# M/s Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Revisionist v. U.O.I. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 974
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-22
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 4630 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-soraza-recycling-pvt-ltd-revisionist-v-u-o-i-ors-opp-parties-53790
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
Dhananjay
Awasthi,
Krishna
Agarawal, Kishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh
Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the provisional attachment
carried out by the revenue with regard to two
bank accounts of the petitioner under S. 83 of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and the blocking of the electronic credit ledger,
purportedly on the ground that proceedings
have been launched under S. 74 of the Act.

Headnotes
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
-
S.
83
- Provisional
attachment
-
Draconian power - Formation of opinion -
Requirement
of
tangible
material
-
Absence of reasons - Attachment liable to
be quashed - S. 74 - No proceedings
actually initiated - Incorrect recital in
attachment order - There is not a whisper
of any specific requirement or ground -
Attachment wholly arbitrary - Blocking of
Electronic Credit Ledger - Requirement of
consideration of reply - Personal hearing -
Reasoned order to be passed.
Held:
Absence of Valid Reasons: We are of the
view that there is no reason provided for the
provisional attachment notice and the alleged
supportive reason that has been provided is a
completely ludicrous one - There is not a
whisper of any specific requirement or ground
at the present stage or formation of any
reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the
said bank accounts.
Quashing of Orders: We, accordingly, quash
and set-aside the provisional attachment notices
dated July 23, 2025 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to have the same released
within a period of 48 hours from date.
Electronic Credit Ledger: With regard to
blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the
authorities are directed to look into the reply of
the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and
thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law. The entire process should be
completed within a period of two weeks from
date. (Paras 7,8,9,11,12,13) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,
(2021) 6 SCC 771; CIT v. Kelvinator of India
Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 723; CIT v. Techspan (India)
(P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685; R.D. Enterprises v.
Union
of
India,
2024:
AHC:149247-DB;
Amazonite Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 184 (Cal.).

List of Acts
9 All. M/S Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
975
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Provisional Attachment; Draconian; Tangible
Material;
Opinion;
Necessary
So
to
Do;
Protecting the Interest of the Government
Revenue; Non-Est; Electronic Credit Ledger;
Reasoned Order.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:

Writ Tax No. 4630 of 2025, Ms Soraza Recycling
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging orders of provisional attachment
and ledger blocking.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner / Revisionist:
Nishant Mishra
Vedika Nath
Advs. for the Opp. Parties / Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Dhananjay Awasthi
Krishna Agarawal
Kishna Mohan Asthana
Maneesh Mehrotra
Saumitra Singh

## Text

974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute of a specified value, such a suit is
cognizable only by the Commercial Court,
and the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

25. In view of the above facts, the
trial court has not committed any illegality
in
allowing
the
defendant
no.3?s
application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
and returning the plaint for presentation to
the proper court of jurisdiction.

26. Accordingly, the instant appeal
is meritless and is dismissed under Order
41 Rule 11 C.P.C. at the admission stage.

27. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 974
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ Tax No. 4630 of 2025

M/s Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.S.G.I.,
Dhananjay
Awasthi,
Krishna
Agarawal, Kishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh
Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the provisional attachment
carried out by the revenue with regard to two
bank accounts of the petitioner under S. 83 of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and the blocking of the electronic credit ledger,
purportedly on the ground that proceedings
have been launched under S. 74 of the Act.

Headnotes
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
-
S.
83
- Provisional
attachment
-
Draconian power - Formation of opinion -
Requirement
of
tangible
material
-
Absence of reasons - Attachment liable to
be quashed - S. 74 - No proceedings
actually initiated - Incorrect recital in
attachment order - There is not a whisper
of any specific requirement or ground -
Attachment wholly arbitrary - Blocking of
Electronic Credit Ledger - Requirement of
consideration of reply - Personal hearing -
Reasoned order to be passed.
Held:
Absence of Valid Reasons: We are of the
view that there is no reason provided for the
provisional attachment notice and the alleged
supportive reason that has been provided is a
completely ludicrous one - There is not a
whisper of any specific requirement or ground
at the present stage or formation of any
reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the
said bank accounts.
Quashing of Orders: We, accordingly, quash
and set-aside the provisional attachment notices
dated July 23, 2025 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to have the same released
within a period of 48 hours from date.
Electronic Credit Ledger: With regard to
blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the
authorities are directed to look into the reply of
the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and
thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law. The entire process should be
completed within a period of two weeks from
date. (Paras 7,8,9,11,12,13) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,
(2021) 6 SCC 771; CIT v. Kelvinator of India
Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 723; CIT v. Techspan (India)
(P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685; R.D. Enterprises v.
Union
of
India,
2024:
AHC:149247-DB;
Amazonite Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 184 (Cal.).

List of Acts
9 All. M/S Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
975
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Provisional Attachment; Draconian; Tangible
Material;
Opinion;
Necessary
So
to
Do;
Protecting the Interest of the Government
Revenue; Non-Est; Electronic Credit Ledger;
Reasoned Order.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:

Writ Tax No. 4630 of 2025, Ms Soraza Recycling
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging orders of provisional attachment
and ledger blocking.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner / Revisionist:
Nishant Mishra
Vedika Nath
Advs. for the Opp. Parties / Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Dhananjay Awasthi
Krishna Agarawal
Kishna Mohan Asthana
Maneesh Mehrotra
Saumitra Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. K.M.
Asthana, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by
the provisional attachment carried out by
the revenue with regard to two bank
accounts of the petitioner under Section 83
of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The prayers made out in the writ
petition are as follows:-

 "A- Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
orders
of
provisional attachment in Form DRC-22
dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-1 & 2) passed
by
respondent
no.
2,
provisionally
attaching bank account No.120033996329
maintained with Canara Bank, Kotdwar
Branch
and
bank
account
bearing
No.25430200000000263 maintained with
Indian Overseas Bank, Kotdwar Branch;

 B- Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
order
dated
28.07.2025
(Annexure-3) of respondent no. 3 blocking
the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner
to the tune of Rs.1,95,57,339/-;

 C- Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the
respondents
to
forthwith
allow
operations of both bank accounts of the
petitioner forthwith unblock the credit
ledger of the petitioner;

 ..."

4. Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the reasons provided
in the attachment notice are absolutely false
and contrary to the facts. He submits that
the reason for attachment has been stated to
be that proceedings have been launched
against the aforesaid taxable person under
Section 74 of the Act. He further submits
that till date, no show cause notice has been
issued under Section 74 of the Act. He also
submits that Section 83 of the Act, being a
draconian provision wherein the bank
accounts of the petitioner has been attached
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resulting in complete halt in the business of
the petitioner, is to be applied in rare
instances and only after proper reasons for
the same are provided by the authorities.

5.
Per
contra,
Mr.
Krishna
Agarawala, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the revenue passes on the
instructions and states that a search was
carried out in the premises of the petitioner
and the investigation against the petitioner
is an ongoing process. He submits that
Section 74 proceedings shall be initiated
against the petitioner at the earliest. He,
accordingly, supports the attachment order
passed on July 23, 2025 stating that the
authorities are of the view that the
petitioner may alienate a sum of money that
is lying in his bank accounts.

6. Upon hearing counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties, we firstly place on
record Section 83 of the Act which reads as
follows:-

 "83. Provisional attachment to
protect revenue in certain cases. - (1)
Where during the pendency of any
proceedings under section 62 or section
63 or section 64 or section 67 or section
73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that for the purpose of
protecting
the
interest
of
the
Government revenue, it is necessary so
to do, he may, by order in writing attach
provisionally any property, including
bank account, belonging to the taxable
person in such manner as may be
prescribed.

 (2)
Every
such
provisional
attachment shall cease to have effect after
the expiry of a period of one year from the
date of the order made under sub-section
(1)."
7. A plain reading of the above
section
reveals
that
the
provisional
attachment should only be carried out to
protect the interest of the Government
when the authorities find it necessary to do
so, and such order of attachment is required
to be in writing. The Supreme Court and
this Court in catena of judgments have
categorically held that the reasons provided
in the attachment notice must be proper.
Lack of reasons would result in quashing of
the provisional attachment as a valuable
right of the petitioner is threatened by the
said provisional attachment.

8. Before proceeding further, one
may have a brief look at the exposition of
law on the subject matter at hand. The
Supreme
Court
in
Radha
Krishan
Industries v. State of H.P. reported in
(2021) 6 SCC 771 has categorically held
that opinion for provisional attachment
must be based on existence of some
tangible material and should not be based
on
mere
discretion
of
authorities.
Furthermore, the Court has crystallised its
findings and concluded in relation to
formation of opinion for provisional
attachment under Section 83 of the Act The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
quoted hereinbelow:

 "49. Now in this backdrop, it
becomes necessary to emphasise that
before the Commissioner can levy a
provisional attachment, there must be a
formation of ?the opinion? and that it is
necessary ?so to do? for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government
revenue. The power to levy a provisional
attachment is draconian in nature. By the
exercise of the power, a property belonging
to the taxable person may be attached,
including a bank account. The attachment
is
provisional
and
the
statute
has
9 All. M/S Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
977
contemplated an attachment during the
pendency of the proceedings under the
stipulated statutory provisions noticed
earlier.
An
attachment
which
is
contemplated in Section 83 is, in other
words, at a stage which is anterior to the
finalisation of an assessment or the raising
of a demand. Conscious as the legislature
was of the draconian nature of the power
and the serious consequences which
emanate from the attachment of any
property including a bank account of the
taxable person, it conditioned the exercise
of the power by employing specific
statutory language which conditions the
exercise of the power. The language of the
statute indicates first, the necessity of the
formation of opinion by the Commissioner;
second, the formation of opinion before
ordering a provisional attachment; third
the existence of opinion that it is necessary
so to do for the purpose of protecting the
interest of the government revenue; fourth,
the issuance of an order in writing for the
attachment of any property of the taxable
person; and fifth, the observance by the
Commissioner of the provisions contained
in the rules in regard to the manner of
attachment. Each of these components of
the statute are integral to a valid exercise
of power. In other words, when the exercise
of the power is challenged, the validity of
its exercise will depend on a strict and
punctilious observance of the statutory
preconditions by the Commissioner. While
conditioning the exercise of the power on
the formation of an opinion by the
Commissioner that ?for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government
revenue, it is necessary so to do?, it is
evident that the statute has not left the
formation of opinion to an unguided
subjective discretion of the Commissioner.
The formation of the opinion must bear a
proximate and live nexus to the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government
revenue.

 50. By utilising the expression ?it
is necessary so to do? the legislature has
evinced an intent that an attachment is
authorised not merely because it is
expedient to do so (or profitable or
practicable for the Revenue to do so) but
because it is necessary to do so in order to
protect interest of the government revenue.
Necessity postulates that the interest of the
Revenue can be protected only by a
provisional attachment without which the
interest of the Revenue would stand
defeated.
Necessity
in
other
words
postulates a more stringent requirement
than a mere expediency. A provisional
attachment
under
Section
83
is
contemplated during the pendency of
certain proceedings, meaning thereby that
a final demand or liability is yet to be
crystallised. An anticipatory attachment of
this nature must strictly conform to the
requirements,
both
substantive
and
procedural, embodied in the statute and the
rules. The exercise of unguided discretion
cannot be permissible because it will leave
citizens and their legitimate business
activities to the peril of arbitrary power.
Each of these ingredients must be strictly
applied before a provisional attachment on
the property of an assessee can be levied.
The Commissioner must be alive to the fact
that such provisions are not intended to
authorise Commissioners to make preemptive strikes on the property of the
assessee, merely because property is
available for being attached. There must be
a valid formation of the opinion that a
provisional attachment is necessary for the
purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue.

***
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 52. We adopt the test of the
existence of ?tangible material?. In this
context, reference may be made to the
decision of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator
of India Ltd. [CIT v. Kelvinator of India
Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 723] S.H. Kapadia, J.
(as the learned Chief Justice then was)
while considering the expression ?reason
to believe? in Section 147 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 that income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment inter alia by
the omission or failure of the assessee to
disclose fully and truly all material facts
necessary for the assessment of that year,
held that the power to reopen an
assessment must be conditioned on the
existence of ?tangible material? and that
?reasons must have a live link with the
formation of the belief?. This principle was
followed subsequently in a two-Judge
Bench decision in CIT v. Techspan (India)
(P) Ltd. [CIT v. Techspan (India) (P) Ltd.,
(2018) 6 SCC 685] While adverting to
these decisions we have noticed that
Section 83 of the Hpgst Act uses the
expression ?opinion? as distinguished from
?reasons to believe?. However for the
reasons that we have indicated earlier we
are clearly of the view that the formation of
the opinion must be based on tangible
material which indicates a live link to the
necessity to order a provisional attachment
to protect the interest of the government
revenue.

***

 "76.4. The power to order a
provisional attachment of the property of
the taxable person including a bank
account is draconian in nature and the
conditions which are prescribed by the
statute for a valid exercise of the power
must be strictly fulfilled.

 76.5. The exercise of the power
for ordering a provisional attachment must
be preceded by the formation of an opinion
by the Commissioner that it is necessary so
to do for the purpose of protecting the
interest of the government revenue. Before
ordering a provisional attachment the
Commissioner must form an opinion on the
basis of tangible material that the assessee
is likely to defeat the demand, if any, and
that therefore, it is necessary so to do for
the purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue.

 76.6. The expression ?necessary
so to do for protecting the government
revenue? implicates that the interests of the
government revenue cannot be protected
without ordering a provisional attachment.
76.7. The formation of an opinion by the
Commissioner under Section 83(1) must be
based on tangible material bearing on the
necessity
of
ordering
a
provisional
attachment for the purpose of protecting
the interest of the government revenue."

 (Emphasis added)

9. This court in R.D. Enterprises
v.
Union
of
India
reported
in
2024:AHC:149247-DB penned by one of
us has held that this provision being
draconian
in
nature
necessitates
the
formation of an opinion based on cogent
reasons
before
exercising
power
for
provisional
attachment.
The
relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:

 '7. One may look into the
judgment passed by the Calcutta High
Court in the case of Amazonite Steels Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2020
9 All. M/S Soraza Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
979
(36) G.S.T.L. 184 (Cal.), wherein the Court
has held as follows:?

 'Epilogue:

 'A tax collector should collect
taxes from a taxpayer just like a bee
collects honey from a flower in an expert
manner without disturbing its petals? -
Kautilya in Arthashastra.

 38. The new regime under the
GST Act, 2017 is a new legislative creation
by which the Union Government along with
all the State Governments have streamlined
various statutes under which tax was
earlier collected to enhance the ease of
doing business by preventing multi-point
taxation that was extremely cumbersome
and time consuming for the citizens of
India. The raison d?etre of the GST Act,
2017 is to reduce the burden of tax and
also to simplify the procedures. This,
however, is coupled with certain far
reaching and drastic measures that would
be applicable on persons who evade the
payment of such taxes. One need not stress
the importance of the responsibility that
comes upon the Government officials who
take such drastic measures upon the
citizens of this country. Nonetheless, these
drastic provisions come with a purpose,
and that is to ensure collection of taxes so
that the inequities in society may be
reduced by the Government. Provisions
such
as
provisional
attachment
are
necessary to ensure that persons who
intend to evade taxes and/or are a part of a
mechanism to defraud the Government are
nipped in the bud and appropriate taxes
can be collected from such persons.'

 8. We are of the view that the
legislature never intended this provision to
be read in a casual manner, as the
provision for provisional attachment is a
drastic measure that the Department takes
even before assessing the liability of the
petitioner. This provision is in the nature of
preventive detention in criminal cases
where one detains a person without any
offence having been committed.

 9. In light of the above, it
becomes extremely necessary for the
Department to justify the reasons for such a
provisional attachment and without such
justification
being
provided
by
the
Department, by way of specific reasons,
such provisional attachment would be
illegal, arbitrary and non est in law. In the
present facts and circumstances of the case,
we do not find recording of any such
reasons.'

10.
In
the backdrop
of
the
abovementioned judgments, we delineate
below one of the provisional attachment
letters issued to the petitioner:-

 "To, The Branch Manager,
 Canara Bank,
 L I S A Building, Najibabad
Road,
 P O Kotdwara-246149

 Subject:- Provisional attachment
of property under section 83 of the CGST
Act, 2017.

 It is to inform that M/s Soraza
Recycling Private Limited (PAN No.
ABICS3958D), Khasra No. 373, Village
Ravali, Dhaulana, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh,
245301
bearing
registration
No.
09ABICSS3958D1Z1
is
a
registered
taxpayer under the CGST Act 2017.
Proceedings have been launched against
the aforesaid taxable person under Section
74 of the CGST Act 2017 to determine the
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tax or any other amount due from the said
person. As per information available with
the department, it has come to my notice
that the said person has bank A/C
No.120033996329.

 In order to protect the interests of
revenue
and
in
exercise
of
powers
conferred under section 83 of the Act, I,
Jitendra Kumar, Commissioner of CGST,
Noida hereby provisionally attach the
aforesaid account/property and all other
bank accounts associated with PAN No
ABICS3958D.

 No debit shall be allowed to be
made from the said account or any other
account operated by the aforesaid person
on the same PAN without the prior
permission of this department.

 Further, the KYC documents and
statement of abovesaid Bank Account No.
since inception may also be provided for
necessary action at this end.
 Digitally signed by
Jitendra Kumar
23.07.2025
(Jitendra Kumar)
Commissioner."

11. Upon a perusal of the said
letter, the only reason that emanates is that
the present provisional attachments are
required to be made as proceedings have
been launched against the aforesaid taxable
person under Section 74 of the Act. There
is not a whisper of any specific requirement
or ground at the present stage or formation
of any reasoned opinion for provisionally
attaching the said bank accounts. Secondly,
as it appears from the facts, no proceedings
have been initiated under Section 74 of the
Act. In light of the same, we are of the
view that there is no reason provided for
the provisional attachment notice and the
alleged supportive reason that has been
provided is a completely ludicrous one. If
the reason that provisional attachment is
being done as proceedings have been
initiated under Section 74 of the Act is
allowed to stand, then in all proceedings
wherein show cause notice is issued under
Section 74, provisional attachment would
become valid. The law as laid down in the
abovementioned
judgements
makes
it
patently clear that a proper opinion has to
be formed based on adequate reasons for
such a draconian action to be taken. In the
present case, such reasons are definitely
lacking
and
the
impugned order
is
absolutely perverse and arbitrary. In light
of
the
same,
both
the
provisional
attachment notices are without any basis in
law and are required to be quashed and setaside. We, accordingly, quash and set-aside
the provisional attachment notices dated
July 23, 2025 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to have the same
released within a period of 48 hours from
date. We make it clear that the order passed
in Court today shall not in any way hinder
the authorities from issuing a fresh notice
under Section 83 of the Act in accordance
with law.

12. With regard to blocking of the
electronic credit ledger, the authorities are
directed to look into the reply of the
petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and
thereafter, pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law. The entire process of
passing a reasoned order on the issue of
blocking of the electronic credit ledger
should be completed within a period of two
weeks from date.

13. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
9 All. Arun & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
981
(2025) 9 ILRA 981
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025

Arun & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Prateek Tewari, Praveen Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shashank Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
claim
compassionate
appointment on the basis of unregistered
adoption deed.

Headnotes
Service law
-
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,
1956
-
S.
16
-
Registration
Act,
1908
-
S.
17
-
Compassionate appointment - Claim was
made on the basis of an adoption deed,
which was denied on the ground that the
adoption deed is not registered one -
Validity challenged:
Held : A conjoint reading of the amended
Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in
the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3)
of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of
U.P. makes it clear that after 01.01.1977, any
adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only
by way of a registered deed and not otherwise
- As the alleged adoption deed is a notarized
deed and not a registered deed in accordance
with law, therefore, no benefit could accrue at
least before a writ court in favour of the
appellant. [Paras 7 and 8] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal no. 236 of 2014; Sanjay Kumar
3238 (S/S) of 2014 v. State of U.P. & Ors.
decided on 05.05.2014 - referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
S. 16; Registration Act, 1908 - S. 17 (amended
vide S. 32 of Amendment Act, 1976); U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976

List of Keywords
Natural
guardian;
Adoption
deed;
Compassionate
appointment;
Presumption;
Registered
deed;
Statutory
requirement;
Succession
certificate;
Notarized
deed;
Secondary evidence.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed in
HABC Writ Petition No. 177 of 2025; Ayesha v.
State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Prateek Tewari,
Praveen Kumar Tewari
Advs. for the Respondeents : C.S.C., Shashank
Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard.

2.
This
is
a
special
appeal
challenging an order dated 11.08.2025
passed by learned Single Judge in HABC
writ petition bearing No.177/2025 [Ayesha
through her mother Ragini and Anr. vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.]. The petition was
filed by respondent no.6 through her
natural guardians and respondent nos.7 and
8. Learned Single Judge has allowed the
claim of natural guardians i.e. opposite
party no.s 7 and 8 to custody of opposite
party no.6 and has rejected the stand of
appellants herein on the ground that alleged
adoption deed which is a notarized one is