Latest news with #AllahabadHC
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC stays contempt plea against Noida CEO in 2011 housing case
Noida: The Supreme Court has stayed contempt proceedings against Noida Authority CEO Lokesh M for alleged non-compliance with an Allahabad HC order over the sanction of building plans for developing a group housing society on a plot in Sector 45 in a decade-old case. The court has directed the CEO and the petitioners to explore an amicable solution. The contempt petition, filed against the CEO in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court in April, stated that despite a high court order, dated Nov 22, 2024, directing the Authority to reconsider the building plan application submitted by the petitioners under the Building Regulations, 2010, the map was rejected on technical grounds on Dec 24 that year. The case dates to 2011, when petitioner Kapil Misra and another person, received a plot at Sadarpur in Sector 45 through an exchange deed. According to the petitioners, the state govt initiated the process to acquire their 10,870 sqm plot at Rohillapur village in Sector 132 in 2006 for development. The acquisition process was quashed in 2009 after the two had challenged it in court. The petitioners had again approached the court as Noida Authority did not return their plot. Subsequently, Noida Authority allotted them a plot in Sadarpur in 2011 following the court's direction. In April 2021, the petitioners sought permission to develop group housing on the Sector 45 land. However, the Authority did not give approval. Misra filed a writ petition in 2022, and the Allahabad HC directed the Authority to decide on his application within 45 days. When this order was not followed, Misra filed a contempt petition. In response, the Authority rejected their application in Sept 2023, citing non-compliance with the Building Regulations that require a lease deed for such approvals. A revision petition filed with the state govt was dismissed last April. The petitioners maintained that an exchange deed constituted a valid transfer document under the law, granting them full property rights, including construction. They claimed the Authority's interpretation of the regulations was overly restrictive and violated their constitutional rights under Article 300A. In rejecting Kapil Misra's building plan application, the Noida Authority cited three main reasons. First, the land was originally acquired by Noida Authority and was allotted for specific purposes as per the lease deed; building plans could only be approved under the 2010 Building by-laws if all required documents were submitted. Second, building permission was granted only after a lease deed was executed, confirming the applicant is an authorised allottee. Third, Misra submitted a deed of exchange instead of a lease deed, which was not a valid document under the 2010 regulations, rendering his application incomplete and ineligible for approval. The high court found these reasons insufficient. On Nov 22, 2024, justice Alok Mathur of the Allahabad HC's Lucknow bench held that the exchange deed was a valid transfer under the Transfer of Property Act and the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. "We find no reason for the Authority not to consider the petitioners' application for building plan sanction. The reasons for rejection are clearly illegal and arbitrary," the court observed. It ordered the Authority to pass a fresh decision within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order. On Dec 24 last year, Noida Authority once again rejected the building plan application, citing technical grounds. This prompted Misra to file a contempt application against the CEO in April 2025. On May 28, the SC bench observed the matter warranted "an amicable resolution" and granted two months for discussions. The Supreme Court stayed further contempt proceedings and listed the matter for hearing on July 29.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Time of India
You became a beast, not entitled to bail: SC to doc who molested daughter
Representative image New Delhi: Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a doctor's plea seeking suspension of the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him after being convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) for raping his seven-year-old daughter. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said he was not entitled to bail, considering the kind of things he did to his daughter. The convict's lawyer contended that he was framed because of differences with his wife, and that she tutored the child to testify against him. His wife is also a doctor but despite that the medical examination of his daughter was delayed by three months and no injury marks were found on her body, the advocate said. The bench, however, said there was no reason to disbelieve the child's statement and she also withstood the cross-examination. "The man became a beast. Please don't force us to say anything more... She testified against her father. Why should we disbelieve her," it asked. Pressing for relief, the convict said it would take years for Allahabad HC to decide his appeal and he would have to languish in jail during the pendency of the case. He said 12 lakh cases were pending in HC, and appeals filed in 1981 were being heard now. But SC refused his plea and granted him permission to file a fresh bail petition after some time. "This is the most liberal bench and if we are not granting bail it means there is something. We cannot help it," Justice Sharma said. The man was convicted by a Varanasi court and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Print
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
Religious leaders call HC ‘ignorant' for calling Puranic texts ‘hearsay' in Krishna Janmabhoomi case
'The things that Allahabad HC has said that Radhaji is kaalpanik (imaginary) reflect the ignorance of the court. Maybe he is not aware how religious law functions in India,' said Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati of Uttarakhand's Jyotir Math. Religious leaders–including Uttarakhand Jyotir Math Shankaracharya, Mahamandaleshwar of Niranjani Akhara Kailashanand Giri, Mahamandaleshwar of Juna Akhara and Swami Jitendranand Saraswati of the Sant Samiti—condemned the move, saying the scriptures cannot be dismissed as hearsay. New Delhi: Several religious leaders have sharply criticised an Allahabad High Court ruling rejecting an application by the deity, Shriji Radha Rani Vrishbhanu Kumar Vrindavani (Goddess Radha), seeking to be made a party to one of the 18 suits related to the Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah after it called scriptural evidence 'hearsay'. 'He should at least have remembered that in 2019 itself, the Supreme Court had given a verdict on Ram-Janmabhoomi. The verdict was in favour of Ram Lalla. In this, too, Skanda Purana and other Hindu texts were the basis. Courts should not hurt the sentiments of crores of Sanatani Hindus,' he added. In its order dated 23 May, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra said that 'Pauranic illustrations' cited by the applicant are 'considered hearsay evidence' and there was no proof to support the claim that the deity was a joint holder of the 13.37 acres of land in question. Mishra said the petitioner's claim is based on some reference in various Purans and Sanhitas in which Shriji Radha Rani is considered the soul of Lord Krishna. 'The Pauranic illustrations are generally considered as hearsay evidence in legal context. In the case of Pauranic illustrations, these are graphic representation of story and events and truth of events, they depict, is usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony,' the court said. 'There is no evidence in support of the claim raised by the applicant that the applicant is entitled as joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres and property of the applicant is also involved in suit property claimed by the plaintiff no.1 as birth place of lord Krishna,' it added. Other religious leaders also said the court had undermined their faith. 'Shrimad Bhagwat Mahapuran and Gita both are part of the Mahabharat. We cannot in any way call them suni sunayi,' Jitendranand Saraswati, general secretary of Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, told ThePrint. 'Thousand years ago, the Mahabharat happened, Dwarka is of Lord Krishna and Radhika ji Surya Sarovar Kurukshetra mai purnima ka snaan karne gayi thi. Every scripture of Sanatan Dharma, including Lord Ram, has been called controversial. People have called it a myth and we have seen what happened to them. If the HC has said something like this, it should reconsider its view,' he said. The Mahamandaleshwar of Juna Akhara, Swami Yatindranand Giri, told ThePrint that in a religious dispute, such religious texts are quoted while pointing out that Puranas, Vedas and Upanishads are 'granths' (religious texts). 'Puranas are not 'suni sunayi baatein' (hearsay). They are our granths and their truth cannot be negated. The kind of things that are being said should not be told in the first place and one should be careful while making such statements as it is linked to faith,' he said. Mahamandaleshwar of Niranjani Akhara Kailashanand Giri told the media that things written in the Puranas are not hearsay but completely authentic. He said it is on the basis of the things written in the Puranas that one believes and worships the Gods. The Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute is a long-standing legal battle centred around claims that the mosque stands on a site, which Hindus believe was the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The mosque lies adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. (Edited by Sugita Katyal) Also Read: No option but to be powerful in face of evil forces at our borders—RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in Organiser
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Can HC quash an FIR?9-judge bench to decide
Prayagraj: In a rare order, Allahabad high court has referred to a nine-judge bench two key questions concerning the HC's power to quash an FIR and the ensuing investigation using its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to CrPC Sec 482). Senior advocate Satish Trivedi told TOI that the last time a nine-judge bench was constituted in the Allahabad HC was 55 years ago — in 1970 in the Rishikesh Singh case. The largest bench ever constituted in any Indian court was in 1964, when a 28-judge bench of the Allahabad HC sat down to decide on the then UP assembly Speaker's order to arrest two high court judges. In the present case, a single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal on May 27, while disagreeing with a seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench. The bench invoked the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis (to stand by things decided, or legal precedents).A seven-judge Allahabad HC bench had in Ram Lal Yadav and Others vs State of UP and Others (a 1989 case) had held that for quashing an FIR, a plea under CrPC Sec 482 would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution of India. Justice Deshwal found the ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Haryana & Others vs Bhajan Lal & Others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021). "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision in the Ramlal Yadav case may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," the bench noted. The court added this referral was necessary as the judgment in Ramlal Yadav — which though not explicitly reversed or overruled, but had become obsolete — was rendered by a seven-judge bench. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under BNSS Sec 528 (inherent powers of HC) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, u/s 175(3) of BNSS (Sec 156(3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under various sections of the IPC read with sections of the Delhi Police Act. The largest HC bench ever to hear a case In the 1964 incident, the UP assembly Speaker ordered the arrest of two Allahabad high court judges — Justice GD Sahgal and Justice NU Beg. The action came in response to the judges' decision to grant bail to Socialist Party worker Keshav Singh, who had been arrested and detained by the assembly for contempt. The assembly then sought to have the judges produced in custody. A 28-judge bench of the Allahabad HC quashed the assembly's resolution. This was the largest number of judges allocated to decide a case in a high court or the Supreme Court at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately intervened, upholding the HC's jurisdiction to address the matter and quashing the assembly's resolution.
Time of India
27-05-2025
- General
- Time of India
Allahabad HC rejects plea seeking Radha Rani's inclusion as party in Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case
Allahabad HC (File photo) NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court has rejected an application seeking to make goddess Radha a party to one of the 18 suits related to the Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah title dispute. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra dismissed the application on May 23, stating that Puranic illustrations cannot be considered as direct evidence in legal proceedings. The application was filed through Advocate Reena N Singh, claiming that Shriji Radha Rani is the legal wife and feminine form of the plaintiff, Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman. The petitioner argued that both deities jointly hold the disputed land of 13.37 acres. "Puranic illustrations are considered hearsay evidence," the court stated while rejecting the application. "The claim of the applicant as a joint holder of property in dispute together with plaintiff is based on some reference in various Purans and Sanhitas wherein Shriji Radha Rani is considered as the soul of lord Krishna," the court observed. The court noted that Pauranic illustrations and their depictions "is usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรด CFDs ด้วยเทคโนโลยีเทรดสุดล้ำ และ รวดเร็วกว่า IC Markets สมัคร Undo The applicant sought to be included as a necessary party to the suit under order one rule 10 of civil procedure code, claiming joint ownership based on references in Purans and Sanhitas. The court found that the applicant failed to provide any concrete evidence or binding authority to support the claim in the disputed matter, which is claimed as Lord Krishna's birthplace where the Shahi Idgah Masjid currently stands. "This court finds force in the objection raised by some of the parties to the suit in regard to impleadment application filed on behalf of Shriji Radha Rani. There is no averment in the impleadment application that there was a temple of Radha Rani in the property in dispute," the court concluded. The court left room for future consideration if the applicant presents concrete evidence supporting the claim of joint ownership. The plaintiffs in the main case claim that Sri Krishna's birthplace temple in Mathura has been under encroachment since 1669-70 by the Shahi Idgah Masjid management. They seek removal of the alleged illegal encroachment. The dispute centers around the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, allegedly built during Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's era after demolishing a temple at Lord Krishna's birthplace.
