A227/7777 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 357
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law-The Constitution of India,1950-Artcle 227, 20(2)-Doctrine of Double jeopardy- The plea of Double Jeopardy as relied by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no application, because the respondent was neither convicted nor acquitted in any matter previously having the same set of facts--- learned court below instead of taking cognizance under Sections 279, 304A IPC has taken cognizance under Sections 304, 323, 325 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC which is well in accordance with law and is not barred by the doctrine of Double Jeopardy---Impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned court below is hereby set aside as it is not barred by Article 20(2)- (Para 23, 25-27)--Petition partly allowed. (E-15)
Title: Dharm Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Nand Prabha Shukla
English hearing
WRIA/20509 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 354
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Mandamus - Appointment - Claim made in lieu of acquisition of land - GO dated 21.09.1981, which was, later on, declared invalid, relied upon - Permissibility - Held, no lawful authority has been shown to be vested in the Gorakhpur Development Authority to create an independent policy for grant of employment to land owners beyond the terms of the Government Order dated 21.09.1981 has been shown to the Court - A mandamus cannot be issued to compel St. authorities to act in contravention of law. Judicial discipline and rule of law forbids the Court to do so. (Para 8 and 9) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Govind Prasad Nishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing
WRIA/18801 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 18-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 340
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ - Second writ petition - Maintainability - Earlier, writ petition seeking switch back from CPF Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was dismissed - Afterward a judgment with different view was passed by Delhi High Court, which got affirmed by the Apex Court too - How far can be ground of maintaining second petition with similar relief - Held, petitioners have wrongly declared that present writ petitions are their first writ petitions on the relief sought. Therefore, Court is of the view that declaration made in present writ petitions is contrary to record - Held further, only on ground that subsequently a different interpretation of law was given by a Single Bench of Delhi High Court, which was affirmed upto Supreme Court and since petitioners were approaching the authorities after these judgments, would not make a ground that said judgment is applicable to petitioners so much as that earlier judgment would not come in the way. (Para 8 and 29) B. Service Law - Contributory Provident Fund - Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 was issued giving option to change over from CPF Scheme to GPF- cum-Pension Scheme with cut off date 09.07.1998 - Option to remain in earlier Scheme was given before fixed cut-off date - Effect - Claim of being deemed to come over in GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was made - Permissibility - Held, any option given beyond 09.07.1988 would non est, however, on basis of record, none of petitioners have a case that they have opted to remain in earlier CPF Scheme on basis of above cutoff date rather their claim was taken birth only after Banaras Hindu University adopted the Scheme on 09.04.1988 and they have given option before new cut off date, i.e., 09.07.1988, therefore, the benefit of judgment in University of Delhi Vs Smt. Shashi Kiran would not be applicable. [Para 21 and 30(c)] C. Judgment in rem and Judgment in personam - Applicability of Apex Court judgment of Smt. Shashi Kiran's case, being judgment in rem, was sought - Held, judgment passed by Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs Smt. Shashi Kiran was a judgment in rem and not in personam, however, facts of each case may have different consequences. (Para 26) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Priyankar Upadhyaya Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/2359/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 26-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 332
HEADNOTE hearing
CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956- Writ Petition - challenging the Tribunal's order - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from service in year 2013 - petitioner claimed that he never received the dismissal order - which prevented him from filing an appeal or revision under Rules, 1991 - Representation in year 2016 - Rejection in year 2016 - 1st Claim petition in year 2016 - order for decide the representation of the petitioner - authority rejected the representation in year 2017 - 2nd Claim Petition in year 2018 - Tribunal dismissed said claim petition, on the grounds of delay - writ petition - Petitioner argued that rejection of representation of the petitioner gave rise to a fresh cause of action, invoking the doctrine of merger - The Court observed that, tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of limitation without appreciating that the petitioner had diligently pursued his remedies and the doctrine of merger had come into effect - and since the petitioner promptly pursued the remedies upon se5rvice of the dismissal order, the claim of the petitioner could not held to be time-barred by overlooking the scheme of statutory Rules - held, the rejection of the claim petition merely on the ground of limitation is legally unsustainable in view of the application of doctrine of merger which followed as a result of non-supply of the order passed in the year 2013 giving rise to representation under Rule 25 of Rules, 1991 - consequently, writ petition is allowed - and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits - direction issued accordingly. (Para - 28, 32, 35) Review Petition Allowed. (E-11)
Title: Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Attau Rahman Masoodi,Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
English hearing
WTAX/1287 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 324
HEADNOTE hearing
At the time of transaction- the purchaser i.e. the petitioner and the seller both were registered- registration of the selling dealer was not cancelled from its inception -the transaction was registered - the transaction in question is fully covered by the statutory documents prescribed under the Act- same supplier has filed its returns i.e. GSTR- 01 and GSTR-3B - once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction- no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner-impugned order quashed. W.P. allowed. (E-9)
Title: M/S Solvi Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
STRE/10 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 24-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 314
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - The Value Added Tax Act,2003 - Section 13 & 15-Opposite party has not sold the purchased goods and there was closing stock-until & unless the last tax period of the assessment year -during which business has been discontinued after adjustment of the tax liability by-passing the assessment order for such assessment year- if any excess amount of ITC is left, then only section 15(5) of the VAT Act will come into play and not otherwise- available ITC can only be refunded after passing of the assessment order for that assessment period in which the business was discontinued after adjustment of tax liability-Once the opposite party - registered dealers, by operation of law, discontinued its business, it was the duty cast upon the opposite party dealer to debit their ITC as contemplated under section 13(6) of the VAT Act. Revision allowed. (E-9)
Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Up Lucknow Vs. S/S Janki Industries Nai Basti, Bareilly
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
WRIA/10045 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 12-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 310
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Service Law - Back wages during the period of imprisonment - Principle of "no work no pay" - Petitioner was imprisoned from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 after a criminal case was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Anti-Corruption Department on the complaint of a private electricity consumer. Criminal case was not instituted at the behest of the Corporation/employer. By the impugned order, arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 were declined on the principle of "no work no pay." Held: The principle of "no work no pay" is subject to exception only in rare instances, such as when an employer prevents an employee from discharging duties or creates impediments thereto. In the instant case, the petitioner has no lawful entitlement to back wages during the period of his imprisonment. The Corporation/employer neither created any hindrance nor prevented the petitioner from performing his duties. Granting back wages in violation of the principle of "no work no pay" would amount to unjust enrichment of the petitioner and an unfair loss to the State exchequer. Prayer for grant of back wages rejected; however, the petitioner is entitled to continuity in service for the said period for the purposes of pension. (Para 11) Dismissed. (E-5)
Title: Shivakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing
WRIA/6586 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 302
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Service Law - Non-government aided minority Institution - Education - U.P. Non-Government Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition Rules, 1987 (amended 2016) - Rule 8 of Government Order dated 29.01.1996 (creation of posts requiring State approval) - Validity of withdrawal of financial approval for appointment/promotion of a teacher in a Madarsa - Approval granted 30 years ago cannot be withdrawn on the ground that the post was not created by the Competent Authority.(Para -23) Petitioner served as Assistant Teacher Tahtania since 1988 - receiving salary from State Exchequer since 1995 - Promoted to Assistant Teacher Fauquania in 2021 - financial approval granted but salary withheld - Respondent No. 2 withdrew financial approval citing non- sanctioned post creation without State Government permission. (Para - 4 to14) HELD: - Petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits. Approval had been granted 30 years ago and could not be withdrawn on the ground that the post had not been created by the competent authority. Petitioner had not been at fault, and there was no mention of fraud or malpractice against the petitioner, who had served for about 30 years. Impugned order was quashed. (Para -21,23,24) Petition allowed. (E-7)
Title: Shafique Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Prakash Padia
English hearing
SPLA/996 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 293
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St. University Act, 1973 - Chapter IV - Sections 13(1)(e), 16(4) & 51- Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Ordinance - Ordinance 7(c)(3): - Intra court Appeal - against order of writ court - respondent took admission in three years LLB course - said course is comprised in six semesters - respondent appeared in semester examinations conducted from time to time - the university refused to issue a mark sheet and degree to a student - writ petition - plea taken by the University that the respondent was ineligible due to exceeding the time limit for the course, despite being allowed to appear for the back-paper exam and passing it - writ court allowed the writ petition - with direction to the university to issue the mark sheet and degree - special appeal - court finds that, University failed to scrutinize the respondent's eligibility before issuing the admit card and conducting the exam, - and the respondent had passed the concerned examination and completed the LL.B. course - held, the University being a statutory body, is not supposed to play with the career of a student as per its own convenience - Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. (Para -18, 20, 22, 23, 25) Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: Registrar Mahatma Jyotibha Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arun Bhansali,Kshitij Shailendra
English hearing
SPLA/703 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 17-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 286
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rule 10 & 10(1) - Intra court Appeal - a sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher (English) fell vacant at Junior High School - The Committee of Management sought permission - granted by the Basic Education Officer - Advertisement - recruitment initiated - candidates applied - after the selection process, name of the petitioner/respondent no. 1 was recommended by selection committee - The Basic Education Officer declined approval for the selection, citing non-compliance with Rule 10 of Rules, 1978 - The rule required the recommendation of three candidates, but only two names were forwarded - petitioner challenged this decision - writ allowed - application of Legal Maxims - "Doctrine of impossibility - "Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia" (the law does not compel the impossible) and "Nemo Tenetur Ad Impossibilia" (no one is bound to do the impossible) - court finds that, - the rule is directory, not mandatory, and the Government Order in question was issued much after the Advertisement, therefore not applicable in the case, therefore, it was impossible for the Committee of Management to have sent the names of more than 3 candidates as only one candidate had turned up for the interview - held, the special appeal was dismissed as the earlier judgment had not been challenged, and the propositions of law laid down in it were accepted by the St. - hence, court upheld the validity of the selection process - appeal dismissed, accordingly. (Para - 11, 12, 13) Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Paliwal & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Nand Prabha Shukla
English hearing
WRIA/122 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 17-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 285
HEADNOTE hearing
Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical bills has been returned -on the ground that it was not be submitted within 90 days period prescribed under the Rules- if an employee has died during treatment- his wife/heirs should not be harassed for technical reasons-such a rule may at times be put to strict compliance where employee is alive-but where employee has died during treatment- such rules should not be permitted to come in the way of reimbursement of genuine claims of medical bills-the provision is liable to be held directory in nature. W.P. disposed. (E-9)
Title: Smt. Maimuna Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajit Kumar
English hearing
WRIA/52 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 03-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 272
HEADNOTE hearing
Transfer-The Disabilities Act, 2016-Transfer order impugned-petitioner's requests for transfers have been regularly acceded to by the Bank-was repeatedly given postings of his choice-was retained in one zone for more than a decade- was accommodated as a care giver to the greatest extent possible- Bank has rightly examined the extent of the disability suffered by the wife of the petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher -does her daily chores, lives with dignity, and has attained excellence in her chosen profession- transfer of the petitioner does not fall in the category of routine/rotational transfer and disentitles him to claim exemption under the transfer policy. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
Title: Ashwani Kumar Srivastava Vs. Central Bank Of India, through its Managing Director, Mumbai
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing
ABAIL/329 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 20-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 271
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 438- for the last three years the investigation of the case is going on and the applicants are cooperating in the investigation. However, the same is at the concluding stage and the investigating officer by misinterpreting Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest of the applicants. Applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when their presence would be required--- Co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail--- protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicants. (Para 6,8 & 9) Anticipatory bail application disposed of. (E-15)
Title: Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manish Mathur
English hearing
WTAX/1892 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 267
HEADNOTE hearing
Petitioner paid one time lease rent amounting to Rs.97,18,500/- to the New Okhla Development Authority ( 'NOIDA') and also paid the GST @ 18%- the NOIDA issued a tax invoice to the petitioner-he furnished his return u/s 39 of the CGST/UPGST Act- due to the mistake on the part of the NOIDA, the same was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B-proceedings were initiated u/s 61 of the CGST Act-impugned order - appeal-rejected-impugned-petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer to the mistake committed on the part of NOIDA-petitioner paid the legitimate tax to NOIDA, which was not deposited under the proper head -petitioner must be compensated by NOIDA within 15 days. W.P. disposed. (E-9)
Title: Surendra Gupta Vs. Appellate Authority State GST/Addl. Commissioner Grade II & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
WTAX/1177 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 05-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 263
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Sate Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017- Section 68 read with Rule 138 & 138A -E-way bill was generated on the same day after about three hours after the detention of the goods- petitioner was not carrying out the business at the place where the firm was registered- registration of the firm was also suo moto cancelled-post amendment in the Rule, it has become obligatory that goods should be accompanied with e-way bill -an intention to evade the tax - description of goods declared was different-goods declared were taxable @5% while the goods found on verification were taxable @18%.. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
Title: M/s Gurunanak Arecanut Traders Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
English hearing
WTAX/1022 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 03-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 253
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Goods and Services Tax Act, 2003-Sections 31 &129-Once the petitioner has failed to prove the true/ actual movement of the goods from West Bengal / Assam to Delhi, the seizure proceedings cannot be said to be unjustified-therefore, accompanying tax invoices and other documents cannot said to be genuine-glaring example of organized tax evasion- Sec 129 of the GST Act -any person transports any goods - in contravention of the Act - liable to be detained or seized- tax invoice has to be issued in terms of Section 31 of the Act, - intentionally undervalued the goods to take wrong advantage of Rule 138 which dispense the requirement of e -way bill accompany the goods- the seizure proceedings cannot be said to be unjustified. W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
Title: M/s Jaya Traders Vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade-II & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
WTAX/147 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 04-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 246
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Tax Law - Entertainment Tax - Multiplex Cinema - Incentive Scheme - 10% of the amount of grant-in-aid and interest was directed to be deposited for re-examining the case - Validity challenged - Held, the demand to deposit 10% of the total grant-in-aid concession provided to the petitioner, for hearing of the representation is neither founded in the statute nor the same is at an appellate stage. (Para 9 & 15) B. Tax Law - Principle of natural justice - Applicability - No opportunity of hearing was given before directing to deposit 10% of the amount of grant-in-aid - Effect - Held, demand of payment of 10% of the grant-in-aid does give rise to civil consequences and would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. In any case, an opportunity of being heard is one of the most important component of 'principle of Natural Justice' - No order prejudicing the interest of a person resulting in civil consequences can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. (Para 17 and 18) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Title: Ashok Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
WRIB/15451/1996 Judgment/Order Date: 04-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 240
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 122B(4- F)-The petitioners belonging to dthe Scheduled caste community, were granted the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act,1950 in respect of Gaon Sabha land vide orders dated 31.01.1994 and 20.01.1994-Their names were accordingly recorded in the revenue records as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights- Subsequently, the District Government counsel filed a recall application, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17.09.1994, setting aside the original allotment order-The Board of Revenue, upon reference from the Additional Commissioner recommending restoration of the petitioner's rights, rejected the same vide order dated 25.01.1996-The court held that once the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) is granted, the proper procedure to challenge the same is through proceedings u/s 198(4) of the Act,1950 and not by way of recall/restoration applications-The recall application filed by the DGC was therefore not maintainable-Reliance was placed on Navami Lal Vs. State, Smt. Reshma Devi Vs. Commissioner and the Supreme court judgment in Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue which affirmed the substantive and procedural rights of Scheduled caste agricultural labourers u/s 122B(4-F)-The orders dated 17.09.1994(SDO) and 25.01.1996(Board of Revenue) are set aside.(Para 1 to 15) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Rama Shanker & Ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Chandra Kumar Rai
English hearing
WRIB/4405 /1985 Judgment/Order Date: 03-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 223
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law -U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953-Section 9(A-2)-Co- tenancy and Succession rights-Adverse possession -Family settlement-Mutation proceedings-The dispute concerned Khata No.s5 and 41 in Village Pipra Ekdanga, District Gonda-Upon commencement of consolidation , names of Agya Ram, Parag, and Smt. Chhitna were recorded with shares-Smt. Yashodhara(daughter of Hardwar) filed objections claiming co- tenancy with her sister Chhitna-Agya Ram and Parag also claimed larger shares based on a compromise deed (1959) and a family settlement, asserting the land was ancestral property from one Matai-The Consolidation Officer held the property was self-acquired by Hardwar and devolved upon his daughters, Smt. Yashodra and Smt. Chhitna, under section 171 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act,1950, granting each 1/3rd share alongside the petitioners-The Settlement Officer on appeal altered this, excluding Agya Ram and Parag entirely and distributing the property equally between Chinta and Yashodhra's heirs-The Deputy Director of consolidation upheld this, rejecting the compromise and family settlement for lack of evidence and held that possession alone does not establish title or adverse possession-The court held that the property was not proved to be ancestral- the compromise of 1959 was unproved and non-binding, especially in mutation proceedings-The plea of adverse possession failed due to contradictory pleadings, lack of evidence, and non- fulfillment of legal requirements-The family settlement was not credible, lacked proper documentation and excluded key parties like Smt. Yashodhara-The writ petitions were devoid of merit and were accordingly dismissed-The orders of the Consolidation authorities were upheld.(Para 1 to 46) The writ petitions are dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Agya Ram Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Jaspreet Singh
English hearing
WRIB/1261/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 19-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 219
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950- Article 226-U.P. Revenue Code,2006- Sections 210 & 212-Maintainability of revision-Transfer of revenue case- Concurrent jurisdiction-The petitioner challenged an order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, which had allowed a revision filed u/s 210 of U.P. Revenue Code,2006, against a transfer order u/s 212(2) of the same code-Learned single Judge referred the matter to a Larger Bench-The Division Bench held that a revision petition is maintainable against such order as section 210 provides revisional jurisdiction over proceedings where no appeal lies, and an order u/s 212(2) is not appealable under the code-The bench further clarified that the earlier view taken in Sharda Singh Case which held that no revisional jurisdiction existed over such transfer orders, does not lay down the correct law- The reference was answered accordingly, affirming the maintainability of revision in such cases. (Para 1 to 21) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
Title: Smt. Sushila Srivastava Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arun Bhansali,Jaspreet Singh
English hearing
WRIA/63857/2007 Judgment/Order Date: 03-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 211
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Termination - Principle of natural justice - Appointment on probation - Allegation of not discharging the duty diligently was made - Chargesheet was submitted to the petitioner, and the same was not denied - Submissions as made earlier on a notice was reiterated - Effect - Held, at this stage principles of natural justice were substantially complied with. (Para 22) B. Service Law - Termination - Allegation of not discharging the duties as Assistant Teacher, Vyayam diligently and of disturbing the normal working of college was made - The allegation has not been specifically denied on the basis of relevant material and St.ments of witnesses recorded during inquiry - Effect - Held, it is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal - However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary - If he was terminated without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his termination and even in such matters if the principles of natural justice were followed and there was no deficiency of the procedure, the writ Court would not inclined to interfere. (Para 24 and 25) One writ petition dismissed and another writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/26967/2008 Judgment/Order Date: 04-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 206
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Payment of salary - Long term appointment - Principle of equity - Application - Appointment made against 14 sanctioned post out of 25 claimed posts - One set of petitioners were found to be working and there is also interim order in their favour - Long term appointment made against sanctioned posts, how far liable to be protected - Held, considering that these writ petitions are pending for last more than 17 years and first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain Ram & ors., have served and now must have attained age of superannuation, therefore, taking note of principle of equity, their services if now disturbed, it would be an inhuman approach of this Court and that should be avoided - Such long appointment even if irregular be protected - Radhey Shyam Yadav's case relied upon. (Para 17 and 19) One set of writ petitions allowed & anr.set of writ petitions dismissed. (E-1)
Title: Ram Narain Ram & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
WRIA/11524 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 03-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 191
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings challenged and imposition of major penalty - Invalid Inquiry - Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7,13 - Failure to hold oral inquiry and prove charges by evidence -U.P. Civil Services Regulations - Article 351-A - post-retirement disciplinary action - against a government servant - U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 - Section 4 - remedy before Tribunal - In all major penalty matters, charges have to be proved by production of evidence in the first instance by the employer - Inquiry Officer cannot return findings by merely reading the charge- sheet and the reply of the charge-sheeted employee; evidence, both oral and documentary, must be produced by the establishment and witnesses cross- examined - Departmental inquiry must strictly follow the procedure laid down in Rule 7; failure to do so vitiates the entire proceedings - Non-consideration of Article 351-A renders denial of emoluments legally vulnerable. (Para -2,10,13,35) Petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him - earlier remanded for de novo inquiry by Tribunal - Inquiry Officer failed to fix date, time, and place for inquiry - No oral evidence was led by establishment - No opportunity given to petitioner to cross-examine witnesses - Inquiry Officer erroneously assumed that charges stood proved based on documents and petitioner's reply alone - Inquiry Officer was bound to require establishment to prove charges by leading oral and documentary evidence - Breach of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Violated salutary principles of natural justice - Disciplinary authority passed order of reduction to basic pay - later amended to denial of salary for dismissal period as petitioner retired during pendency of proceedings.(Paras 24 to 32) HELD: - After retirement, only the Governor had the authority to impose punishment under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Punishment imposed was not permissible either under Rule 3 of Rules of 1999 or under Article 351-A. Respondents were held incompetent to pass any punitive order based on a flawed inquiry report. Fresh inquiry could be held only in accordance with Rule 7 and salutary principles. Any punishment, if warranted, could only be imposed by the Governor under Article 351-A. impugned orders were quashed. (Para -33 to 37) Petition allowed. (E-7)
Title: Jagmohan Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIA/7683 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 05-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 187
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P. Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-charge or on Contract in Government on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - Group 'D' employee engaged on contractual basis - Denial of regularisation on technical grounds - Held, impermissible - Employer is a model employer - Has to act fairly - Nomenclature not determinative - Nature of work, continuity of service, and perennial need to be considered - Writ petition allowed. B. Service Law - Regularisation - Petitioner, a Group-D multipurpose employee engaged on contractual basis, had discharged various duties assigned to him without interruption. His claim for regularisation was declined on the ground that he did not possess the technical qualification for appointment as Pump Operator and was a contractual employee. Held : Denial of regularisation on such technical grounds amounted to unfair labour practice. Court emphasized that the real nature of employment must be determined by lifting the veil and examining the duties performed, duration of service, and the ongoing need for such services. Court further observed that multipurpose employees, who perform diverse tasks under the direction of the employer, cannot be denied regularisation solely due to the absence of qualification for one specific role, particularly when they are willing to be appointed to other Group-D posts for which they are otherwise eligible. Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in Group-D category . (Para 8, 11, 15) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Ras Bihari Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing
WRIA/368/2021 Judgment/Order Date: 12-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 167
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Service Law - Appointment - Ambiguity in Advertisement - ambiguous expressions like "concerned/relevant/allied subject" - Aligarh Muslim University's recruitment to post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) - AMU used ambiguous expressions like "concerned/relevant/allied subject" in the advertisment - Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 has very specifically directed that the University shall lay down the qualification necessary for filling up the post laying down exact essential qualification indicating allied subject and subject stream which is required to be mentioned for making application for filling up said post - Writ petition disposed of with direction to AMU to ensure future advertisements carry specific, unambiguous qualifications to avoid prejudice and exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates (Para 15, 18) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Amna Khatoon C/o Rajeeb Ahmad & Ors. Vs. A.M.U. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
English hearing
A482/28882/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 154
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482- Law protects those who respect it and abide by it. A person flagrantly violating law cannot be equated with a person following the process of law. A person avoiding the process of law cannot be let to ventilate his grievance as per his choice for selective stages as per his sweet will--- The accused-applicants never joined the investigation which concluded in filing of a charge sheet against them as an absconder and again they are absconding from the trial court despite knowledge of the proceedings and thus are not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for seeking quashing of proceedings-- - total non cooperation of the applicants in the investigation, vagueness of the pleadings, the conduct of the applicants in not joining the investigation and not co-operating therein due to which charge sheet was submitted against them as absconders, intentional efforts to avoid the courts orders as would appear from the order of the revisional court and the fact that charge sheet is not being challenged on its merits coupled with the fact that the order of taking cognizance dated 01.3.2024 being challenged in a revision which stood dismissed on its merits, no ground for interference is called for. (Para 20 & 21) Petition dismissed. (E-15)
Title: Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Samit Gopal
English hearing
A482/25836/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 148
HEADNOTE hearing
(A) Criminal Law - Cognizance on police report - Informant's right to notice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(2)(ii) , 190(1)(b) &319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - Principles of natural justice - Magistrate not bound to issue notice to informant before taking cognizance against charge-sheeted accused - No prejudice is caused to the informant when Magistrate has taken cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons without issuing notice to the informant with respect to the persons named in FIR but not charge-sheeted - there remains scope to summon others under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial.(Para - 25 to 31) FIR lodged by the applicant - charge sheet submitted only against one accused - final report against five others - applicant challenged the order of cognizance taken by Magistrate without notice to her. (Para - 2,3) HELD: - The right of the informant is not in any way affected in case if the Magistrate has taken cognizance only against charge-sheeted persons without issuing notice to the informant with respect to the persons who are named in the FIR but have not been charge-sheeted. No interference is called for in the present matter. (Para -31,33) Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)
Title: Smt. Suman Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan
English hearing
A482/18295/2021 Judgment/Order Date: 27-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 132
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 482 - The Indian Penal Coe, 1860-Sections 420, 323, 376, 344 - The Uttar Pradesh Conversion Prevention Act, 2020-Sections 3/4- Any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is not acceptable to this Court--- The object of Act, 2020 is to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means--- It is clear that unlawful religious conversion, particularly when achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is considered a serious offence, in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement between the parties--- The alleged offences under section 376 IPC and Section (1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are serious in nature and non-compoundable, therefore, the instant proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 48, 54 & 56) Petition dismissed. (E-15)
Title: Taufik Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan
English hearing
A482/13742/2021 Judgment/Order Date: 12-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 126
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 - Sections 138 & 142- Application U/s 482 - Larger Bench - constituted to address whether filing of a Impleadment application in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is valid, if filed solely against the proprietor without naming the company as an accused - Different High Court benches had given conflicting decisions - The reference arose due to conflicting High Court rulings interpreting Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels. - Later, the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Goel v. St. of U.P. clarified that if a company is involved, it must be named as an accused in the complaint. Also, once the legal time limit (limitation period) for taking action under Section 142 is over, no new accused can be added - held - no additional accused can be impleaded subsequent to filing of a complaint once the limitation prescribed for taking of cognizance of the offence under section 142 of the NI Act, has expired - hence, the reference was thus answered - and the matter will resume before the concerned Single Judge - Application is pending. (Para - 9, 10, 11) Application Pending. (E-11)
Title: Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Samit Gopal
English hearing
A227/11807/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 116
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law-The Constitution of India,1950- Artcle 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115, Order 21 Rule 97,102 - The Transfer of Property Act-1882-Section 52- Revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 by the petitioner before the executing court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC--- The executing court has also failed in its endeavour to decide the execution case pending before it since the year 2014, and after framing the issue of res judicata had postponed the matter to be decided at the final stage--- Where it is an admitted fact that the property was transferred during pendency of the suit and petitioner is a transferee pendente lite and hit by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the executing court should have, at the very outset, proceeded to pass the order in pursuance of Rule 102--- Matter is remanded to the executing court to pass necessary orders on the application moved under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in accordance with law within a period of one month. (Para 34, 35 & 37) Petition disposed of. (E-15)
Title: Smt. Santosh Awasthi Vs. Smt. Urmila Jain
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
English hearing
A227/10194 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 21-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 98
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950- Artcle 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 94 - Order 40 Rule 1- Appointment of Receivers and controlling day to day functioning of Sri Thakur Baldeo Ji Maharaj Temple aka Dauji Mandir--- No person shall act as Receiver of the Temple in question and a Seven Member Management Committee be constituted in terms of Agreement dated 02.09.1904---Matter remitted with following directions to learned District Judge (1) Convene a meeting of 734 Pandas/Sevayats of Dauji Temple, who are divided in six Thoks, to be conducted by the senior most Additional District Judge within a month (2) A supplementary agreement would be executed by all 734 members only to the extent that their names are brought on record, without touching upon the terms and conditions laid out in the Agreement dated 02.09.1904 (3) members shall select a person from their respective Thoks to be sent to Committee of Management for managing the affairs of the Temple (4) Management Committee would be constituted in terms of Agreement dated 02.09.1904 and only the new members of 734 families would become part of the supplementary agreement (5) newly constituted Management Committee would look after day to day affairs of the Temple---The District Judge, Mathura, is hereby requested to get the complete inventory prepared of all movable and immovable properties of Dauji Temple, including cash, bank accounts, ornaments etc. immediately, within a period of two days from today. When the management is handed over to newly constituted Committee of Management, the inventory so prepared shall also be passed on. (Para 61 to 65) (E-15)
Title: Govind Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Nutan Prakash & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
English hearing
A227/8387 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 89
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950- Artcle 227 - The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996-Sections 34 & 37- Payment of mense profit for not complying the award in its letter and spirit- Petitioner has not vacated the premises in question within 30 days from the date of passing the award and further the petitioner has not brought any material on record to show that the award was stayed by any of the competent Court--- The arbitral award was not stayed or any material was brought on record otherwise and ultimately the award has been affirmed by the Apex Court and no proceedings are pending thereafter---the contesting respondent no. 1 is entitled for mesne profits as the award was not complied with in its letter and spiri. (Para 22 & 25) Petition lacks merit, dismissed. (E-15)
Title: M/s LR Print Solutions Vs. M/s Exflo Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
A227/8117/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 05-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 84
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950- Artcle 227 -The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 107, Order 6 Rule 17--- Once the amendment application has been rejected and the same had not been challenged, petitioner cannot be given liberty to bring very same facts again after some time by filing new application. In fact such act of petitioner is barred by the Principle of res judicata---Court has rightly rejected the amendment application by the impugned order---The appellate Court has ample power to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction---no illegality in the impugned order. (Para 11, 15 & 16) Petition dismissed. (E-15)
Title: Raj Kumar Chauturvedi Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Neeraj Tiwari
English hearing
A227/4173/2018 Judgment/Order Date: 06-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 73
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20 & 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 & 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 468 & 482 - The dispute over the management of a society and an educational institution led to multiple legal proceedings - a complaint case - an FIR was field in 2005 - but after investigation, the police submitted a final report in 2006 due to insufficient evidence - final report was accepted by the trial court in 2012 - In 2017, the opposite party filed another complaint against petitioner based on the same facts - leading to summoning orders - criminal revision - dismissed - instant writ u/Article 227 - additionally, after a six-year delay, opposite party no. 2 contested the acceptance of the final report through an Application U/s 482, with no justification for the delay - both cases arise from the same cause of action and are decided through a common judgment - court finds that, - (i) the dispute primarily pertains to the management of a society and educational institution, which is of a civil nature but, attempts to give it a criminal colour were deemed inappropriate, - (ii) to prove an offense under Section 406 IPC, entrustment is necessary, which wasn't shown in this case, - (iii) The summoning order was vague and lacked proper reasoning, - (iv) Filing a second complaint on the same set of facts after a significant delay was deemed unwarranted and hit by Section 468 CrPC - (v) before summoning someone, the court must carefully check if there are valid grounds to proceed, which wasn't done here - held, - trial court has erred in entertaining the second complaint and further the order impugned is very cryptic order, whereby the applicant have been summoned, therefore, the same is not sustainable - accordingly, the writ petition under Article 227 is allowed - and - the application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed due to delay and lack of merit. (Para - 27, 28, 30, 36, 37, 38) Writ petition Allowed & Application Dismissed. (E-11)
Title: Yogeshwar Raj Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Anish Kumar Gupta
English hearing
A227/1667 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 27-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 66
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950- Artcle 227 - The Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006-Sections 80 & 82-The impugned order in utter mechanic manner as also without application of mind and without taking note of the specific provisions related to the issue involved before it--- The application preferred under Section 80 of the Code can be allowed or rejected after taking note of the conditions indicated in the statutory provisions including the conditions indicated under Sub- Section (4), (7) and (8) of Section 80 of Code and the permission so granted can be cancelled only in terms of Section 82 of the Code and all these aspects ought to have been taken note of by the opposite party no.2 who failed to take note of the same-Impugned order set aside/quashed. (Para 6-8) Petition allowed. (E-15)
Title: Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Lavania
English hearing
A227/1133 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 12-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 58
HEADNOTE hearing
Manner in which the possession has been taken violates the rights of the petitioners vested by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India- was contrary to the mandate of Section 14 of the Act-Writ petition maintainable- directions issued. W.P. allowed. (E-9)
Title: M/S Durga Travels & Ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia
English hearing
CMRA/33 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 07-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 54
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Civil Law-Civil Procedure Code,1908- Order XLVII Rule 1(a)-The review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of maintainability-The court held that since the petitioner had already availed the appellate remedy by filing a Special Appeal and got it dismissed as withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a review, the review application was not maintainable in law under Order XLVII Rule 1(a) CPC-The court relied on the Supreme court's rulings in Thungabhadra Industries, Kunhayammed, and Khoday Distilleries, and held that invoking appellate jurisdiction bars a subsequent review.(Para 1 to 13) The review application is dismissed. (E-6)
Title: Adeel Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi
English hearing
HABC/384/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 04-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 43
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3 (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 404 - Against detention order - Due to animosity of Gram Pradhan election, petitioner along with other associates committed murder of brother of informant, by firing upon him at public place carrying arms - Taking cognizance, proceedings under NSA started against all accused persons including petitioner - Held, in some cases, detenue has been acquitted whereas in some cases police found no evidence, resulted into submission of closure reports - After getting acquittal in four cases in 2010, no crime committed by detenue up to 2019, hence for period of 9 years detenue never indulged in anti-social activities - Investigating Officer mentioned about disturbance of law and order but such St.ments not given by informant and eye witnesses - Authority failed to find nexus between alleged offences and order of detention. (Para 14, 23, 26, 27) Apprehension of D.M. that detenue who was detained in jail, likely to get bail soon and further satisfaction that he may be involved in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order has no rational basis - Impugned order quashed. (Para 33) Writ petition allowed. (E-13)
Title: Kapil Kasana Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Nalin Kumar Srivastava
English hearing
FAPL/27/2018 Judgment/Order Date: 11-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 38
HEADNOTE hearing
Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 & 13B - Divorce - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition by Family Court - Long separation and absence of cohabitation - Settlement arrived at before Mediation and Conciliation Centre - Payment of permanent alimony completed - All pending litigations agreed to be withdrawn - No further claims to be raised - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 89(2)(d), Order XXIII Rule 3 - Mediation - Court empowered to pass decree based on voluntary and lawful mediated settlement - Satisfaction of statutory requirements under CPC and Mediation Rules - Decree of divorce rightly passed on basis of compromise- U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2009 - Rule 26 - Settlement recorded by Mediation Centre found to be voluntary and non-collusive - Court satisfied before passing decree-Held, decree of divorce by mutual consent granted in terms of Settlement Agreement - Appeal allowed. (Paras 10 to 14) HELD: In this regard, this Court is guided by Section 89(2)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which St.s that where a dispute has been referred for mediation, the mediator will assist the parties in reaching a settlement, and if a settlement is arrived at, the Court may pass a decree in accordance with its terms. This ensures that mediated settlements have legal enforceability and enables courts to grant decrees based on mutually agreed terms, thereby promoting amicable dispute resolution..... (para 10) Additionally, Rule 26 of the U.P. Civil Procedure Mediation Rules, 2009, mandates that the Court ensure the settlement is not collusive and has been arrived at voluntarily.... (Para 11) In the present case, both parties have amicably resolved and settled all pending cases and consideration has also been exchanged between them as per the Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022, executed before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Upon perusal of the said agreement and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the settlement is bonafide and voluntary. The only thing now remaining is the passing of a decree of divorce between the parties. (Para 12) In this regard, this Court is also guided by Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which allows compromise of suits, provided that such compromise is in writing and signed by the parties. It is evident from the records of the case before this Court that the Settlement Agreement dated 07.04.2022 fulfills these requirements and has been entered into voluntarily by the parties. As per this provision, the Court is bound to record the agreement and pass a decree in accordance with it.... (Para 13) Since the settlement is bona fide and has been acted upon by both parties, this Court, in the exercise of its powers under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is competent to pass a decree in terms of the settlement, even beyond the scope of the original suit. Furthermore, as the proceedings arise from the Family Court, this Court is also empowered to grant a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in light of the settlement, as recognized under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code, 1908. (Para 14) Appeal allowed. (E-14)
Title: Khajanchi Vs. Preete
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Chaudhary,Om Prakash Shukla
English hearing
FAFO/182 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 05-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 30
HEADNOTE hearing
Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168, 169 & 173 - Motor Accident Claim - Duty of Tribunal - Mandatory inquiry - Tribunal failed to conduct proper inquiry under Section 168 - Contradictory vehicle registration numbers in FIR and claim petition - Tribunal proceeded without deciding application to summon key eyewitness for cross-examination -Plea of accident involving insured vehicle not proved - Award passed without adequate scrutiny - Judgment and award set aside - Matter remitted for fresh adjudication-Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 10 to 13, 14,16, and 23) HELD: The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs Mohamed Haji Latif & ors.; 1968 AIR SC 1413/1968 SCC OnLine SC 63, has held that if a party, even if the burden of proof does not lie on him/her, withholds important evidence in his possession which can throw light on the facts in issue, the adverse inference may be drawn by the court. (Para 14) The aforesaid facts were required to be examined by the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of the case because the accident was denied by the owner and driver. They adduced evidence to the effect that the vehicle was being driven in their village on the date of accident, though they have specifically not St.d that at the time of the accident the vehicle was not at the place of accident, but there are several discrepancies in the pleadings and evidence adduced by the claimant-respondent, which were required to be inquired by the Tribunal in inquiry under Section 168 of the M.V.Act. Section 168 of the M.V.Act provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the insurer and parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or as the case may be, subject to the provisions of Section 163, and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Para 16) In view of aforesaid Section 169 of the M.V.Act the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-Section (2) of Section 169 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court. Thus the Claims Tribunal has to hold the inquiry following the summary procedure to ascertain the truth to be just. It is true that the claim petition under the M.V.Act has to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities and the strict proof beyond doubt as required under the Criminal Cases is not required but when discrepancies as above were pointed out before the Tribunal and an application was also moved by the appellant for summoning the eye witness for cross-examination, whose evidence could have been material to clarify the discrepancies, the same was required to be inquired by the Tribunal or adverse inference could have been drawn. (Para 18) In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not only failed to make inquiry as required under Section 168 of the M.V.Act, but also failed to given sufficient opportunity to the appellant by not considering and disposing of its applications before passing the impugned judgment and award, therefore the same is liable to be set aside with the direction to the Tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made here-in-above in this order. (Para 23) Appeal partly allowed. (E-14)
Title: TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Aman Kumar & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
FAFOD/178/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 17-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 23
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - Departmental appeal filed with delay of 700 days - St. failed to furnish sufficient cause - Casual and negligent conduct - Delay attributed to administrative lethargy and bureaucratic red tape - Court held that such conduct cannot justify condonation - Exercise of discretion in condoning delay must be judicious - Delay not explained satisfactorily Government not entitled to special treatment under limitation law - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 14, and 15) HELD: From a perusal of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit and the supplementary affidavit, it emerges that it took the government almost ten months to take a decision for filing of the appeal and despite the appeal having been allegedly drafted in December 2023, it took the pairokar almost 11 months in order to find out as to whether the appeal has in fact been filed or not. This itself indicates the cavalier and casual attitude on the part of the officials in filing the appeal before this Court which has resulted in a delay of 700 days. (Para 7) In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been of the view that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the person has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. Though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all rigour when prescribed by statute. (Para 14) In the instant case, as already indicated above, there has been a casual, cavalier and lackadaisical approach on the part of the appellants all along inasmuch as, it has taken the St. almost ten months to take a decision for filing of the appeal and despite the appeal having been allegedly prepared, it took the pairokar eleven months to realize that the appeal has not been filed. This is sheer negligence on the part of the appellants and thus, the grounds, as taken in the applications for condonation of delay, do not inspire confidence and consequently, the applications for condonation of delay merit to be rejected and are accordingly, rejected. (Para 15) Application dismissed. (E-14)
Title: Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Abdul Moin
English hearing
FAFO/137/2017 Judgment/Order Date: 10-03-2025 (2025) 3 ILRA 5
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1908 - Sections 166 & 173 - Enhancement of Compensation - Claim petition filed by claimant alleging that claimant met with accident due to negligent driving of driver of offending Truck, his left leg amputated in hospital - Allowed and awarded compensation - Impugned order - Held, disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer with signatures of orthopaedic surgeon as one of signatory - Certificate shows permanent disability of 70% - Rightly determined. (Para 10, 13, 41) Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and degradation in married life - Claimant who was student of intermediate and 18 years of age, good player, on account of loss of one leg he became incapable of playing it, therefore, it cannot be equated in terms of money as he could made his career in any field in future but he cannot do the same, therefore, compensation to be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. (Para 42) Regarding claim of future treatment, Rs.2,00,000/- will be sufficient as by interest of same, claimant will meet out said expenses in future - Thus, claimant entitled to compensation alongwith interest. (Para 43) Writ petition partly allowed. (E-13)
Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Gaurav Sharma & Anr.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar
English hearing
WRIC/9298 /2021 Judgment/Order Date: 20-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 704
HEADNOTE hearing
Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A - Deficiency of Stamp Duty - A big chunk of land was sub-divided into 37 small plots, having a common passage of 9 meters, which was duly approved by the Development Authority. The exit of the colony joined the main road. Petitioner purchased a residential plot situated on the 9-meter-wide internal road, but deficiency of stamp duty was imposed, treating the plot as if situated on the main road, merely because the larger chunk of land abutted the main road, and that too without any spot inspection. Held: Once a colony is approved by the Development Authority, the internal roads therein are also deemed approved and are to be maintained by the Authority thereafter. Once the sub- division and the common road have been approved by the Development Authority, the inference drawn that the petitioner's plot is situated on the main road has no legs to stand on. Merely because the road of the colony joins the main road, as stated above, will not entitle the authorities to charge the deficiency of stamp duty on the petitioner as compared to the first plot, which is adjacent to the main road. (Paras 8, 9) Allowed. (E-5)
Title: Birjesh Aggarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Piyush Agrawal
English hearing
WRIA/56331/2012 Judgment/Order Date: 05-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 687
HEADNOTE hearing
A. Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment - Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - Fundamental Rule 54-B - The most important feature about the decision of the Government to pay allowances for the period of suspension is that a decision in this regard has to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, after giving a notice to the government servant and calling for his explanation within the period specified under Fundamental Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book. Here, admittedly, no notice was served upon the petitioner, calling for his explanation by the Disciplinary Authority as to why for the period of his suspension from service, nothing towards his emoluments be paid, except the subsistence allowance that he had received. (Para 26) B. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 - It says that for the period of suspension after notice to the employee, a decision shall be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, whether the period of suspension shall be treated as one spent on duty or not. But, that power may not entirely apply in this case. In any case, even if there were such a power in the Disciplinary Authority, it has to be exercised reasonably; not capriciously. (Para 31) C. The decision to discount the entire period of time that the petitioner remained out of service on account of the order of dismissal passed by the respondents and since quashed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, is not one of the penalties envisaged under the Service Rules; to be specific the eight penalties enumerated in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999. Therefore, this deprivation, inflicted upon the petitioner, not being one of the enumerated penalties, going by the salutary principle that no order, visiting a person with adverse civil consequence, ought be made without a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the order would be bad for want of notice and opportunity. D. If Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 has any bearing on the issue proprio vigor or by analogy, before a deprivation of this kind for the period of dismissal was brought upon the petitioner, it was incumbent to issue notice to him in this regard and hear him on the point. This has admittedly not been done. This devastating prejudicial measure, a part of the impugned order, has come together with the order of punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale awarded to the petitioner with this Court granting liberty to the respondents to award a lesser penalty, instead of dismissal earlier ordered. If at all any kind of a measure prejudicial to the petitioner's interest, apart form the penalty imposed under the Rules, were to be taken by the respondents, it had to be with due notice and opportunity to the petitioner, afforded separately. (Para 32) E. Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Apart from this part of the order being bad on account of want of notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the order is utterly arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. It is found that the penalty of dismissal from service earlier awarded to be shockingly disproportionate. The penalty of dismissal was regarded too severe by this Court and that judgment of the Court was accepted by the respondents without invoking any appellate procedures. If the respondents had not erred in passing an order of dismissal from service for a relatively trivial misconduct, the petitioner would have continued in service, suffering some minor penalty. There would be continuity in service for him, which would at least preserve his seniority and contribute to his post retiral benefits. In one stroke of pen, the petitioner has been deprived of all these benefits by this part of the order impugned. It is beyond any standard of reasonableness or fairness why an employee, who is held by this Court to have been awarded a shockingly disproportionate terminal punishment for a relatively trivial misconduct with a direction to award a lesser punishment, upon reinSt.ment would loose the benefit of continuity in service, including seniority and reckoning of the period of service for the purpose of post retiral benefits. This part of the order, to the clear understanding of the Court, given the circumstances that the petitioner's dismissal from service was regarded as shockingly disproportionate, is both arbitrary and unfair. (Para 33) The impugned order dated 19.07.2012, to the extent it punishes the petitioner, is hereby quashed. (Para 35) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) This writ petition assails an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax), holding charge of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, Noida dated 19.07.2012 to the extent it punishes the petitioner after disciplinary proceedings.
Title: Sripal Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir
English hearing
WRIA/16401 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 11-02-2025 (2025) 2 ILRA 675
HEADNOTE hearing
A. The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.08.2024 which assigned him Booth Level Officer (BLO) election duties- Held, Authorities must review and revise the deployment of teachers for election duties-Teachers should only be appointed if all other categories (Patwaris, Panchayat Secretaries etc.) are exhausted-until review, the petitioner must perform duties only on holidays or after school hours. (Para 1 to 42) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
Title: Surya Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot
English hearing