Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 6 – May 12, 2024

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

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH

Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Suicide Abetment Accused In Custody For 6+ Years, Directs Trial Conclusion By Aug 31

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.

'Sets A Perilous Precedent': Allahabad HC On Non-Execution Of 100+ NBWs Against Meerut MLA In A Criminal Case

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.

License Fee Can't Be Imposed Retrospectively: Allahabad HC Directs Refund Of Deposit For Authorities' Failure To Impose Penalty For Almost 20 Yrs

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.

Allegations Of Irregularities In Disciplinary Proceedings Must Be Substantiated With Evidence: Allahabad High Court

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.

1984 Attempt To Murder Case | Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In Absence Of Trial Court Records

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.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses With Cost PIL To Enforce Demolition Order Citing Suppression Of Pending Litigation Between Private Parties

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.

[Arbitration Act] Requirement To Provide Reasons By Arbitrator U/s 31(3) Hinges On Pleadings And Available Documents On Record: Allahabad High Court

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.

[Arbitration Act] Court Can't Interfere Under Section 37 When Interpretation Is Plausible One, Section 37 Is Confined To Grounds Under Section 34: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Directs UGC, GOI To Ensure Implementation Of Guidelines For Reform Of Students Facing Disciplinary Action

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.

Entitlement To Gratuity Not Dependent On Retirement Age But Number Of Years Of Service : Allahabad High Court

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.