Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 - the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave for period of six months but wholly illegally leave was granted only for a period of three months. Prakash Padia, J. Anshu Rani v. State of U.P., W.A No. 3486 of 2019 19-04-2019
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 - U.P. Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 - the Regulation framed in the year 1972 and further the Reforms Act of 2000 will have no effect as far as the service conditions of the employees are concerned, which are being framed and modified by the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Company which is a 100% Government Company. Moreover, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2013 when UPSEB was already converted into a Company and was registered under the Companies Act, as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioners, nor they can claim any benefit of the Regulation of 1972 or the transitory provisions of 2000 as they had been appointed subsequently. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P., W.A No. 2258 of 2019 19-04-2019
Criminal Law - "law and order" and "public order" - Difference between - "public order" indicates something more than "law and order". The breach of public order involves a degree of disturbance and it affects upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order and not a public order. The difference between two concepts is in only one degree. An act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order and an act which might be prejudicial to public order may not affect the security of the State. Public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity and it is the absence of any disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradiction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State. Vipin Sinha & Ajit Singh, JJ. Adab @ Ifran v. State of U.P., W.P. No. 3666 of 2018 05-04-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 / 149, 147, 148 and 324 / 149 - If the accused is known to complainant side and witnesses, there is no need for having identification proceedings. Naheed Ara Moonis & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Balwant Rao v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 206 of 1998 05-04-2019
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Ground of Desertion - Where divorce has been sought on the ground of desertion only, the court cannot grant divorce on the ground of cruelty. Shashi Kant Gupta & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Nisha Soni vs Mukesh Soni, F.A. No. 275 of 2015 05-04-2019
Evidence Law - No presumption can be raised against the accused either of fact or in evidence, whatever evidence is available on record, is to be read as it is. Rekha Dikshit, J. (Lucknow Bench) Satish @ Chattish v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 613 of 2006 03-04-2019
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42 (5) (6) and (7) - Regulation 8.1(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007, so far as it includes the Distribution Licensee is ultra-vires to the provisions of the Act, 2003. Vikram Nath, Rajesh Singh Chauhan & Abdul Moin, JJJ. Kisan Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran, S.A. No. 20 of 2016 03-04-2019
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 - U.P. Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 - the Regulation framed in the year 1972 and further the Reforms Act of 2000 will have no effect as far as the service conditions of the employees are concerned, which are being framed and modified by the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Company which is a 100% Government Company. Moreover, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2013 when UPSEB was already converted into a Company and was registered under the Companies Act, as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioners, nor they can claim any benefit of the Regulation of 1972 or the transitory provisions of 2000 as they had been appointed subsequently. Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P., W.A No. 2258 of 2019 19-04-2019
Criminal Law - "law and order" and "public order" - Difference between - "public order" indicates something more than "law and order". The breach of public order involves a degree of disturbance and it affects upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order and not a public order. The difference between two concepts is in only one degree. An act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order and an act which might be prejudicial to public order may not affect the security of the State. Public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity and it is the absence of any disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradiction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State. Vipin Sinha & Ajit Singh, JJ. Adab @ Ifran v. State of U.P., W.P. No. 3666 of 2018 05-04-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 / 149, 147, 148 and 324 / 149 - If the accused is known to complainant side and witnesses, there is no need for having identification proceedings. Naheed Ara Moonis & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Balwant Rao v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 206 of 1998 05-04-2019
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Ground of Desertion - Where divorce has been sought on the ground of desertion only, the court cannot grant divorce on the ground of cruelty. Shashi Kant Gupta & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Nisha Soni vs Mukesh Soni, F.A. No. 275 of 2015 05-04-2019
Evidence Law - No presumption can be raised against the accused either of fact or in evidence, whatever evidence is available on record, is to be read as it is. Rekha Dikshit, J. (Lucknow Bench) Satish @ Chattish v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 613 of 2006 03-04-2019
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42 (5) (6) and (7) - Regulation 8.1(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007, so far as it includes the Distribution Licensee is ultra-vires to the provisions of the Act, 2003. Vikram Nath, Rajesh Singh Chauhan & Abdul Moin, JJJ. Kisan Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran, S.A. No. 20 of 2016 03-04-2019
Constitution of India - The whole object of reservation is to see that Backward Classes of citizens move forward so that they may march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis. This will not be possible if only the creamy layer within that class bag all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves, leaving the rest of the class as backward as they always were. Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. (Lucknow Bench) Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P., S.S. No. 5472 of 2015 02-04-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366, 376 (2)(G), 506, 147 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114A - Statement of the victim and her cross-examination shows that it is not free of exaggerations, unnatural and improbable allegations. No doubt if the evidence had been convincing and reliable, no corroboration was required. Siddharth, J. Mahboob Pandey v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 2564 of 2017 02-04-2019
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, 2019 - That once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no reservation or preference can be granted on the basis of "domicile", when making admissions the Post Graduate medical course then the same cannot be justified even though they may have been made for objects like "for the benefit of the people of the State" or "State interest" as has been argued by the counsel for the respondents. The injunction in this regard has no exceptions, and therefore the State government is bound to abide by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Alok Mathur, J. (Lucknow Bench) Dr. Jitendra Gupta v. State of U.P., M. S. No. 8616 of 2019 02-04-2019