0

2019 Hate Speech Case: Allahabad High Court Issues Notice To SP Leader Azam Khan In UP Govt’s Appeal Challenging His Acquittal

CASE TITLE:  State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Azam Khan S/O Mohammad Mumtaj Khan [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. – 339 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 03.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

APPELLANT: – State of U.P.

RESPONDENT: – Mohammad Azam Khan S/O Mohammad Mumtaj Khan

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: – Ashutosh Kumar Sand

INTRODUCTION:

The Allahabad High Court has served a notice to Azam Khan, a leader from the Samajwadi Party, in response to the Uttar Pradesh Government’s appeal against a Rampur Court’s decision to acquit Khan in a hate speech case from 2019. The hate speech incident resulted in his disqualification as an MLA the previous year. The bench, presided by Justice Raj Beer Singh, heard the appeal on Thursday and has requested the trial court’s records, along with the appellate records. The case will be further heard on September 27, 2023.

FACTS:

In May of this year, the Additional District and Sessions Judge Amitveer Singh overturned an October 2022 verdict from a special MP/MLA court in Rampur district, which had sentenced Azam Khan to three years in prison. The conviction stemmed from Khan’s provocative remarks against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, and the then DM of Rampur, Aunjaneya K. Singh, during the campaigning of the Lok Sabha Elections 2019. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found him guilty of offenses under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between two groups), 505 (statement conducing to public mischief) of IPC, and Section 125 of the Representation of People Act 1951. An FIR was lodged against Khan after the returning officer took cognizance of the matter upon receiving a complaint.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

Following his conviction in the case, Khan faced disqualification as a member of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly in accordance with the Representation of the People Act. Consequently, a by-poll was held, and the BJP’s Akash Saxena emerged victorious in the election last year.

However, Khan appealed the verdict, and the Additional District and Sessions Judge subsequently acquitted him. In response to this acquittal, the Uttar Pradesh Government has taken the matter to the High Court, challenging the ADJ’s order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

 

 

0

Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted 26 Years After Employee’s Death: Allahabad High Court

CASE TITLE: Avnish Tandon vs. Assistant General Manager [Writ A No. 10831 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 12.07.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble J.J. Munir,J.

PETITIONER: – Avnish Tandon

RESPONDENT: – Assistant General Manager

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: – Sharad Tandon

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: – Anadi Krishna Narayana

INTRODUCTION

The Allahabad High Court ruled that compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the immediate hardships faced by a family following the untimely demise of the earning member. However, such an appointment cannot be granted after a period of 26 years has passed since the employee’s death.

FACTS:

The Petitioner’s mother served as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the former Bareilly Corporation Bank (BCB) and passed away while still in service on November 12, 1996, leaving behind a minor son and daughter. The Petitioner, after completing graduation in 2007, applied for compassionate appointment in Bank of Baroda (BOB) following the merger of the two entities in 1999. In 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Bank to consider their claim.

The Court directed BOB to review the claim but emphasized that the application was significantly delayed, and the directions were given solely because BOB had invited the Petitioner to apply. After the Bank rejected the Petitioner’s application, the current petition was filed.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The High Court ruled that despite the petitioner having been asserting his claim since 2007, he failed to take any action to enforce his rights. Due to the substantial delay of fifteen years in approaching the Court (from 2007 to 2022 when the initial approach was made), the Court could not grant any relief.

Upon dismissing the writ petition, the Court noted that any financial hardships that might have arisen due to the death of the petitioner’s mother no longer exist at this point.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgment.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

0

Reliance On Wrong Precedent Renders Decision ‘Erroneous’, Can’t Be Corrected Under ‘Review Jurisdiction’: Allahabad High Court

CASE TITLE: M/S Vaid Organics and Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. – 41 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 31.07.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon’ble Manish Kumar,J.

APPLICANT: – M/S Vaid Organics and Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh

OPPOSITE PARTY: – State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: – Piyush Kumar Agarwal,Akhilesh Kumar Kalra

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: – Kartikey Dubey

INTRODUCTION:

While denying a review petition, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that a review cannot be granted solely based on the argument that the previous bench relied on an allegedly incorrect precedent from the Apex Court. The court clarified that review jurisdiction is only applicable when there is a clear and evident error on the record.

FACTS:

The Applicant received extensions to establish new industries, but they failed to meet the terms of the lease agreement. Consequently, UPSIDC terminated the lease. Subsequently, the Applicant contested the lease termination before the Allahabad High Court.

The Writ Court, basing its decision on the Supreme Court’s ruling in ITC Limited v. State of UP (2011), rejected the petition. The court observed that UPSIDC was established to promote industrialization, generate employment, and improve the economy. As the Applicant repeatedly failed to adhere to the lease agreement conditions despite receiving ample time extensions, it negatively impacted industrial development. Thus, the court upheld the validity of UPSIDC’s decision to terminate the lease.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The Court ruled that the Appellate Court has the authority to rectify an erroneous judgment made by the High Court. During a review, the Court’s focus is limited to identifying any evident errors present in the case record. If the Court has mistakenly based its decision on a Supreme Court judgment and committed an error in the order, such correction can be carried out in the Appellate jurisdiction rather than by a bench conducting a review of its own judgment.

Consequently, the termination of the allotment by UPSIDC was deemed valid, as the applicant held the property for seventeen years without undertaking any construction, development, or employment generation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

0

GST | SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MUST CONTAIN FOUNDATION OF CASE ON WHICH ACTION IS NECESSITATED: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

CASE TITLE:  M/S Abhay Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and Another (WRIT TAX No. – 1265 of 2022)

DECIDED ON: 14.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

PETITIONER: – M/S Abhay Traders

RESPONDENT: – Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and Another

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: – Aloke Kumar

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: – C.S.C.,Ankur Agarwal,Gopal Verma

INTRODUCTION:

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a show cause notice must include the grounds on which the action is being initiated. If the show cause notice is deemed adequate, the assessee has the option to respond and raise objections before the relevant authorities.

In the present case, the petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, stating that Input Tax Credit was incorrectly claimed by the petitioner based on purchases from a fictitious firm. The petitioner was required to provide reasons as to why tax and penalty should not be imposed on them.

FACTS:

The counsel representing the petitioner asserted that the show cause notice lacked clarity and was not in accordance with the law. They argued that it was solely based on the report from the Special Investigation Branch.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the Department contended that the proceedings had not been initiated yet, and the show cause notice served as an opportunity for the petitioner to respond and present objections. Additionally, they argued that further action based on the show cause notice could only be taken if it appeared to the proper officer that tax had not been paid or was underpaid, or if there were issues with Input Tax Credit due to fraudulent activities, willful statements, or concealment of facts. According to them, the writ petition was premature and should be dismissed.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Based on the precedent set in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2014) 9 SCC 105], the court emphasized that a show cause notice must explicitly state the charges against the individual under scrutiny, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that the show cause notice was not unlawful merely because the Petitioner was asked to provide reasons as to why tax and penalty should not be imposed, rather than seeking a response on the merits of the allegations. The show cause notice issued under Section 74 (1) of the 2017 Act was deemed sufficient as it contained all the necessary details and grounds for its issuance. Consequently, it cannot be invalidated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

As a result, the petition was resolved by directing the petitioner to submit their reply and objections, along with evidence related to the disputed transactions, to the concerned authorities within a month.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

0

FIRST WIFE CAN FILE APPLICATION U/S 11 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR DECLARATION OF HUSBAND’S SECOND MARRIAGE AS VOID: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

CASE TITLE: Garima Singh v. Pratima Singh and Another [First Appeal No. 623/2022]

DECIDED ON: 27.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. Hon’ble Vinod    Diwakar, J.

INTRODUCTION:

The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the entitlement of the initial wife to submit an application under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the invalidation of her husband’s second marriage. The Court’s ruling emphasizes that the Hindu Marriage Act, as a socio-welfare law, aims to safeguard the rights of the first wife. An overly narrow interpretation of the Act’s provisions would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Smt. Garima Singh, the second wife, presented her case to the high court, contending that the first wife lacks the standing to file a case under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the second wife and her deceased husband, as only the parties directly involved in the marriage agreement can seek a declaration under Section 11. The division bench had to address the legal question of whether the first wife is entitled to file a case under sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the annulment of her husband’s marriage with another woman.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The court ruled that the Hindu Marriage Act, as a social and welfare legislation, should be interpreted in a way that promotes the purpose of the law. It emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation when dealing with socio-welfare legislation.

The court disagreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Lakshmi Ammal v. Ramaswami Naicker and another. In that case, it was held that only parties directly involved in the marriage could file a Section 11 application. The court, however, stated that the first wife always has the option to file a suit to declare the husband’s second marriage as void.

The Court has now recognized that the objective of the Hindu Marriage Act is to eradicate the practice of polygamy, and therefore, it is essential to interpret and apply the law in a manner that achieves this objective. It emphasized the importance of adopting a pragmatic approach when interpreting provisions of socio-welfare legislations and subsequently dismissed the appeal filed by the Second Wife.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

1 5 6 7