Allahabad High Court judgments

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that tax authorities cannot reject a taxpayer's books of account and impose a best judgment assessment solely on unverified third-party information, without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the source. This reinforces natural justice in commercial tax proceedings and sets a binding standard for assessing authorities across Uttar Pradesh.

Allahabad HC rules that any party with a declared share in a partition decree can apply for engrossment on stamp papers without paying court fees. The limitation period for such applications begins from the decree's finality under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, not from the engrossment date, ensuring timely enforcement of property rights.

The Allahabad High Court held that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to dependents, not career advancement, and cannot be used to bypass competitive recruitment for specialized roles like teachers. Allowing such appointments undermines the constitutional right to quality education under Article 21A and erodes the integrity of public employment standards.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in an NDPS case, ruling that videography of recovery via mobile phone-rather than the e-sakshya app-violates BNSS Section 105, undermining evidentiary reliability. The decision reinforces that procedural lapses in narcotics cases can tilt the balance in favor of bail, even for commercial quantities.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that failure to provide the accused an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance under Section 223 BNSS vitiates the summoning order. The ruling underscores that natural justice principles are sacrosanct, even in criminal proceedings, and non-compliance renders the order legally unsustainable.

Allahabad High Court sets aside a summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, ruling that failure to record satisfaction of statutory notice service and compliance with the mandatory 15-day grace period vitiates proceedings. The court emphasized that the 15-day window for payment post-notice is a statutory prerequisite, not a procedural formality, impacting cheque bounce litigation nationwide.

Allahabad High Court rules that where a specific remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is available, an aggrieved party cannot bypass it by invoking the general investigation powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. The decision reinforces the principle that special statutes override general procedural laws, impacting cheque dishonour cases nationwide.

Allahabad High Court holds that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, striking down discriminatory service rules. The ruling mandates equal treatment for all dependents, irrespective of marital status, setting a precedent for gender equality in public employment.

Allahabad HC reduces sentence to period already undergone, holding that prolonged judicial delay and the appellant's advanced age render further imprisonment disproportionate under the Essential Commodities Act. The ruling underscores the judiciary's duty to balance punishment with fairness in cases of systemic delay.

Allahabad HC rules that a juvenile conviction under the JJ Act 2000 carries no disqualification for passport issuance, as refusal based on a stigmatic past violates Article 21 and the principle of fresh start. The judgment mandates administrative authorities to disregard juvenile records when assessing passport eligibility, reinforcing constitutional protections for rehabilitation and mobility.

Allahabad HC sets aside a recovery order for failing to adhere to its prior directive to decide the petitioner's representation before proceeding. The court reaffirms that recovery actions by state authorities must comply with principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, or risk being quashed.

Allahabad High Court quashed a departmental inquiry initiated on a fresh complaint that failed to disclose binding court directions requiring document verification and affidavit submission. The ruling reinforces that non-compliance with judicial orders constitutes contempt, invalidating subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.

Allahabad HC rules that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate uninterrupted readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations from the agreement date until decree execution. The court emphasized financial capacity and consistent conduct as critical evidence, setting a precedent for property disputes under the Specific Relief Act.

Allahabad HC rules that recovery of excess salary paid over two decades without fraud or misrepresentation is inequitable and violates Article 21, treating pension as earned property. The judgment bars retrospective adjustments absent procedural fairness, impacting retired government employees.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that objections to limitation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if not raised before the revisional court, cannot be resurrected in an Article 227 petition. This reinforces procedural discipline in criminal complaints and prevents litigants from bypassing lower court scrutiny to challenge summoning orders on technical grounds at the writ stage.

Allahabad HC rules that non-custodial parents have an enforceable right to temporary custody during vacations, overriding procedural formalities. The court emphasized the child's welfare and rejected tutored allegations, ensuring emotional bonding with both parents is prioritized.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that universities cannot withhold recognition of college management committee elections merely because no observer was appointed, affirming that statutory recognition under Section 2(13) depends on the validity of the election process itself, not administrative oversight. This decision reinforces academic autonomy and protects institutional governance from arbitrary bureaucratic interference.

Allahabad High Court reinforces Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing Family Courts to conclude matrimonial proceedings within six months and prohibiting adjournments except in exceptional circumstances. The ruling underscores statutory compliance to prevent delays, ensuring expedited justice for parties in divorce and annulment cases.

Allahabad HC rules that ad-hoc service cannot be excluded from qualifying service for pension if the employee's right to pension had already crystallized before a retrospective amendment. The judgment protects vested pensionary benefits of employees regularized after prolonged ad-hoc service, ensuring consequential retiral dues including interest.

Allahabad HC rules that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used to force a married woman to return to her matrimonial home if she refuses cohabitation of her own free will. The court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 precludes compelled conjugal rights, reinforcing women's autonomy in matrimonial disputes.

Allahabad HC rules that the training period of police constables must be included for calculating eligibility for additional increments, reinforcing the binding precedent in Ghanshyam Tiwari. The judgment directs the state to recompute service benefits within three months, impacting service computation for thousands of police personnel.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that madarsas offering informal teaching of Hafiz, Qari, Arabic, Urdu, and Persian are not required to seek recognition from the U.P. Board of Madarsa Education. The court ordered immediate de-sealing of the petitioner's madarsa, reinforcing that elementary religious and language education does not fall under the Board's regulatory purview.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that adverse entries or disciplinary punishments cannot override an employee's vested rights under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. The court emphasized that once ACP benefits accrue based on years of service, they cannot be denied even if juniors receive higher pay, ensuring protection of accrued career progression rights for government employees.

Allahabad HC rules that electricity distribution companies do not require prior consent from landowners or occupants under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, when installing electric poles along public roads. The court held the rule applies only to private land, not public rights of way, dismissing a PIL challenging the installation.