The 3-judge bench of Allahabad High Court held right the decision made in Nawal Kishore Sharma here.
Citations: [2]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172265121/
Category: High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 2020
Allahabad High Court has held that,
From Para 39,
39. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Azan can be recited by Muezzin from minarets of the Mosques by human voice without using any amplifying device and the administration is directed not to cause hindrance in the same on the pretext of the Guidelines to contain the pandemic Covid19, unless such guidelines are being violated.
From Para 40,
40. Therefore, it is held that Azan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azan through loudspeakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion, warranting protection of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which is even otherwise subject to public order, morality or health and to other provisions of part III of the Constitution of India. Thus, under no circumstances sound amplifying devices can be permitted to be used between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. by the district administrations. Further, the petitioners have failed to bring on record or even plead that they sought any such permission for the use of sound amplifying devices, for recital of Azan from their respective mosques and, therefore, their use without such permission would be illegal and cannot be accorded approval by this Court. However, in case any such application is filed before the concerned authorities, that may be dealt with in accordance with law including Noise Pollution Rules. Furthermore, as already discussed in detail hereinabove, Azan can be recited by Muezzin from minarets of the Mosques by human voice without using any amplifying device and such recitation cannot be hindered with under the pretext of violation of the Guidelines issued by the State, to contain the pandemic Covid19.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE ALL 592]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46976882/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ecdf3b59fca191563b4b510
Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016
3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,
“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”
Safeguards
Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.
Earlier Reference Order
Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Ankit Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 March 2020
A landmark judgment, where in Full-bench (5-Judge) of Allahabad High Court held that, Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters of 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) and that there is no rule that first option at Sessions Court ought to be exhausted before seeking audience at High Court, but can be done so under Special circumstances only.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 December 2013
Allahabad High Court has cited a landmark judgment here to hold as follow,
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid verdict Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Girdharilas Sapuru and others (Supra) has held that the discharge order terminates the proceeding and, therefore, it is revisable under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. This Court while passing the order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11721 of 2012 (Supra) has held that an order refusing discharge is not an interlocutory order, inasmuch as if the said application is allowed, it would terminate the proceedings, therefore, the revision against the said order would be maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid decisions, the revision against dismissing the discharge application was very well maintainable before the learned lower revisional court and as such, the order passed by the learned lower revisional court is not sustainable in law.
Citations:
Other Source links: http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=6568265 or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4224a93261a672e216f
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Dharm Raj Yadav and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 10 January, 2006
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Neera Chandra Vs Union of India and Ors on 26 August, 2019
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid reason for impounding a person’s passport. Reliance was made on Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978(1) SCC 248 here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Alok Jaiswal and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 8 August, 2019
Nice deal… Paid Rs.22 lakhs and got mukthi from all criminal cases in one swell-swoop… Courtesy: Allahabad High Court.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018
This judgment from Allahabad High Court held that gifts given to the husband by the wife or some family member of wife is not Dowry.
Garima Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and another on 19 January, 2010
In this order from Allahabad High Court, the knife challenges the order of levying a fine of Rs.10,000/- for perjury (Lying that she is not working in DPS). The orders of perjury are stayed until the objections are resolved.
It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that under the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. the court can make only preliminary inquiry and the final order which may be in the form of imposing fine can be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and the court of competent jurisdiction would be that court in which the complaint would be filed by the court in which the perjury was committed. The court which made the preliminary inquiry had no jurisdiction to finally conclude the matter and impose the fine, therefore, the order dated 15.7.09 is bad and is liable to be quashed. Regarding the order dated 7.10.09 it was argued by Mr. Tripathi that once a wrong order was passed by the court on 15.7.09 it should have been reviewed and when it was not reviewed, hence, the order dated 7.10.09 is also bad and is liable to be quashed.
