurisdiction, and based on such an invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was also illegal.
Case title – Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
The Allahabad High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to a man illegally detained for three days due to an 'arbitrary' act of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted in Jaunpur District.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I also directed the payment of litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/—to the man/petitioner in view of the HC's judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State Of U.P. and 3 Others 2021.
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Agarwal vs. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [WRIT TAX No. - 1597 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.
The Court held that the word “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) is directory in nature as no stipulation is made for the automatic release of goods after the period of 120 days. It held that a levy of interest on the seized asset contemplated under Section 132B (4) does not make the “shall” in 2nd proviso to Section 132B (1)(i) mandatory in nature.
Case Title: M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249 [WRIT TAX No. - 1238 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249
The Allahabad High Court has held that Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal had not issued a general mandamus quashing all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the order of Supreme Court was limited to those notices which had been challenged before the Apex Court and various High Courts in India.
In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the Union Government had challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court quashing the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue under Section 148 as being barred by the Finance Act 2021 which had introduced new provisions regarding reassessment proceedings with effect from 01.04.2021.
Case title - Owais Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 250
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a criminal case against one Owais Khan accused of making derogatory remarks about Lord Shiva on social media, citing it as a "deliberate act of religious vilification".
"It is incumbent upon the judiciary to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences," stated a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar as he stressed the importance of maintaining respect for religious beliefs of various communities.
Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [WRIT TAX No. - 520 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251
While quashing the enhanced assessment order regarding house tax passed by the authorities, the Allahabad High Court held that the authorities acted in undue haste by giving one day's notice for the hearing, which is not sufficient notice.
A notice regarding the enhancement of house tax was issued by the Department on 14.03.2024, fixing 16.03.2024 as the date for the hearing. The notice was served upon an employee of the petitioner on 15.03.2024. On the date of the hearing, the petitioner appeared before the tax Superintendent and sought 20 days adjournment.
Case Title: Sheel Mohan Bansal V. State Of U.P And 2 Others [WRIT C No. 18282 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 252
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked where the property has been transferred by way of gift deed as Section 47-A is applicable to those instruments where stamp duty has been determined based on “market value” and not “value of the property” as is the case in a gift deed.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act provides that if the market value of the property stated in an instrument is less than the minimum value determined under the Act, the registering officer shall refer the same to the Collector for determining the market value and the duty payable on such instrument before registering it.
