[SARFAESI Act] Limitation To Be Calculated From Date Of Last Action Against Which Aggrieved Party Approached DRT U/S 17: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Vimla Kashyap and Ors v. Union of India and Ors [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.3953 of 2025] Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 301 The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing securitization...
Case Title: Vimla Kashyap and Ors v. Union of India and Ors [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.3953 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing securitization application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has to be calculated from the date on which last action occurred against which the aggrieved approached the Debt recovery Tribunal under Section 17.
Case title - Sharda University Thru. Registrar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 302
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 302
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday quashed an order of the UP Government rejecting Greater Noida-based Sharda University's request to be included in the list of colleges participating in the ongoing NEET Counselling.
The rejection order, passed by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh (DGME), was based on the fact that the minority status granted to the University was not in accordance with the Government Order dated August 28, 1999.
Release Accused On 'Single' Surety; Don't Remand Them To Custody If Chargesheet Filed Sans Arrest: Allahabad HC Directs UP Courts
Case title - Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303
The Allahabad High Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions for the trial courts across Uttar Pradesh to ensure uniform trial court practice, to give effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and to implement binding Supreme Court directions in this regard.
Exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar on Tuesday directed that in all cases where the chargesheet has been filed without arrest, whether because custodial interrogation was not affected during investigation or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS and duly cooperated, certain practices should be adopted across the state.
Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To AMU Professor In FIR Over Alleged Reference To Rape In Hindu Mythology
Case title - Dr Jitendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 304
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 304
The Allahabad High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an Aligarh Muslim University professor (Dr Jitendra Kumar) who is facing an FIR for allegedly referring to examples of 'rape' in Hindu mythology during a Forensic Medicine class in 2022.
A bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary granted him relief, taking into account the applicant's role and all the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case title - Sultan Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 305
In a sternly worded order, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an Advocate seeking a departmental enquiry against an Assistant Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, holding that the petition was 'actuated by malafides' and amounted to 'an abuse of the process of the Court'.
As a penalty, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed him to assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a pro bono basis.
Case Title: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8704 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 306
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses are maintainable even if the case under the Act is at revisional or appellate stage or if restoration application is pending in any such proceedings under the Act which have been dismissed in default.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the liability to pay the amount will not come to an end merely because the proceedings are pending at the revisional stage, appellate stage or even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending.”
Failure To Commence Trial Violates Wife's Fundamental Rights: Allahabad High Court Orders Daily Hearing In Cruelty Case Pending For 21 Yrs
Case Title: Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg v. State of U.P. And 10 others [MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3880 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 307
While dealing with a wife's prayer to direct the Trial Court to commence hearing a cruelty case, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that after more than 2 decades of filing FIR & chargesheet, the trial had not commenced.
Stating that the Court was conscious of the Trial Court's workload, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed
“Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the FIR was registered, it is regrettable that the trial court has failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.”
Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21492 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 308
The Allahabad High Court has held that once an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been passed granting possession to the secured creditor, i.e., bank, the borrower cannot, through a tenant, obtain a stay from the Civil Court to escape liability.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held
“Tenancy that has been created during the pendency of the mortgage without permission of the secured creditor, that is, the bank would be subject to the condition of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and whether these conditions are satisfied will have to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') only. A tenant is required to move an application under Section 17 before the DRT for asserting his rights under such a registered document.”
Criminal Liability U/S 31 Domestic Violence Act Arises Only When Protection Order U/S 12 To 23 Violated: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sattar Ahmad & 4 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35994 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 309
While dealing with application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Allahabad High Court has held that criminal proceedings under the Act can only be initiated if there is a breach in any conditions of the order passed in civil proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act.
Justice Vinod Diwakar held that
“in the absence of a prior protection order duly passed by the Magistrate, the police is not empowered per se to register an FIR under Section 31 of the Act. The procedural mandate of the Act requires that the process be initiated through the civil mechanism envisaged under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act, and only upon breach of such an order does criminal liability under Section 31 of the Act, 2005 arise.”
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 310
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held
“Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Pheasant Infrastructure Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 33964 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 311
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that once order of the Commissioner in appeal has attained finality, the Development Authority cannot reject sanction of map based on subsequent master plan which might be in contradiction with the order of the Commissioner.
While dealing with a developers writ petition against Ghaziabad Development Authority, Justice Prakash Padia held
“in compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner in the appeal, the Development Authority was under obligation to consider that the formalities, as required by letter dated 28.11.2006 had been completed or not and in case, the formalities, as mentioned in the order are completed, the authority was required to release the map, but the Development Authority, wholly illegally, carved out a new case to reject the sanction of map, i.e. land use under Master Plan 2021, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Commissioner in the appeal.”
Merely Exhorting Co-Accused Not Enough To Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Life Convict After 42 Years
Case Title: Vijai @ Babban v. State of U.P. [Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2977 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 312
After 42 years long legal battle, the Allahabad High Court acquitted a man serving life term for a murder, stated to have been exhorted by him.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Madan Pal Singh was of the view that general exhortation is a weak piece of evidence and unless the prosecution shows "meeting of minds" upon exhortation, which led the co-accused to stab the deceased, the former cannot be convicted for murder.
Abbas Ansari Should've Shown Restraint, But Refusal To Stay Conviction Unfair To Voters: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief In Hate Speech Case
Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 313
The Allahabad High Court stayed the conviction of gangster-turned-politician late Mukhtar Ansari's son and disqualified MLA Abbas Ansari, in connection with the 'Hisab-Kitab' hate speech case of 2022.
Ansari, elected from the Mau Constituency of Uttar Pradesh, made a speech during a rally in 2022, allegedly threatening government officials with payback if the SP-SBSP alliance formed the government in the state.
Case Title: Maaz Ahmad v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan New Delhi and 8 Others [WRIT – C No. 7585 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 314
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the benefit of reservation for NEET examination must be given based on Unique Disability ID (UDID) issued by competent authority and the authority under the National Medical Commission Act could not reassess the disability suffered by the candidate.
While granting relief to a NEET aspirant, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held:
“the only function which can be assigned to the authorities designated in terms of the guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission Act can be to assess the 'functional disability' for which the candidate would have to undergo test to form a view as to whether the person who has applied for NEET Examination is functionally able to undergo the studies and the rigours of the course. The same does not authorize the designated agency to reassess the disability suffered by the candidate in terms of the certificate issued by the UDID Authority...Considering the fact that the petitioner qualified in the functional disability test and has been found suitable for undergoing medical studies, the disability certificate issued by the authority and reflected in the UDID would prevail for the benefit of grant of reservation”
Allahabad High Court Expresses Concern Over Failure Of Police To Serve Summons/Execute Coercive Measures To Compel Appearance Of Witnesses
Case Title: Muneer v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18557 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 315
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has raised grave concerns over the failure by police in serving summons and executing coercive measures to ensure appearances of witnesses at the trail despite previous orders by the High Court.
Unjustified To Dismiss An Appeal Due To Delay When Identical Challenge In Another Appeal Was Heard On Merits: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Jay Chemical Works v. M/s Sai Chemicals [COMMERCIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is not justified to dismiss one appeal on grounds of limitation when an identical order has been challenged on identical grounds in a different appeal within limitation
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“it does not appear to be justified that, in one matter, validity of the order returning the plaint is examined on merits and, in another matter, challenge laid to exactly an identical order on identical grounds is discarded only on account of delay having occurred in filing the appeal.”
High Court Can't Assume Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC To End Trial If Case Involves Disputed Questions Of Facts: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Harendra Bansal And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2136 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where disputed questions of facts are involved, it cannot under Section 482 CrPC assume jurisdiction for appreciation of evidence. The case must be dealt by the trial court, held the Court.
Holding that disputed questions of facts were involved, Justice Deepak Verma held,
“it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law.”
Case Title: Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28391 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 318
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that Advocates have a dual responsibility; one, towards the client, and second, towards the Court where they must assist the Court respectfully rather than causing disruptions in the proceedings.
In a case where the counsel for the bail applicant kept on arguing even after the bail was rejected by the Court, Justice Krishan Pahal observed,
“Justice underscores the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law. While they must diligently represent and look after the interests of their clients, they also have an onerous duty to maintain a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom. Advocates should assist the Court rather than cause disruptions, ensuring that the proceedings are orderly and respectful, which ultimately upholds the dignity of the judicial process.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held that
“The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
Appointments Secured On Forged Documents Void Ab Initio, Can Be Cancelled Sans Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad HC
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that appointments secured on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents are void ab initio, and therefore do not confer any right to continue in service or claim salary.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan added that in such cases, before cancelling an appointment, disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules shall not arise.
Allahabad HC Orders Preliminary Inquiry U/S 340 CrPC Into Alleged Forgery, Fabrication Of Judicial Records In Anticipatory Bail Proceedings
Case title - Ankita Priyadarshini vs. Arpan Saxena
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 321
The Allahabad High Court directed the Registrar General of the HC to conduct a preliminary judicial inquiry under Section 340 CrPC against a man whose wife has accused him of securing an order from the HC by committing forgery, impersonation, suppression of material facts and fabrication of judicial records.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed the order on an application moved by one Ankita Priyadarshini, who claimed that her husband (Arpan Saxena) had secured an order while tampering with the judicial record by causing a counter affidavit to go missing, adding unauthorized pages to the counter affidavit to a recall application, and allowing another person to sign multiple applications and affidavits.
Case Title: State Of U.P. and 2 Others v. M/S Satish Chandra Shiv Hare-Brothers [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11680 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, the Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Executing Court is empowered to grant statutory interest which may not have been mentioned in the arbitral award.
In Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, it was held that
“..the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act is no more res-integra. The grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is mandatory. The only discretion which the Arbitral Tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded. Where the Arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply…”
Hindu Marriage Doesn't Become Invalid Merely Because It Is Not Registered: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Sunil Dubey vs Minakshi 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered, and therefore, a Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition.
The court added that while the State Governments are empowered to make rules for registering such marriages, their purpose is only to furnish 'convenient evidence of marriage', and the violation of this requirement doesn't affect the validity of a Hindu marriage.
Police Has No Unbridled Power To Open History-Sheet On Likes Or Dislikes; Cogent Material Required For Reasonable Suspicion: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mohammad Wajir vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that police cannot exercise 'unbridled' and 'uncanalised' power in opening history sheets against someone merely on the basis of their likes or dislikes, and that cogent and reliable material is required to form a reasonable suspicion.
The Court specifically observed that Regulations 228 and 240 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations do not give any power to the police to use it in such a way which has the necessary consequence of squeezing out the fundamental freedom of the citizen.
Case title - Armaan Jaiswal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court took strong objection to an advocate addressing the Court without any Vakalatnama or authority letter from the client, observing that such a practice is 'detrimental' to the litigants on behalf of whom such an advocate is appearing.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi deprecated this practice while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by one Armaan Jaiswal for the production of his father (Shiv Kumar Jaiswal) before the Court.
'Jethani' Not Part Of 'Family' Unless Brothers Share Common House & Kitchen: Allahabad High Court On Anganbari Appointment Bar
Case title - Kumari Sonam vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed the cancellation of an Anganbari Worker's appointment, holding that a sister-in-law (jethani) counts as part of the 'same family' under the Government Order only if both brothers live together with a common house and kitchen.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar held so while allowing a plea filed by one Kumari Sonam, whose appointment was cancelled by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly, on June 13, 2025. The cancellation was based on the ground that her jethani was already serving as Anganbari Assistant at the same centre.
English Version Of Law Prevails Over Hindi Translation Of Bill, Order Or Service Regulations : Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra v. Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8383 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Following various decisions of the Supreme Court and the decision of Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj Jehwa, Justice Manish Mathur held that English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations would prevail over its Hindi version.
Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India provides that if any Bills, Acts, Ordinances or any order, rule, regulation or bye-law are in any language other than English language then a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.
Fit & Major Unmarried Daughter Can't Claim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC; If Plea Filed As Major, It Can Be Converted To Suit U/S 20(3) HAMA: Allahabad HC
Case title - Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a mentally and physically fit major unmarried daughter can't claim maintenance by filing an application under Section 125 CrPC and that such a claim has to be pursued u/s 20(3) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956.
The Court, however, clarified that if a daughter becomes major during the pendency of the application under S. 125 CrPC, maintenance can be allowed to her in the same proceedings by the family court by invoking the provisions of Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.
Case title - Ankit Suman vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's liability to pay maintenance pendente lite (under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act) to the wife doesn't end even when the divorce proceedings have been stayed.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam clarified that the husband's liability to pay won't end even if the case proceedings are pending at the revisional or appellate stages. It added that even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending, the liability continues to exist.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ plea seeking action against the song 'Bhai Vakeel Hai' from the upcoming Bollywood film 'Jolly LLB 3'. It also rejected the prayer to restrain the movie's release on the grounds that it allegedly defamed the judiciary and legal profession.
A Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh categorically observed that it found 'nothing objectionable' in the song's lyrics or in the film's trailer/teaser that could be said to scandalise the legal fraternity, as the two petitioners had claimed.
Case Title – Union of India v Bhular Construction Company & Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam allowed the conversion of a writ petition under Article 227, Constitution of India (“COI”) into an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) noting that where a particular kind of proceeding is not maintainable and a different kind of proceeding lies in respect thereof before the Court, the Court has jurisdiction to convert one into other subject to law relating to limitation and court fees.
'Second FIR After 22 Years Not Proper': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Mukhtar Ansari's 'Aide' In 2001 Usri Chatti Murder Case
Case title - Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged aide of Mukhtar Ansari, in connection with the 2001 Usri Chatti murder case, as it noted that the registration of a second FIR regarding the same incident after 22 years "does not appear proper".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus allowed Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni's bail application, taking into account that an FIR regarding the same incident had already been lodged in 2001, the investigation had been completed, a charge sheet had been submitted and the trial of the case is ongoing.
Every OTS Scheme Is Time-Bound; Borrower Has No Vested Right To Seek Extension: Allahabad High Court
Case title - M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 332
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd., while holding that every 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) scheme is 'time-bound' and a borrower has no vested right to seek an extension beyond the period prescribed under the said scheme.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed that in the instant case, the petitioners had failed to comply with the repayment timeline under the SOTS Scheme 2022-23, which clearly mandated that the maximum repayment period for OTS was 180 days.
Case title - Divya Srivastava And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 333
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) set aside a summoning order passed by the Special CJM Court in Lucknow against two journalists in a defamation complaint filed by a lawyer over the alleged publication of the ex-BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh's letter to the CM.
For context, in the said letter, the lawyer in question was alleged to have been defamed. Thus, he moved the Court of Magistrate with a defamation complaint against the Journalists of 'Sunday Views' [Divya Srivastava/Owner & Sanjay Srivastava/Editor].
Can't Order DNA Test Of Rape Survivor And Child Routinely, Has Serious Social Consequences: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ram Chandra Ram v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24302 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court has held that DNA test of a rape survivor and her child cannot be ordered in a routine manner as it has serious social consequences.
While dealing with challenge to rejection of DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child, Justice Rajeev Misra held,
“in an offence under Section 376 IPC, the paternity of the child is not required to be looked into...the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child that Court can direct for such a test.”
Case Title: Abhinav Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 19283 of 2023]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 335
The Allahabad High Court has held that the State Government is competent to clarify its position regarding 'equivalence of qualification' for recruitment to a post, even after commencement of selection process.
While dealing with the issue of status of the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application ('PGDCA') issued by Ewing Christian College, Allahabad which is an autonomous constituent institute of the University of Allahabad, Justice Ajit Kumar held,
“It is true that rules of the game cannot be changed once the advertisement has given selection process effect to and there may be circumstances where many candidates may be possessing such qualification may not have applied but in my considered view as I have already held in the judgment that a clarificatory stand by the State Government can always be taken during continuance of selection process.”
Case title - Vasik Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Through It Principal Secretary (Home) 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 336
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail plea of a man accused of uploading an image insulting the Indian National Flag by making a dog sit upon it, along with posting allegedly 'pro-Pakistan' content on his Facebook account.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that such posts were 'provocative', 'objectionable' and 'capable of inciting communal disharmony', and that persons maligning the national flag are 'not liable for any sympathetic consideration'.
Even If Workman's Written Statement Is Not Rebutted, Labour Court Must Consider Evidence Before Passing Award: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Omrao Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Up And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 28075 of 2025]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court has held that even if no rebuttal has been filed to the workman's written statement, the Labour Court must look at the evidence and apply its judicial mind while passing the order.
It held that merely because of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the evidence cannot be ignored, and the award cannot be passed solely based on the averments made by the workman.
Case Title: M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Thru Proprietor Ramesh Chand Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment And Climate Change Deptt. Lko And Ors.
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 338
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that Pollution Control Board has the authority and jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, in this case under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla relied on Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action etc. vs. Union of India and others etc. where the Supreme Court had held that under Section 5 read with Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 the Central Government had the power to impose cost for remedial measures.
Case title - Shri Ramswaroop Memorial Educational Trust, Lko. Thru. Managing Trustee Pankaj Agarwal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 339
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) stayed the coercive action, including the ongoing demolition action, against the Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Barabanki, in pursuance of an eviction and penalty order passed against it under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.
A bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order on a writ plea filed by the Shri Ramswaroop Memorial Educational Trust, Lko, through its Managing Trustee, challenging the state's action of demolishing a portion of the University premises.
Case title - Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 340
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 340
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a criminal case against a man booked over his alleged Facebook post on Babri Masjid, which said that "Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey's Sophia Mosque".
However, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot expedited the trial of the case against the accused (Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri).
[UP Revenue Code] Primacy Must Be Given To Family Settlement Acted Upon By Co-Tenure Holders In Partition Dispute: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Shahadat Ali And Another Versus Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Member And 8 Others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a partition dispute under the U.P. Revenue Code. 2006, primacy must be given to family settlement which has been acted upon by the co-tenure holders.
Justice Alok Mathur held, “Primacy has to be given to family settlement, which has been acted upon, and the co-tenure holders are in possession of their respective shares. In case there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the family settlement, the Kurras has to be prepared to take into consideration the family settlement, which is duly recognised in sub Rule (g) of Rule 109 (5) of the Rules, 2016.”
Case Title: Lala Singh And 3 Others Versus Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Lko. And Others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court has held that the directive of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, prescribing a maximum 6-month period for the delivery of judgment by a bench, is applicable to the Revenue Courts.
Justice Alok Mathur held, “We see no reason as to why the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court should not be extended even to the revenue courts to decide the title disputes as a substitute to the civil courts.”
Case Title: M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 389 of 2023]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified.
Proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act can be initiated if an assesee has not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by fraud or any willful- misstatement or suppression of facts.
Mere Talking Terms With Victim Can't Be Treated As 'Enticing Her Away' U/S 361 IPC: Allahabad High Court Quashes Kidnapping Case
Case title - Himanshu Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man booked under Section 363 IPC [Punishment for kidnapping], holding that merely being in talking terms with a minor girl cannot by itself be treated as 'enticing her away from lawful guardianship'.
A bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed that where the minor, voluntarily and on her own accord, leaves the lawful guardianship, then in such circumstances the applicability of Section 361 IPC [Kidnapping from lawful guardianship] does not arise.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a judicial inquiry into alleged police brutality on protesting law students of Barabanki-based Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University..
The court, however, made it clear that its order should not be understood as condoning any illegal act by the authorities or the private university. For context, the students were protesting against the administration for running its law program in violation of norms and without proper renewal/approval, when they were allegedly beaten up.
Case title: M/S Assam Dental Supply Co. Through Its Proprietor Sr Manoj Jhingren v. Director General, Medical And Health Services, Uttar Pradesh Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow And Another
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh, while hearing a Section 11 petition under the Arbitration Act, observed that the letter of the Respondent addressed to the Petitioner, requiring them to give up their interest claim on the outstanding amount, showed that the claims were still under consideration. Therefore, the Claims cannot be termed dead, and the Section 11 petition is well within the limitation period.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Man Facing 'Waging War', UAPA Charges For Allegedly Sharing Pakistan-Made Video Against PM Modi
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the UAPA and serious offences under BNS for allegedly circulating on his WhatsApp status, a Pakistan-manufactured video containing adverse comments against the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai granted bail to Savej, booked for grave offences including 'waging war against the Government of India' and 'acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India'. He was arrested on May 10 this year.
Amitabh Thakur's Quo Warranto Plea Against Sitting Lokayukta Dismissed By Allahabad High Court
Case title - Amitabh Thakur vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Legislative Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 349 [Writ-C No.9055 of 2025] [Petition which is dismissed]; WRIT - C No. - 9022 of 2025 found to be maintainable
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Rejecting this plea, the Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2024 (effective 26 February 2024) has limited the tenure of sitting Lokayuktas and Up-Lokayuktas to five years or until they attain the age of seventy, whichever is earlier.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar And Another V. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 350 [WRIT - C No. - 20190 of 2024 ]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 349
The Allahabad High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings which have already been concluded and have been upheld by the Supreme Court are not revived by Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
While dealing with an acquisition of 1990 which had been upheld by the Apex Court in 2013, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Vinod Diwakar held
“Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to revive or nullify such concluded acquisition proceedings, which have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Caste Glorification 'Anti-National', Respecting Constitution 'True Patriotism': Allahabad High Court Cracks Down On Caste References In FIRs, Public Places
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 350
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court took strong exception to the trend of caste glorification in society and issued sweeping directions to the Uttar Pradesh Government to remove caste references from FIRs, police documents, public records, motor vehicles and public signboards.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that such caste glorification is 'anti-national' and that reverence for the Constitution, rather than for lineage, is the 'highest form of patriotism' and the 'truest expression of national service'.
'PM Disrespected, Investigation Justified': Allahabad High Court Rejects Singer Neha Rathore's Plea Against FIR Over Pahalgam Terror Attack Posts
Case title - Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore challenging an FIR lodged against her under multiple charges, including "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" over her allegedly 'provocative' social media posts on the Pahalgam Terror Attack.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi noted that the allegations in the FIR and other material prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation into the matter.
Case Title: Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3471 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has recently granted relief to the Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of Gautam Budh University, who was terminated from service after she filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Registrar of the University.
After the petitioner challenged her termination before the High Court, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, the petitioner was again terminated. This continued over four times till the present Court ordered her reinstatement. While directing her reinstatement, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that:
“It is a clear case of unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, as all proceedings against her were initiated only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar. Significantly, the proceedings were founded upon a complaint allegedly made by a person who, in fact, had not filed it. This sequence of events unmistakably reflects the conduct of the Registrar, who continued in service with the University, whereas the petitioner has been removed from employment.”
Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Limited Versus High Tech Tyre Retreaders Pvt. Ltd. and another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 112 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court has held that rejecting an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on grounds of lack of jurisdiction without providing alternate remedy amounts to refusing to set aside award, making such order appealable under Section 37 of the Act.
Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for appeals against orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act.
Case Title: Rajat Maurya And 41 Others Versus State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court directed the postponement of the mains exam of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for various posts till a fresh merit list of the preliminary examination is prepared again.
While dealing with the issues regarding non-selection of reserved category candidates (OBC) in the unreserved category in the list prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission after the preliminary examination, Justice Ajit Kumar held
“In view of above, all these petitions succeed and are allowed to the extent that respondent U.P. Public Service Commission shall re-draw the merit list of the preliminary examination result of suitable candidates to qualify for next stage of final examination for the purposes of selection and appointment against vacancies advertised vide advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2024 dated 10.4.2024 and thereafter only Commission shall be holding main examination on the basis of such revised preliminary examination result.”
Allahabad High Court Denies Mutual Divorce Filed Within 6 Months Of Marriage Without 'Exceptional Depravity'
Case Title: Arpit Garg v. Ekta Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Allahabad High Court has denied grant of divorce to a couple who had filed for the same jointly within 6 months of marriage on grounds that there was no exceptional depravity claimed by either party.
Parties got married on 3rd March, 2025 and started living separately from 21st March, 2025. Subsequently, they filed for mutual divorce. However, their application was rejected vide order dated 13th August, 2025. Challenging the order of the Family Court, counsel for appellant-husband argued that leave ought to have been granted for mutual divorce as his exceptional hardship is that he is unable to proceed abroad because of the litigation.
Case Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held
“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.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012 ]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Case title - Krishna Vati And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a stern view on saliva being used by registry officers, clerks for turning pages of the petitions, applications and other documents placed before the Court.
While dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed,
“since morning that in more than ten petitions/ applications, reddish colour saliva is used for turning over the pages of the paper book, before placing it to this Court. Possibility of using it at certain level, like the stage of filing of paper book/ petitions/ applications, either by the Clerk, Oath Commissioner or the Officers/ Officials, who are dealing with the matter in the Registry and in the Office of G.A. and C.S.C. This is an highly unhygienic situation, which is not only disgusting and condemnable, but at the same time it shows the lack of basic civic sense.”
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court today rejected a petition filed by the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi challenging an order of the Varanasi Court directing a re-hearing of a plea seeking registration of an FIR against him over his alleged remarks on Sikhs made during his trip to the United States.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain found no illegality in the order of the lower revisional court which remitted back the matter to the concerned Magistrate.
Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against Shaadi.com, CEO Anupam Mittal In Alleged Cheating Case
Case title - Anupam Mittal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR lodged by a customer against Shaadi.com CEO, Anupam Mittal in an alleged cheating case on grounds that he did not commit any offence in his personal capacity.
The informant, a lawyer, had paid for services on shaadi.com. It is his case that he was being harassed and blackmailed by one Monika Gupta, who had allegedly recorded the informant's obscene videos. In the FIR, he stated that despite complaints on the customer care and in personal capacity to Anupam Mittal, no action was being taken to remove profiles of those who were indulging in obscenity, no action was being taken.
Wife In Voidable Marriage Not Disentitled To Maintenance Unless Decree Of Nullity Is Passed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that wife's right to claim maintenance cannot be denied merely because the marriage “could” be annulled when there is no decree of nullity shown to the Court.
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla held,
“Unless and until, a marriage, which is voidable, has been declared a nullity by a decree, the status of the revisionist as the legally wedded wife of the opposite party No.2 persists and all the rights that flow from the same continuous.”
[S.125 CrPC] Application For Maintenance Against Minor Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State Of Up And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court has held that application under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC seeking maintenance against minor are maintainable.
While dealing with a case involving child marriage and a maintenance claim against a minor husband, Justice Madan Pal Singh held that
“There is no bar in entertainment of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 128 Cr.P.C. filed against a minor.”
Case Title: Alok Kumar Yadav v. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 788 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that intra court appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are maintainable only if an order punishing for contempt has been passed, or if there has been adjudication on merits of the case i.e. substantive issues of the original dispute between the parties, otherwise they are not maintainable.
Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. vs. Chunnilal Nanda and Ors., the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“the legal position is well settled and established over a period of about two decades holding that appeal against order passed refusing to initiate proceedings for contempt/dropping of contempt proceedings is not maintainable except for exception carved out in the case of Midnapore (supra). “
Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On SBI For Sitting On Compassionate Appointment Claim
Case Title: Prinsu Singh v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the State Bank of India for not deciding the application/ representation for compassionate appointment for 5 years.
While dealing with a writ petition where a son had approached the Court seeking direction to the Bank to decide his application for compassionate appointment, Justice Ajay Bhanot held,
“Costs of Rs. 100,000/- are imposed upon the respondent bank for failing to decide the representation of the petitioner in an expeditious time frame in light of the charter of their duties.”
Case title - Irfan vs. State of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court observed that injury to the private parts of a rape victim is not always necessary as evidence to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape.
The High Court said that the absence of injury to the prosecutrix's private parts could be due to the non-employment of force in perpetration of the crime in cases where she is put in fear to an extent that she did not resist the act.
Case title - Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman And 4 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board 3a And 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application filed by plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 in the suit no 7 of Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah title dispute cases seeking the removal of Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur Ji @ Kaushal Singh Tomar as the next friend of plaintiff no. 1, the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the grounds taken in the application were not sufficient for removal of next friend, which, he said, was a 'drastic' action and can only be taken when it is proved that the next friend is acting against the interest of the deity.
Allahabad High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Woman Convicted For Killing NRI Husband, Confirms Life Term To Accomplice
Case title - Ramandeep Kaur vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the conviction of a 38-year-old British woman for the murder of her NRI husband, but commuted the capital sentence imposed by the trial court to one of life imprisonment. The Court also confirmed the life term awarded to her alleged lover for his role in the killing.
Case title - Sajid Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 368
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely posting a message showing support for another country may create anger or disharmony among citizens of India and may also be punishable under Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity), but it will not attract the stringent provisions of Section 152 BNS (Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India).
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai made the observation while granting bail to one Sajid Chaudhary who has been accused of forwarding a Facebook post stating 'Pakistan Zindabad'.
Matrimonial Discord Common In Domestic Life; Torture Sans Intent To Abet Suicide Won't Attract S. 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Rachana Devi And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has observed that matrimonial discord and differences in domestic life are quite common and if due to this reason, either husband or wife commits suicide, then it cannot be held that due to their abetment, the deceased committed suicide.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while setting aside the order of a Sessions Court which had rejected a discharge application filed by a woman and her parents facing trial under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her husband.
Absence Of Upward Injury Marks On Deceased Leads Allahabad High Court To Acquit Sole Surviving Accused In 1984 Murder Case
Case title - Har Swaroop vs. State
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man in connection with a nearly four-decade-old murder case as it opined that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In its appreciation of evidence against the sole surviving accused, a Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha found that the firearm injuries on the deceased did not show any upward direction, which would have been expected if shots were fired at him (by the accused standing on ground) while the deceased sat on the driver's seat of a tractor.
Case title - Laxman vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a recall application filed seeking a recall of its judgment passed in March this year confirming the conviction of the an accused (appellant before HC) in connection with a 1982 Murder case.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri noted that the recall application was barred by Section 362 CrPC which prohibits criminal courts from reviewing or altering their judgments once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
NDPS Act | FSL Report Only Corroborative Evidence, Its Non-Filing With Chargesheet No Ground For Bail: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Randhir vs. State of U.P
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has observed that that non-annexure of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report to the charge sheet does not, by itself, entitle an accused to bail in cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where commercial quantity contraband is recovered and the bar under Section 37 applies.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said so while rejecting the second bail plea of an accused who was allegedly apprehended from a DCM truck in November 2024 carrying 151.600 kilograms of ganja, and was thus found in conscious possession of contraband above the commercial quantity threshold.
S. 319 CrPC | Additional Accused Can Be Summoned Only On Evidence Led In Trial, Not On Investigation Material: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Ramnarayan Ram Daroga And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a trial court's power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused is confined to the evidence adduced before it during trial and cannot be exercised on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli summoning 3 revisionists to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, and 427 of the IPC.
Case title - Veerpal vs. Prabhat Tomar And 13 Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an election petition is e-filed by the petitioner himself and the petitioner is present virtually before the court along with his advocate at the time of its presentation during the COVID-19 period, the same would amount to 'sufficient compliance' with Rule 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994, which requires that an election petition be presented in person.
Declaration Of Marital-Status Strikes At Core Of Society, Can Be Done Only By Competent Court: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ketan Rastogi And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court observed that the declaration of marital-status strikes at the very core of society and can only be made by competent Court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed,
“It goes without saying that the declaration of the parties' marital-status, strikes at the very core of society. Declaration in the light of Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be made only by a competent court of law in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. The courts are under obligation to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties.”
Case title - Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru. Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And 6 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody of a minor child has been handed over pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed thus while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son claiming that she is her natural guardian.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court has mandated that in all petitions where provisions or references of the newly promulgated criminal laws [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)] are mentioned, the corresponding provisions of the repealed Acts [(Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA)] must also be added alongside.
Dismissal Of Divorce Petition Does Not Bar Second Plea For Divorce On Different Grounds: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Chitranshi v. Rajnarayan Tripathi
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court has held that dismissal of a divorce petition on one ground does not bar a second divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on any other ground between the same parties.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“Decision of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on one ground will not operate as res judicata for filing divorce petition on other grounds as specified in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Once the party is permitted to file a second petition even after dismissal of the first petition on a separate ground, there is no impediment in taking that ground by moving an application for amendment in the petition.”
Allahabad High Court Asks Judges To Avoid Recording Abusive Words In Witness Testimonies
Case Title: Santreepa Devi v. State Of Up And 06 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court has directed all judicial officers in the State of U.P. to not record abusive language or filthy words made in evidence/ statements during trial.
While dealing with a criminal revision against order of the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, Justice Harvir Singh observed,
“The recording of filthy languages and abusive words in the pleadings are unwarranted and inappropriate, hence it is directed that not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the state judiciary, shall take due precautions, avoiding the uses of such abusive or filthy language and words, those have been used in the order in question and the statement of PW-1 recorded on 30.04.2024. The decorum and dignity of the post be appeared to have been reflected in the language used in the judicial orders.”
Case title - Chandrama Vishvakarma vs. Union of India and 3 others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 380
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the Union of India and the Uttar Pradesh Government to enact a law for the protection of men from "illegal prosecution and other harassment by women".
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra rejected the plea moved by one Chandrama Vishvakarma.
Case title - Smt. Saba @ Saba Siddiqui vs. Shodul Hasan
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the "poor quality of assistance" being rendered by several advocates to courts already burdened with heavy dockets, calling it a "very sad state of affairs”"
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that such conduct of the lawyers becomes "a hurdle in speedy dispensation of justice" and thwarts the Supreme Court's recent direction that bail matters be decided within two months of filing.
WhatsApp Message Alleging Targeting Of Particular Religious Group May Constitute Offence Of Promoting Enmity U/S 353(2) BNS: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Afaq Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court has observed that circulating a WhatsApp message to multiple persons alleging that people of a particular religious community were being targeted would prima facie amount to offence of promoting feeling of enmity, hatred & ill will between religious communities under Section 353 (2) BNS.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made this observation while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against petitioner (Afaq Ahmad) who had allegedly forwarded an inflammatory message to several individuals on WhatsApp.
Case Title: Varish Khan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10397 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that parity must not be followed while granting bail when the order relied on records wrong facts.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh held that “a Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity if the order granting bail contain wrong facts. If any illegality is brought to the notice of the Court, the same shall not be permitted to perpetuate.”
Bail applicant was charged with crimes under Sections 396, 412 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act. Informant's brother and his children were allegedly attacked and killed by 5 assailants, namely Sarik, Shahrukh, Dabar, Varish and Farman, who were arrested together. The Court noted that they had pleaded guilty to the crime. Applicant along with Farman had confessed to having a knife in his hand.
Case title - Rajeev Jain vs. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Lok Adalat has no authority to dismiss a pending complaint for want of prosecution on the mere non-appearance of a party and must, where no compromise or settlement is arrived at, return the case back to the court concerned.
A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta also added that a Lok Adalat can't take up the matter on own motion, without obtaining the consent of the parties and without any intimation to the complainant.
Allahabad High Court Alters Husband's S. 307 IPC Conviction To 324 & Then 'Acquits' Him Based On Compromise With Wife
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 385
The Allahabad High Court recently 'altered' a husband's conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means) and then 'acquitted' him after recording that he and victim-wife had reconciled and were living together as husband and wife since 1988 and had raised two children.
With this, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh allowed the criminal appeal filed by husband (Pramod Kumar) challenging the 1987 judgment and order of conviction. Interestingly, the Bench first 'quashed' the trial court's judgement and order of conviction and then 'set it aside' based on the compromise between the parties.
Case title - Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Pvt.Ltd.Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri Aditya Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Environment Forest/Climate Change Lko. And 3 Others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 386
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) observed that a party which has participated in a tender process and has subsequently been declared unsuccessful cannot be permitted to challenge the tender conditions at a later stage, particularly after the process has substantially advanced.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Avani Paridhi Energy and Communications Pvt. Ltd. challenging the technical evaluation and the entire tender process, alleging it violated a Government Order.
Adoption In State Of UP Can Take Place Only By Registered Deed, Merely Notarised Adoption Deed Invalid: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Arun And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Affairs Govt. Sectt. Lko. And 7 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 316 of 2025]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of the state amendment in Section 17(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, only a registered adoption deed is valid in the State of U.P. Mere notarization of an adoption deed does not make it valid for proving succession, held the Court.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar 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.”
Case Title: U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Versus Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru.Secy.Andors [WRIT - C No. - 16125 of 2018]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 388
While dealing with a writ petition for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), the Allahabad High Court has held that when the documents for TDS are provided by the assesee, the Assessing Officer must process the refund and cannot delay payment of refund in genuine cases.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“a taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay the payment of genuine refunds. Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able to provide documents proving that tax has been deducted at source, the same has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot insist that the amount match the figures in Form 26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the amounts provided by the assessee through the proof of Form 16A.”
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that the investigation into an FIR arising out of an alleged social-media post over Pahalgam Terror Attack by an assistant professor of Lucknow University, Dr Madri Kakoti (aka Dr Medusa) has concluded and a charge-sheet will be filed shortly.
Counsel for the State told the Court that several sections earlier included in the FIR, including Section 152 BNS [Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India], have been dropped and the charge-sheet now carries only Sections 352 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace] and 302 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person] of BNS.
If Disability Is Acquired During Service, Employee Must Be Shifted To Suitable Post Instead Of Termination: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Laljee Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7815 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court has held that where disability is acquired during the course of the service, instead of dispensing the services of the employee, he/she must be shifted to a suitable post.
Referring to Section 20 [Non-discrimination in employment] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Justice Abdul Moin held that
“From perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2016 it is apparent that where an employee acquires a disability during his service, his services are not to be dispensed with rather efforts are to be made by the employer for shifting him to a suitable post and in the absence thereto, to continue him on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available.”
Case title - Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 12 others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 391
In a significant sweeping order aimed at ending rampant encroachments over ponds, grazing lands and other public utility properties, the Allahabad High Court has directed a crackdown across Uttar Pradesh, holding that inaction by Pradhans, Lekhpals and revenue officers in reporting or removing encroachments over Gram Sabha land amounts to criminal breach of trust.
In its 24-page order, a bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri not only directed removal of encroachments over public land or land reserved for public utility purposes across the state within 90 days but also ordered departmental and criminal proceedings against officials who fail to act as per the law.
Case title - Javed vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Meerut resident, Javed, accused of posting on WhatsApp a video allegedly showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Prime Minister of Pakistan talking to each other and urging to "exchange poisonous words" and "engage in war" so that the people of both countries remain "mum for 5 years".
The purported video also carried an audio suggesting that the leaders were talking among themselves that public of both nations were not happy with them and wanted to remove them from their posts.
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court has directed the administration of the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, to ensure full security to a law student who is facing disciplinary proceedings over an allegedly derogatory video concerning Dr. BR Ambedkar.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by the student, who was pursuing his LLB (Hons.) 4th Semester and had been suspended from the University on February 13, 2025, with the campus declared 'out of bounds' for him.
Case title - Islam @ Paltoo vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court has held that a man can be convicted for having sexual intercourse with minor wife of over 15 years age, only after Supreme Court's judgment in Independent Thought vs Union Of India (2017), and not prior to that.
In Independent Thought case, the Supreme Court read down the exception 2 to Section 375 (rape) IPC, which provided that sexual intercourse with wife above 15 years of age is not rape— to read as wife of 18 years of age or above. The Apex Court specifically clarified that this amendment applied prospectively and not retrospectively.
[Land Acquisition Act] Limitation For Filing Application U/S 28A Starts From Date Of Redetermination Of Compensation: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ved Prakash Saini And 45 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35876 of 2022]
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Observing that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 is beneficial provision, the Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing application under Section 28-A starts from date of award of redetermination of the compensation on which land owner relies and not the original award which may have been set aside by a higher court.
Case Title: Hanif Khan and others v. Additional Commissioner Lucknow and others. [WRIT-C No.1002036 of 2003]
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court has held that any change in the entry in revenue records, including removal or substitution under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is a judicial matter for which opportunity of hearing must be provided to concerned parties.
Justice Irshad Ali held,
“Grant of opportunity of hearing in administrative matters is comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as judicial matters are concerned since the time when Courts were established it has been the most essential ingredient of procedural law that no order shall be passed without hearing parties concerned. Removal and substitution of entry in revenue records under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act or any other provision is a judicial matter making it all the more necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to the party concerned.”
Case Title: Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch Bank Of Baroda V. State Of U.P And 9 Others [WRIT - C No. - 33632 of 2024]
Case citation : : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 26-E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the debts of the secured creditors will take precedence over all over debts including crown debts.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held
“Upon a perusal of the judgments cited above, the first principle that emerges is that a secured crediter shall always have precedence over an unsecured creditor. Seconly, in cases where two enactments refer to secured creditors having charge over the property, the later enactment would prevail.”
Case title - Jaid vs. State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 398
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a 20 year old boy accused of liking a video uploaded by a Pakistani citizen on social media and posting 'Pakistan Jindabad' comment.
Granting relief to accused (Jaid), a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the he had not mentioned any religious comment or any other comment lowering the dignity and sovereignty of the country.
Case title - Savita Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that merely because a farmer is doing odd jobs at the time of his death, that cannot by itself, disentitle his family from availing the benefits of the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojana.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a petition filed by one Savita Yadav, whose husband died of electrocution while loading wheat sacks on a truck in Azamgarh district.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Alleged 'Al-Qaeda' & 'Jamaat-Ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh' Operative Booked Under UAPA
Case title - Mohd. Kamil @ Kamil vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Ats Lucknow
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged operative of AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) and JMB (Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh) on grounds of parity with other 11 alleged operatives who were granted relief by the HC last year.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary granted bail to accused (Mohd. Kamil @ Kamil) a month after the Top Court requested the HC to decide his plea in 3 months.
Case title - Ashfak Husain vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused bail to Ashfaq Hussain, one of the two prime accused in the 2019 murder case concerning Hindu Samaj Party leader Kamlesh Tiwari.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal noted that the material on record, including eyewitness identification, CCTV footage and recovery of a .32 bore pistol from the accused, did not make the case fit for his release while trial is pending.
Case title - Girja Shankar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 402
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court held that immovable properties belonging to educational institutions across state, including their playgrounds, cannot, under any circumstances, be used for 'commercial' purposes such as exhibitions, trade fairs, melas or sales.
Emphasizing that such infrastructure must remain exclusively devoted to educational and associated activities, the HC directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to issue a clear and unambiguous circular within 1 month, prohibiting such non-educational use of school and college premises across the State.
Cohabitation With Adult Husband To Invite POCSO: Allahabad High Court Directs Minor Mother To Stay In Shelter Home Till She Turns 18
Case title - X and another vs. State of U.P. and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court recently declined to release a 17-year-old girl, who is both a minor and a mother of two-month-old child, from a government shelter home as it said that she must remain there until she attains majority on October 5, 2026.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the order on a habeas plea filed on behalf of the minor girl and her child as it refused to allow her to live with adult husband. The Court observed thus:
"Permitting a minor to cohabit with an adult would make the husband liable for offences punishable under the POCSO Act as well".
'Can't Curtail Liberty Under Social Pressure': Allahabad High Court Sets Interfaith Couple Free, Orders Inquiry On 'Illegal' Detention By Cops
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Calling the detention of an interfaith couple by the police as 'illegal' and a "violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution", the Allahabad High Court today set free an interfaith couple (a Muslim man and a Hindu woman) who had gone missing after attending a court hearing earlier this week and were detained by the cops.
A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, which convened a special sitting on a non-working day to hear the habeas corpus plea filed by the man's brother, directed the authorities to ensure the safe escort to Aligarh and continued protection of the couple.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a leader of the Samajwadi Party (SP) seeking a direction to the Union Government to restore National Security Guard (NSG) cover to SP President and Ex-Chief Minister, Akhilesh Yadav.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti categorically noted that the petition was not maintainable as it noted that Yadav himself had not approached the Court for such a relief.
Serious Doubt That ED Clerk Assigned To Desk Work Can Serve Summons: Allahabad High Court Flags 'Improper' Service In PMLA Case
Case title - Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rajeev Nayan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. Of India Lko. Zonal Office Lko.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) raised serious doubts over the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action to serve summons in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged UP Police recruitment paper leak, though an Upper Division Clerk (UDC), who is typically assigned desk works.
Granting anticipatory bail to the accused, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the service of summons by an ED clerk was not in the proper manner and that he was not aware of modern technology that could be incorporated in serving the summons.
Case title - Ek Lakh Ali @ Ekhlakh And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 407
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, to look into the 'false implication' of two minors, aged 13 and 11 years, in an FIR lodged under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC-ST Act.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed appropriate action against erring police officials if the SP finds that the minors were falsely implicated.
S.238 IBC Is Non-Obstante Clause, Overrides Provisions Of Electricity Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Dharti Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Managing Director, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 27040 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Electricity Supply Code, 2005.
A bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“Section 238 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a non- obstante clause meaning it grants the IB Code a power of overriding effect on other laws, for the time being in force, or any instrument that is inconsistent with it. This is a Special Section, which ensures that the IBC framework for Insolvency and Bankruptcy resolution or liquidation take precedence over all other laws, establishing this Code has a comprehensive and specific law for its intended purpose.”
Case Title: Ramashankar Yadav And Another v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 26529 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court has held that compensation awarded under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and writ petitions for the same will not be maintainable.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held
“Section 3G(6) of the Act, 1956 expressly provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to proceedings under Section 3G. This creates a complete statutory scheme where disputes regarding compensation are to be resolved through arbitration, and challenges thereto are to be made under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Allowing landowners to bypass this statutory mechanism and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 would render the Arbitration Act, 1996 redundant and defeat the legislative intent.”
'Prima Facie Cheating Case Made Out': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash ED's Probe Against Sahara's Cooperative Societies
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to quash the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action of initiating search and seizure proceedings against four Sahara-linked cooperative societies.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that a prima facie case of cheating was made out and that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be interfered with merely because a closure report has been filed in one of the predicate offences.
Threat Of Land Encroachment, Proposed Use For Public Purpose Not Enough To Invoke Urgency Clause U/S 17 Of Land Acquisition Act: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Hatam Singh and others Versus State of U.P. Thru Secy. Housing and Urban Planning and Anr. [WRIT - C No. - 4986 of 2005]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has held reiterated that mere threat of encroachment and stating that the land is to be used for planned development for public purpose will not justify the invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensation of the statutory requirement of calling for, hearing and deciding objections of the landowners.
While dealing with 2004 acquisition proceedings initiated by Ghaziabad Development Authority, relying on various judgments of the Apex Court the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held
“acquisition of land for planned development is a public purpose, it has been held time and again that the same itself is not sufficient to warrant exercise of power under Section 17 of the Act.”
Preparing Defence Strategy & Gathering Evidence Valid Grounds For Bail : Allahabad High Court Clarifies 'Stage' & 'Parameters'
Case title - Asha vs. State of U.P. and connected matters
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 412
In a significant verdict, the Allahabad High Court held that conceptualizing defence strategy, gathering and adducing defence evidence and effectively conducting the defence case can constitute valid grounds for granting bail, but only at an appropriate stage of the trial.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot, while deciding a batch of 18 (second) bail applications, ruled that the right to prepare and conduct an effective defence is an essential component of a fair trial and therefore flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Huzaifa Khan Thru. Their Father Quayum Khan And Another Versus State Of U.P. And Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court has held that all provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are applicable to private unaided schools and the guidelines of affiliating Board including those pertaining to attendance, are not above the Act.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and another (2012), Justice Pankaj Bhatia held:
“Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) is clear that the Act in whole, is applicable to all the schools as defined under section 2(n) of the RTE Act. The distinction as sought to be interpreted by the counsel for the respondents that the private unaided school, are only to follow the mandate of Section 12 and not the other provisions, merits rejection solely on the ground of interpretation of the Act and its applicability to the private aided schools by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra).”
Case title - Victim X In Fir No. 385 Of 2025, Ps Kotwali Sadar Distt. Kheri Thru. Next Best Friend Her Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women Welfare Deptt. Lko. And Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court slammed the state officials for their 'reprehensible inaction' and 'laissez-faire attitude' in denying compensation to a minor rape victim, compelling her to approach the Court for relief.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar observed that the very purpose of the State's compensation scheme [Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh] to offer immediate financial and emotional relief to victims of sexual assault, stood defeated due to 'egregious procrastination' by the officials.
IPC Provisions On Use Of False Weights & Measures Do Not Apply To Offences Punishable Under Legal Metrology Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Laxmi Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3900 of 2018 ]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Referring to Section 51 of the Legal Metrology Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held,
“Section 51 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 further provides that provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 insofar as such provision relating to offences with regard to weight or measure, shall not apply to any offence which is punishable under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.”
JJ Act | Child Alleged To Be In Conflict With Law Can't Be Lodged In Jail Even During Inquiry To Determine His Age: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Pawan Kumar (Corpus) And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 497 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 a person accused who claims to be child at time of commission of offence, cannot be sent to jail or police lockup even during an inquiry regarding determination of his age either by a Court or the Juvenile Justice Board
In doing so the court held that a child in conflict with law or alleged to be in conflict with law cannot be lodged in jail till they attain 21 years of age.
Case Title: Mukesh Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35952 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is the duty of the auction purchaser to check the dues and liabilities on the property being auctioned on "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" basis.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held:
“once a person participates in any auction while having knowledge that the property is being e-auctioned having the condition "as is where is", "as is what is and "whatever there is" the duty is upon the prospective bidder, who is the purchaser in facts of the case, to exercise complete caution in checking dues and liabilities.”
Allahabad High Court Quashes Case Against Prabhu Chawla & Aroon Purie Over India Today's 2003 Story On Sexual Exploitation Of Minor Girls
Case title - Prabhu Chawla vs. State of U.P. and another and a connected matter
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against India Today former Editor Prabhu Chawla and Editor-in-Chief of the Magazine Group Aroon Purie concerning a 2003 investigative report on child trafficking and prostitution.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the article titled 'Ladkiyon Ki Mandi' did not constitute any offence under Sections 153 or 153A IPC as there was no intention of the applicants to promote any kind of hatred between the two communities.
Case Title: Anand Kumar v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT – A No. - 1738 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Observing that allowing delinquent employee to continue in service without consequence will promote a culture of lack of accountability, the Allahabad High Court has allowed simultaneous criminal trial & departmental inquiry against employee caught stealing from India Government Mint.
Justice Ajay Bhanot held,
“The petitioner is charged with the misconduct of theft of government money from the Government of India Mint. Permitting the petitioner to continue who charged with serious misconduct to function as if it was business as usual instead of exposing him to expeditious departmental procedures will not be conducive to institutional interests of the Government of India Mint, and rule of law in the department.”
Case Title: Dambar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another [WRIT – C No. 29560 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court has held that the landowners who were not petitioners covered by Full Bench's decision in Gajraj and others vs. State of UP and others (2011) and batch, are not entitled to allotment of 10% abadi land as directed therein.
In Gajraj judgment, the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 31.08.2007 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act were under challenge.
Case title: Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali v/s State of U.P and connected petitions
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 421
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (October 29) set aside a 2019 death sentence awarded to four men–Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin–convicted by the trial court for carrying out a terror attack at a CRPF camp in Rampur in 2007, in which eight personnel lost their lives.
The court also set aside the life term of another Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba convicted under Section 302 IPC.
Minority Educational Institutions Like Madarsa Not Immune From Reasonable Regulations Of State Ensuring Academic Standards: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Committee Of Management Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawab And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8388 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 422
The Allahabad High Court has held that right of minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India must be exercised within reasonable regulations and frameworks of the State Government for ensuring academic excellence and maintaining standards of education.
Quashing the advertisement issued by Nazime of Ala/Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur for appointment of Assistant Teachers and a Clerk which was issued without any guidelines from the Government, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; however, this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education. Thus, the issuance of advertisement without waiting for the government to frame the standards for qualification of teachers in the madarsa is bad in the eyes of law and in violation of the aforesaid article.”
Second FIR On Same Background Not Barred When Allegations Are Distinct In Scope, Subject & Period: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Parul Budhraja And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 423
In an order clarifying the scope of the 'second FIR' bar, the Allahabad High Court held that the registration of a subsequent FIR on same background is not legally prohibited if it discloses new and distinct offences based on fresh fact.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that while Supreme Court's ruling in the case of TT Antony vs. State of Kerala 2001 prohibits a second FIR in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, it does not bar a subsequent FIR based on a different incident or discovery of a larger conspiracy or fresh facts.
Case Title: UCM Coal Company Ltd. v. Adani Enterprises Ltd. [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 52 of 2023]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award given in one proceedings can be used as evidence in other arbitral proceedings, though the weightage given to it may vary on case to case basis.
While dealing with an arbitral award of more than Rs. 126 crores in favour of Adani Enterprises Ltd., the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held
“An Arbitral Award, which is placed on record of another arbitral proceedings, can be a highly important piece of evidence. Though, its evidentiary value and weight given to such evidence may differ from case to case but the fact remains that it is not as if the said document does not have any evidentiary value at all.”
Interim Restraint On Creating Third-Party Rights In Property Is Permissible In Specific Performance Suits: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar And 3 Others Versus Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2422 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has held that an injunction can be granted against the owner of a property in specific circumstances under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, even if the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ('TP Act') is applicable.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others, Justice Sandeep Jain held
“The relief of interim injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant for preventing the defendant from alienating or transferring the disputed property, even if the principle of lispendens enumerated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi(supra)”
'Fraud Unravels All Solemn Transactions': Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Compassionate Appointee Terminated After 27-Yrs Service
Case Title: Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT – A No. - 10029 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Holding that fraud vitiates everything else, the Allahabad High Court has denied any relief to the employee who had worked for 27 years as compassionate appointee, citing grounds of fraud committed by him in obtaining the appointment.
Upholding the order declaring his appointment void ab initio with effect from the date of appointment, i.e., 31.03.1998, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“fraud nullifies all rights arising from such an appointment, as it renders the act void ab initio, and the petitioner, who obtained the appointment on the basis of fraud, cannot claim any benefits on the ground that he has worked for 27 years.”
JJ Act | Child Welfare Committee Has No Power To Direct Police To Register FIR; Can Only Report Violations: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Rishi Pal And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has no power to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR).
The bench added that the CWC can only forward a report to the Juvenile Justice Board or to the concerned police authority if it finds a violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
O. XXI R. 10 & 11(2) CPC | Power Of Attorney Holder Can Sign Execution Plea If Acquainted With Case Facts: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Santosh Jain and 2 others vs. Kewal Kishore and another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Interpreting Order XXI Rules 10 & 11(2) of CPC, the Allahabad High Court held that a Power of Attorney holder can validly sign and verify an execution application if he is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held so while dismissing a petition challenging the maintainability of an execution application filed by the decree-holder's father, who was acting as his Power of Attorney holder.
JJ Act | Juvenile's Conviction Not To Be Treated As Disqualification For Appointment In Services: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak Versus Union of India and 3 others [WRIT - A No. - 9462 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Placing reliance on erstwhile Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which is almost identical to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that juvenile's conviction under the Act is not to be treated as disqualification for appointment in services.
Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
Case title - Dr. Devi Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Chief Executive Officer And Ors.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court set aside the 25-year-old order of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust CEO that had terminated the engagement of Padma Vibhushan and Padma Shri awardee Professor Dr. Devi Prasad Dwivedi as Acharya at the Temple.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, while deciding the writ petition filed in 2000, held that the "position of Acharya is a traditional position or can be said to be a responsibility, which cannot be compared with that of any ordinary employee of the Temple".
Police Can Order Bank Account Freeze If Suspicious Dealings Found In Probe, Party Can Approach Magistrate For Relief: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Marufa Begum v. Union Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 37053 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that police can direct freeze of bank accounts if it finds suspicious transactions during investigation and the affected party has the remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned for defreezing of account after investigation is concluded.
Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat (2018), a division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held:
“in the event police comes to conclude that during investigation a bank account is to be freezed for suspicious transaction, it can always direct the bank to freeze such bank account. And of course, such freezing of the account shall depend upon the outcome of investigation. The affected party can of course, seek remedy from the Magistrate concerned after the investigation is concluded and if chargesheet is filed, to limit freezing of account to the extent of money involved.”
Interest Of Homebuyers Paramount In Insolvency Process Of Real Estate Company: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bulland Realtors Private Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 166 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 432
The Allahabad High Court has held that the interest of the homebuyers is paramount in an insolvency resolution process of a real estate company as it directly impacts their rights and interests.
Justice Arun Kumar held
“In an insolvency resolution process of a real estate company the primary concern is the interest of a homebuyer in the real estate project. The homebuyers are vital stakeholders. The process of creditor insolvency resolution directly impacts upon their rights and interest. Concerns of homebuyer have to be the primary object under any insolvency resolution process. Without restoration of the cancelled plot any resolution plan cannot be approved by the Adjudicating Authority.”
Suit Filed Before SC's Patil Automation Judgment Can't Be Returned For Non-Compliance Of S.12-A Commercial Court Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Jay Chemical Works v. M/s Sai Chemicals [COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. - 27 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court has held that a commercial court instituted prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in Patil Automation Private Limited and others Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited cannot be returned for non-compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015.
It held that the mandate in the judgment regarding compulsory per-institution mediation and settlement as per Section 12-A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 before filing a suit was applicable prospectively from the date of the judgment and not to the suits filed prior to the judgment of the Apex Court.
Officials Seeking Brownie Points : Allahabad High Court Awards ₹50K Compensation To Man Jailed For 1.5 Months Over 'False' Anti-Conversion Law FIR
Case title - Umed @ Ubaid Kha and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 434
In a sharp indictment of official overreach, the Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR registered 5 persons under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the BNS as it observed that the case represented a "glaring example of the State authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points".
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani also ordered the immediate release of the petitioner no. 1 (Umed @ Ubaid Kha) and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay him ₹50,000 noting that he has been languishing in jail since September 18 for no fault of his.
Case title - Ravendra Singh vs State of UP and 4 others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the State Government is a 'necessary party' in all consolidation matters concerning Gaon Sabha lands and properties, especially where such lands fall under the category of public utility lands like cremation grounds under Section 77(1)(H) of the UP-Revenue Code, 2006.
A bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan held thus:
"…once the area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires the right to direct that any land vested in the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local body authority duly recorded in its name and in the said circumstances any land which has been categorized as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State becomes a necessary party in matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha".
Case title - Rahimuddin vs. Union Of India And Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that if a competent criminal court grants a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or permission to travel abroad without specifying the duration for which the passport may be issued, the passport authority is justified in granting a passport valid for only one year.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed so while dismissing a plea seeking reissuance of a ten-year passport based on a NOC granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.
Direct Transmission Of Bail Orders; Immediate Release Of Prisoners: Allahabad High Court Issues Directions For Timely Release After Bail
Case title - Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali vs. State of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 437
In a significant order aimed at ensuring that no person remains in jail after being granted bail, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday issued comprehensive directions for the direct electronic transmission of bail orders and immediate release of prisoners through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) in spirit with the Supreme Court's 2023 verdict In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while granting bail to a Kidnapping accused, took note of persistent delays in implementing bail orders. The single judge emphasized that personal liberty which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed due to administrative laxity.
Case title - Bikram Roy vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court granted bail on the ground of parity to a BJP youth-wing functionary accused in the 2023 case registered by the UP Police's Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) over his alleged involvement in forging identity documents and facilitating illegal border-crossing for Bangladeshis.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary allowed the appeal filed by Bikram Roy under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Minor At Appointment But No Fraud Involved: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside 2003 Order Cancelling Regularization Of Forester Engaged In 1991
Case title - Anjani Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. Forest U.P. And Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court set aside a 2003 order of the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Division, Varanasi whereby the regularization of a forester, appointed in 1991, was cancelled on the ground that on the date of the engagement, he was a minor.
Applying the principles of equity, a bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar restored his appointment noting that it was not a case of concealment, fraud, misrepresentation or deficiency in the services of the writ petitioner.
Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Consumer Protection And Ors
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court held that the exclusion of an unmarried dependent brother from the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c)(iv) of the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 would not apply when the deceased government servant's wife had pre-deceased him.
In other words, the Court held that when a deceased government servant's wife has pre-deceased him, his unmarried dependent brother cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because the deceased was once married.
Case title - Rameshwar Singh @ Rameshwar Pratap Singh And 18 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 441
In a stern order, the Allahabad High Court came down heavily on both, the 3 victims and the 19 accused, in a case under the SC/ST Act, 1989, after uncovering what it described as a 'serious abuse' of the process of law and a 'gross misuse' of the benevolent provisions of the Act.
Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by 19 accused under Section 14-A (1) of 1989 Act SC/ST Act, a bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav directed the alleged victims, a Dalit woman and her two daughters-in-law, to refund the entire compensation amount of ₹4.5 lakh received by them from the State Government.
Case title - Civil Bar Association District Basti And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 442
The Allahabad High Court has held that the State Government cannot be directed to pay electricity dues of Bar Associations as it observed that while advocates are officers of the Court, they remain a body of private practitioners and must share responsibility for the facilities they use.
A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla thus dismissed a writ petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti, which sought a mandamus directing the State to deposit the electricity bills, both arrears and future dues, of the Bar Association building located within the District Court premises.
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 443
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition with a cost of Rs. 20K filed by a law student who demanded to be awarded 499 out of 500 marks in her first semester LL.B examination and alleged corruption against Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery described the petitioner as a 'chronic litigant' as it noted that she had filed at least ten petitions between 2021 and 2022, including writs, reviews and special appeals.
Indian Succession Act | Probate Not Required For Hindu Wills Concerning Properties Outside S.57(a)(b) Territories: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Vivek Singhal v. Smt.Vijaya Rani Singhal [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 279 of 2011]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court has held that in testamentary succession of a Hindu, if a property does not fall in the territories specified by S. 57 (a) and (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, there would be no requirement for obtaining a probate as under S. 213 of the Act.
S. 57 of the Indian Succession Act extends the Act's provisions on wills to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains, in a limited manner. It provides that such rules apply first, to wills made within or relating to property in the old Presidency towns of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, and later (from 1 January 1927) to all wills made by such persons throughout India. Further, S. 213 of the Act provides that no rights as an executor or legatee can be legally established in any court unless probate has been granted by a competent court.
Case title - Seema Beg vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings against the wife of sitting Samajwadi Party MLA who was facing allegations of human trafficking and was also booked under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted relief to MLA Zaid Beg's wife, Seema Beg, as it observed that even if the prosecution material is taken at its face value, no prima facie case was made out under any of the invoked provisions.
Case Title: Balwant Educational Society And 3 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others [WRIT – C No. - 10388 of 2019]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Dealing with a long standing dispute between family members of Late Raja Balwant Singh of Awagarh for the position on the board of Balwant Educational Society, the Allahabad High Court proposed a scheme for appointment of the children of the brothers on various posts of the Board of the Trust.
In the dispute between cousins regarding appointment to Committee of Management of the Balwant Educational Society to run Raja Balwant Singh's College, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted that none of them could claim the title of the 'Raja' but could still become Board Members and the be appointed on the post of Vice President of the Board.
Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Not Maintainable Against Orders Passed In Appeal U/S 104: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Tarkeshwar Pandey v. Deena Nath Yadav And 6 Ors. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 723 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court has held that no appeal shall lie before a High Court on the strength of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 from orders passed in an appeal under Section 104 CPC.
Section 100 CPC provides that an appeal can lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any subordinate court, so long as the case involves a substantial question of law.
Case title - Sharad Roshan Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, refusing to correct the name and gender of a transgender person in educational documents.
Noting that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 is a special Act whose provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of any existing law, the HC directed the concerned authorities to issue fresh documents reflecting changes after sex-change surgery.
Case Title: M/S A.S. Traders Thru. Executive Partner Sri Rahul Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Lko. and 6 others [WRIT - C No. - 4673 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court has held that interference by High Court in tenders relating to infrastructure development, on technical grounds, will cause huge loss to State Exchequer and judicial interference in such matters must not be done unless specific and cogent grounds are made out that indicate arbitrariness.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“The attempts of the unsuccessful bidder is with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry. The petitioner by means of the instant writ petition is trying to make a mountain out of molehill by pointing out some technical/procedural violation, and persuade the court to interfere by exercising power of judicial review. Any interference by this Court would amount to holding up public works and would cause huge loss to the State Exchequer.”
Case title - Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 450
The Allahabad High Court refused to recall its order referring the case of an Advocate to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt against him after he filed a written submission accusing the Court of bias, dishonesty and lack of 'probity' during the hearing of a bail application.
Though a bench of Justice Siddharth accepted the Advocate's unqualified apology, it made it clear that he could not be purged of the contempt of court which he has committed. Hence, it clarified that the referral already made to the Division Bench for contempt and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, still stands.
CENVAT Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively To Concluded MODVAT Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Modi Rubber Limited v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 872 of 2021]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has held that where proceedings under the MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) Scheme had concluded prior to the introduction of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Rules, it would not be open to the revenue department to issue fresh notices against the assessee under the new scheme.
The MODVAT scheme, allowing manufacturers a tax credit on input duties, was replaced on 01.07.2001 by the CENVAT scheme. This was later codified as the CENVAT Credit Rules (effective 01.03.2003).
Case title - Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 452
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict in a 29-year-old criminal appeal filed by a Fatehpur-based advocate convicted for murdering his wife in 1991 as she allegedly refused to transfer money and property to his name
While Justice Salil Kumar Rai noted that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, Justice Sandeep Jain found the evidence 'credible' and thus, upheld conviction and directed the accused to surrender within a month to serve life term.
'IOs Must Get Viscera Reports Within Time': Allahabad High Court Directs State Secy, DGP To Ensure Timely Communication From FSLs
Case title - Ramratan vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court expressed strong concern over the delay in transmitting viscera reports from Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) to investigating agencies as it termed the lapse 'disturbing'.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal directed the Chief Secretary, Director General of Medical Health and Director General of Police to look into the situation and ensure that viscera reports are communicated expeditiously without any wastage of time to enable complete, proper and effective assessment during investigation.
Why Allahabad High Court Said District Courts, Advocates Sometimes Misinterpret SC's 'Satender Kumar Antil' Verdict?
Case title - Krishna Alias Kishna vs. State of U.P
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 454
In an order, the Allahabad High Court expressed concern that district courts and advocates sometimes misinterpret the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation LL 2021 SC 550, leading to confusion in bail proceedings.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the Supreme Court's directions in Satender Kumar Antil were applicable only after the filing of the charge sheet and not for bail applications during investigation, a point which is often misunderstood by district courts.
"The Apex Court…issued…direction to district courts to decide the bail application of the accused after filing of final police report (charge sheet), regarding all four categories of cases, including cases punishable up to 7 years and not for the bail applications during investigation", Justice Deshwal clarified as he quoted from the Top Court's verdict.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Gupta v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [WRIT - C No. - 27326 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in exercise of appellate powers, Courts must exercise caution and restraint in recording acerbic remarks against subordinate judicial officers.
“We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct,” held Justice Prakash Padia.
UP Police Officer Can't Resign Without Mandatory 2-Month Notice Under Statutory Regulations: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ajeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 14825 of 2018]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a Police Officer seeks resignation, they must provide the department with the mandatory two-month notice period mandated by Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations read with the Police Act, 1961.
Justice Vikas Budhwar held that non-compliance with the aforementioned provisions would render the resignation defective.
Case Name : Manohar Singh v. Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 457
A Division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Siddharth Nandan held that an employee's application for VRS (voluntary retirement) must be processed without regard to pending misconduct charges when a medical condition renders a disciplinary inquiry impossible.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 458
In a significant directive, the Allahabad High Court has said that while trial courts in Uttar Pradesh are at liberty to write their judgments either in Hindi or in English, they cannot write judgments that are partially in English and partially in Hindi.
Terming an acquittal judgment by a Sessions Court in Agra a 'classic example' of this impermissible practice, the Bench directed that its judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action and circulated to all Judicial Officers across the State.
Case Title: M/S Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [WRIT TAX No. - 4654 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that while acting under Rule 86A of the UPGST Rules, authorities must record 'reason to believe' in 'writing'. It held that not doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the Rule.
“It may not forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime. Therefore, any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain and consequentially tax payments without fulfulling statutory tax requirements, without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of law - to record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing',” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
No Protection For 'Live-In' If Hindu Marriage Subsists; Personal Liberty Ends Where Spouse's Statutory Right Begins: Allahabad High Court
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court last week refused to grant protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship as it noted that the woman was still the legally wedded wife of another man.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that while no one can interfere in the lives of two adults, the Right to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right and that the freedom of one person ends where the statutory right of another person starts.
Case Title: M/s Smm Infratech Private Limited v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. - 1121 of 2
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that under the UPGST Act, a lien cannot be created on the assessee's bank account an year subsequent to the payment of taxes.
Section 62(2) of the UPGST Act provides that where a registered person submits a valid return within 60 days of the service of the order under Section 62(1), the said assessment order would be considered to have been withdrawn; only the liability for payment of interest would persist.
Constituent Institution Employees Cannot Claim Central University Benefits: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Dr. S.K. Pant Professor and others Versus Union of India and others [WRIT - A No. - 16734 of 2012 ]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court has held that in the absence of specific policy, staff of constituent institutions cannot claim the same benefits as those awarded to Central University Employees.
“... only on ground that institution become constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners cannot be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme since it has to be granted only on basis of relevant provisions which are not applicable in the present case in favour of petitioners,” held Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery.
'Evidence Of Injured Witness Not At Higher Pedestal If Accused Is Also Injured': Allahabad High Court, Says Injury Guarantees Presence, Not Truth
Case title - Sanjay Kumar vs. Appellant Versus State of U.P. And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Dismissing a complainant's appeal challenging the acquittal of three accused in a 2018 assault case, the Allahabad High Court observed that while the testimony of an injured witness is ordinarily placed on a higher pedestal, this principle may not apply when the accused is also injured.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II added that injury on a witness may be a guarantee of his presence on the spot, but it is no guarantee of the truth of his deposition.
Case title - Mohd. Ilyas vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 464
In a detailed 51-page judgment pertaining to the 1996 Modinagar-Ghaziabad bus bomb blast case, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of one Mohammad Ilyas noting that the prosecution miserably failed to prove charges and that his alleged confessional statement recorded by the police was inadmissible in view of the bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra allowed the criminal appeal filed by Ilyas observing that no legally admissible evidence remained against the appellant once his confession to police was excluded.
Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar through its Authorized Representative v. Raj Kumar Goyal [RERA Appeal No.124 of 2023]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 465
While entertaining a set of appeals regarding the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, the Appellate Tribunal could award interest or compensation only after mandatory pre-deposit is made for entertaining such appeal.
Further, it held that the RERA Appellate Tribunal has both appellate and revisional powers for examining the legality and propriety and correctness of any order or direction of the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer.
Case title - Ram Sajeewan and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 466
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of 2 for the kidnapping of a minor girl in 1995 but modified their sentence by extending them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
A bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava took note of their advanced age, clean antecedents and the fact that the matter has lingered for nearly 30 years.
Crime Heinous But Not Premeditated: Allahabad High Court Commutes Death Penalty To Life Term Sans Remission In 5-Month-Old Cousin's Rape-Murder Case
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit and connected appeal
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old accused for the rape and murder of his 5-month-old cousin.
The HC however declined to confirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court and commuted it to Life Imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission.
In it 65-page judgment, a Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh concluded that the prosecution had fully established the charges under Sections 302, 364, 376 (Ka)(Kha) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 through a chain of circumstances which referred only towards the guilt of the convict/appellant without reasonable doubt
Case title - Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern direction to all the trial court Judges across the State of Uttar Pradesh to 'invariably' reproduce the injury details recorded in medical reports in their judgments.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay kumar-II said that it was 'pained' to observe that trial courts were omitting this crucial forensic detail in their orders despite there being longstanding administrative circulars requiring them to do the same.
Case Title: Deepak Chowrasia v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 20558 of 2024]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 5000 on a party appearing in-person, for filing defective writ petition and making prayers contrary to law.
While dealing with a petitioner in-person who had approached the Court against an order of extension of his contractual appointment, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed,
“Court is repeatedly facing difficulty in dealing cases of petitioners appearing in person since their writ petitions invariably remains defective. Even averments made therein are not proper, since they are unaware of law and procedure and normally they refuse to take services of an Amicus Curaie.”
Transfer Of Property Act | Agreement To Sell Does Not Create Interest In Property: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Deependra Chauhan v. Phool Kumari Chauhan and 4 Ors. [CIVIL REVISION No. - 12 of 2024]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 470
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement to sell would not create an interest in the property to be sold.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam relied on judgments of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. District Judge & Ors., Rambhai Mandeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dotra through LRS, to draw the distinction between an agreement to sell and a deed of sale.
Case title - Managing Committee, Noori Jama Masjid vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 471
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the Fatehpur-Noori Jama Masjid Managing Committee after the Uttar Pradesh government gave a categorical undertaking that no further demolition of the religious structure is required.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, however, granted the petitioner liberty to apply for demarcation of the boundaries under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.
Final Orders U/S 125 CrPC Must Contain 'Points For Determination' As Per S. 354 (6): Allahabad High Court To UP Family Courts
Case title - Shailesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court has directed all the family court across the state mandatorily frame 'points for determination' in all final orders passed under Section 125 CrPC, in compliance with Section 354(6) CrPC.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh also directed that its order be circulated to all District Judges and all Principal Judges of Family Courts for strict compliance.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 473
While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control Board [WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.
“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.
Case title - Adnan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court refused to allow a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR in the September 2025 Bareilly violence case wherein allegations are to the effect that police force was attacked by a mob with brickbats, stones and acid bottles.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad, however, disposed of the plea by observing that it is open to the petitioner to avail other legal remedies as may be advised.
Case title - M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor vs. State of U.P. and 3 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.
Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.
Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.
He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.
Case title - Sonali Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Observing that a partnership firm has no separate legal recognition in the absence of its partners, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against two women who claimed to be 'sleeping partners' acting through a Power of Attorney holder.
Thus, dismissing two connected petitions filed u/s 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), Justice Brij Raj Singh refused to quash the proceedings in two Criminal Complaint Cases filed by M/s Kalpana Industries under Section 138 r/w Section 141 NI Act against applicants' firm.
'Criminality Now Stands Washed Off': Allahabad High Court Quashes 2016 POCSO Act Case Noting Accused Married Victim 'Long Way Back'
Case title - Wasiullah And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings of a rape case lodged under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code in 2016, noting that the accused had married the prosecutrix 'a long way back'.
Observing that the couple is living a happy married life with a child, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh said that "criminality, if any...now stands washed off” and that the chances of conviction of the applicant is now "not only remote but also bleak".
S. 216 CrPC | Neither Complainant Nor Accused Has Right To Seek Alteration Of Charges; Power Exclusively Confined To Court: Allahabad HC
Case title - Satyam Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the power to alter or add a charge under Section 216 CrPC is 'exclusively confined' to the Court and that no party, neither the complainant nor the accused has any 'vested' right to seek any such addition or alteration of charge
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid thus set aside an order by the Additional District Judge/FTC-II, Varanasi, which allowed a complainant's application to invoke stringent provisions of the POCSO Act against the accused at a later stage of the trial.
Employee Officiating On Higher Post Entitled To Salary Of That Post Even Sans Formal Promotion : Allahabad High Court
Case title - Uma Kant Pandey vs. Union of India and 3 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an employee who has worked on a higher post in an officiating capacity, though he may not be a regular promote, is entitled to the salary admissible to that higher post for the concerned duration.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that denial of salary for the higher post would be "contrary to law and also against public policy”.
Allahabad High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Strangling Minor Daughter, Says Charges Proven Despite Mother Turning Hostile
Case title - Raju Batham vs State of UP
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a man for the murder of his 17-year-old daughter, who he suspected of having a relationship with a boy from the same locality.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh noted that despite the mother of the victim turning hostile during the trial, the chain of circumstantial evidence, including accused-father's failure to explain the death under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, pointed conclusively towards his guilt.
Case title - Shrish Kumar Malviya vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court pulled up a trial court in Prayagraj for its 'lethargic' handling of a 20-year-old criminal case, observing that a 73-year-old accused has been 'victimized' due to the court's routine adjournments and the prosecution's failure to produce even a single witness for the past 13 years.
Observing that there appears to be "something wrong somewhere" in the functioning of the subordinate court, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh issued a strict ultimatum to the presiding officer to conclude the trial within one month or face disciplinary proceedings.
Revision Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Order Passed In Interim Injunction Application: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sadhu Saran Chaubey v. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal And 4 Ors [WRIT - C No. - 1003822 of 2002]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in an interim injunction application. It held that the same could be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
In 1985, the deceased executed a will in favour of Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, a second and third will were executed in favour of Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner, respectively. Following the death of the testator, Respondent No. 5 got his name mutated in the revenue by concealing the will executed in favour of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s Gospell Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax LKO And 3 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1283 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that notices under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for confiscation and levy of penalty, could not be issued for alleged violation of maintenance of accounts and records as required under Section 35 of the Act.
It was held that such notices under Section 130 could only be issued once the department had determined the liability of tax under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.
Case title - Subhash Chandra vs .State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Vigilance Lko. And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the employees of Co-operative Banks controlled or aided by the government fall squarely within the definition of a 'Public Servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court further said that a 'technical' exoneration in a departmental inquiry, where the Inquiry Officer merely states a lack of competence to investigate the charges, cannot act as a bar against the lodging of an FIR against the employee over allegations of disproportionate assets.
Case title - Shoaib (Corpus) vs. State of U.P. and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court upheld the detention of a man under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) as it observed that even a single criminal act, if it leads to communal tension and throws the "even tempo of life out of gear", amounts to a violation of public order rather than a mere breach of law and order.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus dismissed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Shoaib who had moved the HC challenging his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Mau.
Case title - Rahul Gupta And 6 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal proceedings under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be compounded and quashed, based on compromise, directly in a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the 1989 Act.
A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav added that there is no need to take separate recourse to the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to effectuate a compromise when the statutory remedy of an appeal is available.
'DNA Test Can't Be Directed In Routine Manner': Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband's Paternity Challenge In DV Act Case
Case title - Ramraj Patel vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court observed that a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child cannot be directed in a 'routine manner' merely because a party disputes the parentage during legal proceedings.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash said that such orders for DNA Test can only be passed in specific circumstances where "no chance for cohabitation" is proven between parties during the relevant period.
Cannot Cancel GST Registration Without Passing Reasoned Speaking Order: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors. [WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 490
The Allahabad High Court has held that while cancelling GST registrations, authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders. It held that doing otherwise would render the order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
“Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
BNSS | Police Report In Non-Cognizable Offence Is Deemed A 'Complaint'; Accused Must Be Heard Before Summons In Such Cases : Allahabad HC
Case Title - Prempal And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a police report (charge-sheet) filed for a non-cognizable offence must be treated as a 'complaint' by the Magistrate and not as a police case/state case. This is in conformity with the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court further noted that in such cases, a Judicial Magistrate cannot issue summons without first affording the accused an opportunity of being heard as has been mandated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.
Compelling Wife To Undergo Trial For Inevitable Acquittal Is 'Instrument Of Harassment': Allahabad High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Husband
Case title - Ashwani Anand vs State of U.P. and 3 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 492
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act against a man who married the alleged victim, who also favoured quashing. as it observed that forcing a happily married couple to face trial merely to record a hostile testimony would be an "irony of fate" and an "instrument of harassment”.
A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra thus allowed the plea of one Ashwani Anand observing that it cannot remain a "silent spectator" or "mere bystander" when the ends of justice demand immediate intervention.
Case Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 493
The Allahabad High Court has held that nothing under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the relevant rules, and notifications, allows the authorities to reserve judgements on the fixed date and pass them later, especially without informing the assessee.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent passed an order levying tax and penalty, without providing the relevant materials or an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 others [WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 494
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not be invoked where excess stock was found at the time of survey
While dealing with a case regarding a search conducted under the GST Act, where upon finding discrepancies, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under S. 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agarwal held
“A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.”
Case Title: Kasana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Vikram Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Planning Lko. and 3 others [WRIT - C No. - 10836 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 495
While dealing with a tender matter, the Allahabad High Court observed that imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalries of those who have been unsuccessful in tenders should not form the basis of judicial interference.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held,
“A tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Ergo, attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self should not persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review.”
Alleged Oral Consent Not Sufficient For Acquiring Land To Construct Road, Proper Proceedings Needed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore and another Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and 4 others [WRIT - C No. - 8222 of 2024]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 496
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that alleged oral consent of the land holder is not enough to construct a road over his land. For such construction, the land must be acquired through proper procedure prescribed in law.
Holding that consent for land use for public passage will not amount to adverse possession of the State, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“We are surprised by the plea taken by the State that since the land was used as a passage for the last 30-40 years, it would tantamount to adverse possession. The State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to take a plea of adverse possession. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizen. [reliance is placed to paragraph 12.11 of Vidya Devi (supra)].”
Case Title: M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 5924 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 497
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the cancellation of GST registration of a business entity leads to it economic death and it is sine qua non that a reasoned order is passed by the authority for cancelling the registration of an assesee.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed: “We are equally mindful that the order of cancellation of registration causes deep adverse impact on the conduct of business of any registered individual. Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity.”
'Violative Of Right To Livelihood' : Allahabad HC Quashes 'Permanent Residents Only' Condition For E-Rickshaw Registration In Lucknow
Case title - Ajeet Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Lko. And 2 Others along with connected petitions
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court struck down a government order that restricted the registration of new E-rickshaws and E-autos solely to permanent residents of Lucknow.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Brij Raj Singh, termed the restriction 'arbitrary' and a clear violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Lucknow being the capital city of the State of Uttar Pradesh results in the confluence of the people from villages in all parts of Uttar Pradesh and encourages people to come to the city to earn their livelihood. A restriction such as the one that has been provided for in the impugned order would act as a hindrance to the same", the bench remarked.
Case title - Xue Fei@ Koei vs. Nil
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of a Chinese national accused of tampering Visa, illegal stay in India and economic offences observing that the Court cannot ignore the relationship of India with China by overlooking the mandate of Section 57(11) Evidence Act.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that given the hostile relationship at this moment and the absence of an extradition treaty between the two nations, releasing the applicant would be a risk as it he may flee to China and may not be available during trial as India.
Case title - Nem Kumar Jain And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a bank is not justified in unilaterally reducing the rate of interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) after their issuance.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi said that the issuance of an FDR with a specified rate constitutes a binding contractual obligation and the bank cannot retrospectively alter the terms to the detriment of the depositor by citing internal circulars or guidelines regarding staff benefits.
Case Title: Suryadev Pathak vs Union of India & 4 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel an arbitrator to decide compensation disputes relating to land acquisition for making national highways, once his mandate has expired under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh observed that “The issuance of a mandamus directing the arbitrator to decide the case within a time-bound period, when his mandate has already expired, would amount to extending the arbitrator's mandate through the backdoor. This would be contrary to the express provisions of Section 29A (4) which vests such power exclusively in the competent civil court.”
'Stranger' To Case Can't Seek Bail Cancellation; Expanded 'Victim' Rights Not For Vengeance: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost
Case title - Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Coming down heavily on the 'abuse' of the legal process to settle personal scores, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that only a 'victim' within the meaning of CrPC and BNSS can seek cancellation of bail granted to an accused.
Thus, dismissing a bail cancellation plea moved by a person unconnected to the original crime, a Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicant as it termed the plea 'frivolous' and 'vindictive'.
Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 others [WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment.
Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities.
“Once the goods in question is duly accompanying by e-way bill, which clearly demonstrates the genuineness of the documents and during validity of the said e-way bill, which has not been cancelled, the Department is well aware of the movement of the said goods in question and therefore, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed to the petitioner,” held the Court.
Cops Haven't Come A Long Way From Days Of 'Dred Scott' Case: Allahabad High Court Slams Taking 'Kabza' (Possession) Of Woman
Case title - Saniya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 504
In a scathing indictment of police high-handedness, the Allahabad High Court recently come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Police officials for recording the detention of a woman as taking her into 'possession' (Kabza) in an attempt to circumvent an HC order.
The Court took strong exception over the fact that a fard or memo of possession relating to a woman had been prepared by the UP Police claiming that she was being taken into 'possession' in an attempt to show that she was not being 'arrested'.
Case Title: Yogendra Prasad v. State of U.P. And 4 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 21944 of 2022]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Rule 32 of the Arms Rules 2016, it is essential that the adjudicating authority decides whether a violation of the relevant rules took place, prior to cancelling a firearm license.
“From the reading of Rule 32, it is clear that before a licence can be cancelled under Rule 32, it is necessary that the authority forms an opinion as to whether any licensed fire arm was either not carried in the proper protective gear or was brandished, discharged or whether any blank firing took place in any public place or fire arm free zone. Such considerations and opinions are sine qua non for invocation of Rule 32 under the Rules, 2016,” held Justice Kunal Ravi Singh.
₹1200 Honorarium Per Month 'Illusory'; Part-Time Police Station Sweepers Entitled To Minimum Wages Under 1948 Act: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Gobinddas and another vs. State of U.P. and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 506
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court ruled that part-time sweepers employed at police stations are entitled to be paid under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, irrespective of their temporary status.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir specifically observed that the 'illusory' honorarium of Rs. 1,200 per month, fixed by a 2019 Government Order, cannot override the statutory protection granted to scheduled employment.
'Fraud on Constitution; No Caste System In Christianity': Allahabad HC Directs Statewide Probe Into Converts Retaining SC Status
Case title - Jitendra Sahani vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 507
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has issued a sweeping direction to the entire administrative machinery of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that individuals in the state who have converted to Christianity do not continue to avail benefits meant for Scheduled Castes (SC).
Observing that the retention of SC status after conversion amounts to a "fraud on the Constitution", the Court has set a strict deadline of four months for all District Magistrates in the state to act in accordance with the law to identify and prevent such occurrences
Case title - Vipin Chandra Verma vs State of UP and 5 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court observed that to curb the rapidly increasing corrupt practices in Government Departments in order to extend facilitation or favoritism for some vested reasons, no immunity should be accorded even to a retired person.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dismissing a writ petition filed by a retired Technical Junior Engineer challenging an inquiry initiated against him after his retirement based on a complaint filed by a relative of a sitting MLA.
Case title - Minakshi Bhetwal vs. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Higher Eucation And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court issued a direction to the Registrar General to look into the issue of repeated cases where defects in the petitions were not pointed out by concerned section at the time of filing of writ petitions.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also directed the officer concerned that before presenting any petition to the Court, Registrar General will himself or depute any other Senior Officer of Registry to verify whether defects have been cured or not.
Case title - Vinod Ram vs State of UP
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular to all district police chiefs that in case any negligence is found on the part of any police officer in providing instruction in bail pleas to the Government Advocate, then same shall be dealt with strictly
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this order while observing that the liberty of an accused cannot be allowed to be curtailed merely because of the negligence on the part of police officials in furnishing necessary instructions to the Court.
Case title - Jitendra Pal vs State of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Upholding the life term awarded to husband for killing his wife in 2015, the Allahabad High Court observed that a husband is presumed to be the "protector of his wife" and consequently, when established that he was last seen with her, his threshold of explanation under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act stands on a "higher pedestal than a normal person".
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, clarified that while the prosecution must prove the foundational facts, once the "last seen together" circumstance is established between spouses, the husband cannot take refuge in silence or vague denials.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court cleared the path for hosting of the second edition of the star-studded 'Bazm-e-Virasat' festival in the premises of a private unaided minority Institution in Prayagraj.
This three-day cultural extravaganza is scheduled to be held at the Bishop Johnson School and College from December 19 to 21, 2025.
FIR Can't Be Quashed U/S 528 BNSS If Chargesheet & Cognizance Order Not Placed On Record : Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an FIR noting that the Chargesheet and the cognizance order was not brought on record.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha held that a plea under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable if the applicant challenges only the FIR without placing the charge sheet and the order of cognizance on record.
Case title - Parshuram And Another vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has issued general directions mandating that office bearers of Bar Associations will be held liable for contempt of court in case the proceedings under the UP-Revenue Code 2006 could not be concluded within the prescribed time limits due to continuous strikes.
Stressing that the issue of strikes is affecting the public at large, specifically "poor litigants (farmers)", a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that parties can file contempt pleas against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association if their cases get delayed due to continuous strike of a Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate or Commissionerate.
Case title - Ashok Pandey vs. Rahul Gandhi And 3 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an advocate's petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi pertaining to his Lok Sabha election from Raebareli constituency.
The petitioner in person Ashok Pandey claimed that due to Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark, he was disqualified from being chosen as a Member of Parliament.
Case title - Yogesh Kumar Bhentwal vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 516
The Allahabad High Court has held that a favorable order or exoneration in a disciplinary proceeding conducted by the Bar Council is not, by itself, a valid ground to quash a legitimate criminal case against an Advocate.
The Bench comprising Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari observed that criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are distinct and can run simultaneously as they have different objectives, procedures and standards of proof.
Case title - M/S Anish Transport Company vs. State of U.P. and 2 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court has held that evasion of tax cannot be attributed to the transporter when consignor accepts error in loading goods.
Certain goods were intercepted in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. After notices were issued to the cosigner/ consignee, the goods were released in their favour. Subsequently, an order alleging intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the GST Act was passed against the petitioner who was merely a transporter of the goods. Appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
'X' Posts On Pahalgam Attack 'Against PM', His Name Used Disrespectfully: Allahabad HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Singer Neha Rathore
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in connection with an FIR lodged against her for allegedly making objectionable posts on social media regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the 'X' Posts/tweets posted by Rathore were against the Prime Minister of India and that the PM's name had been used in 'disrespectful manner' in the alleged posts.
Case title - Abhihita Misra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Clarifying the procedure for obtaining a copy of First Information Report (FIR) in 'sensitive' cases where they are not uploaded online, the Allahabad High Court noted that in such cases, an "aggrieved person" can apply directly to the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Commissioner of Police, as the case maybe, seeking a copy of the FIR.
HC referred to the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in its 2016 verdict in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another, which bars police from uploading FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency and terrorism on the website of the State governments.
Case title - Hindu Front For Justice Thru. National Convenor Sharad Chandra Srivastava And 8 Others Vs. Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs,Govt Of India,New Delhi And 5 Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a review of the effectiveness of the current legal framework regarding the protection of Hindu deities and religious books from denigration.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that while the making or amending of laws lies strictly within the domain of the Legislature, the implementation of existing laws falls within the domain of the Executive.
Case Title: Smt. Raj Kumari v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29280 of 2022]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 521
The Allahabad High Court has held that a positive report regarding COVID-19 test by the Uttar Pradesh Covid Lab must not be doubted unless it is proved to be a forged document.
Petitioner approached the High Court for compensation of her husband's death due to contracting COIVD-19 while being on panchayat election duty in 2021. Due to high fever and other COVID like symptoms, petitioner's husband was admitted to Government Hospital, Etawah, where it was advised that he be tested for COVID.
Writ Petition U/Art 226 Against NCDRC's Order Maintainable Only In 'Exceptional Circumstances', Remedy U/Art 227 Preferable: Allahabad High Court
Case title - M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Srivastava vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), such power is discretionary and must be exercised only in "exceptional circumstances".
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., holding that since the NCDRC is a 'Tribunal', the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, rather than the original writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Case title - Aznan Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected matter
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Grating bail to two accused in the FIR involving allegations of rape and offences under the SC-ST Act 1989, the Allahabad High Court observed that the rights granted to a victim under the special legislation "should not be misused and abused".
A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X granted bail to appellants [Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi], primarily factoring in the unexplained delay of 9 years in lodging the FIR and noting the 'inappropriate' conduct of the victim, a practicing advocate herself.
Case title - Manorama Shukla vs. State of U.P
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) clarified that obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from a previous counsel is merely a matter of "good practice" and not a pre-requirement for the purposes of hearing in a criminal case.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary added that a new counsel who is duly authorized by his client can press a bail application even if the earlier lawyer withholds the NOC.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 525
In a move aimed at overhauling the coordination between the police and prosecution machinery across UP, the Director General (Prosecution) in Uttar Pradesh issued a strict circular directing all Prosecuting Officers to ensure that instructions from police stations reach trial courts without delay.
The directive was issued following an intervention by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which took notice of the administrative lethargy in a case which resulted in the delaying of a surrender application of the accused.
'Insult To Majesty Of Law' : Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Husband Accused Of Filing 'Forged' Bank Statements In Maintenance Case
Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. State of U.P. and another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of filing forged allegedly to understate his financial capacity in the maintenance proceedings.
The Court observed that filing a forged document is a 'direct assault' on the principle of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and constitutes an "insult to the majesty of law".
Case title - Suresh Prakash Gautam vs State of UP
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 527
The Allahabad High Court observed that the sanctity of trap proceedings in corruption cases is compromised if the washing of hands of the accused and complainant and the sealing of the recovered bribe money are done at the police station instead of the spot where the trap was allegedly executed.
Taking serious exception to the "casual manner" in which investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) 1988, are being conducted in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of Justice Sameer Jain directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions ensuring these proceedings take place strictly at the scene of the crime.
Case title - Rohini and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere School Transfer Certificate (TC) or an entry in an admission register of the school does not satisfy the requirement of a "date of birth certificate from the school" under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed thus while allowing a Habeas Corpus writ petition, effectively ruling that such a plea is maintainable if the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) acts without jurisdiction by ordering the detention of a person in a protection home based solely on unverified school records.
S. 125 CrPC | Earning Lady Able To Maintain Herself Not Entitled To Maintenance From Husband : Allahabad High Court
Case title - Ankit Saha vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court observed that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she is gainfully employed and earning a sufficient salary to maintain herself.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh thus set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay Rs. 5K as maintenance to his wife merely to "balance the income" and to equalise status between the parties, even though the wife was earning Rs. 36K per month.
Case title - Manish Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 530
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of making a Facebook post against "Nabi Paigamber" (the Prophet) of the Muslim community.
The Court observed that the words employed in the post were clearly made with a "deliberate and malicious intention" of outraging religious feelings.
Case title - Pappu Met @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Taking strong exception to the "persistent and repeated defiance" of bail guidelines by subordinate courts, the Allahabad High Court warned that it may be compelled to initiate contempt proceedings against judicial officers who mechanically impose excessive sureties on accused persons when granting bail.
On Thursday, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, specifically in the case of Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr, the Judges continue to pass orders that disregard the financial reality of the accused.
Case title - Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Highlighting the "stark reality of the society" in the matrimonial cases, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to an accused (Father-in-Law) in a dowry death case, observing that "fake cases of demand of dowry are on the rise".
The relief was granted by Justice Pankaj Bhatia after the informant (brother of the deceased), who had previously approached the Supreme Court to cancel the accused's bail, turned hostile during the trial and 'resiled' from his allegations.
S. 321 CrPC | Mere State Govt's Intention To Withdraw Prosecution Not Binding; Independent Scrutiny By PP & Court Mandatory: Allahabad HC
Case title - Chhote Lal Kushwaha And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court observed that a "mere expression of intention" by the State Government to withdraw from the prosecution in a particular case neither binds the Court nor dilutes the statutory requirement of independent scrutiny by the Public Prosecutor and the judiciary.
Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by four accused persons in a case involving cheating and offences under the SC-ST Act, a Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav emphasised that the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC is permissible only when the Public Prosecutor acts independently and in good faith.
Case title - Kamran vs State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the offence of gaming in a public street or place under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, is cognizable because the provision itself permits a police officer to apprehend the accused without a warrant.
By necessary implication and in view of Section 2 (c) CrPC, the Court further held that the police may also register an FIR and investigate the matter without prior permission from a Magistrate.
Case Title: Lal Bahadur Patel v. Union of India and 6 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 914 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a litigant challenging the shifting of Indian Bank Branch to another village without the permission of RBI.
Petitioner, Gram Pradhan, approached the High Court against shifting of the branch of the Indian Bank located in Block Mau Aima, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj to another location on grounds that it would cause great hardship to the villagers of nearby villages as well as that of his village.
Case title - Sabir Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has cautioned the Uttar Pradesh State authorities against registering mechanical and routine cases under the stringent Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The Court observed that, given the 'stringent' provisions of the special Act, the authorities must exercise greater care and avoid registering FIRs in a "mimeographic style".
Despite Long Cohabitation, Woman Can't Claim Maintenance From Partner U/S 125 CrPC If Her First Marriage Subsists: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Madhu Alias Aruna Bhajpai vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a woman can't claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from a partner she lives with if her first marriage is still legally valid. The Court held that even a long-term relationship resembling marriage does not grant her the legal status of a 'wife' if she has not obtained a divorce from her first husband.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that permitting such claims would undermine the "ethical and cultural foundation of Hindu family law"
Case Title: Badal Chatterjee v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 538
The Allahabad High Court has observed that once an undertaking has been given for taking down illegal construction, the offending party cannot expect the Development Authority to approach it for compounding of the map.
While dealing with a case regarding illegal and unsanctioned construction in New Katra, Prayagraj, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed
“The fact that the respondent nos.6 & 7 knew that the construction raised by them is not as per the approved plan and there has been deviation in the construction from the approved plan and knowing this fact that the respondent no.6 gave an undertaking by filing an affidavit that she would demolish the construction which is in deviation from the approved map, she cannot expect the authorities to approach her asking for compounding of the map.”
State Bar Council Can't Control Or Regulate District Bar Association Elections: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 539
The Allahabad High Court held that the State Bar Council lacks authority to "control or regulate" the elections of Bar Associations as they are governed by their own bye-laws.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta thus set aside a directive issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (respondent no.3) placing a temporary embargo on holding elections for all Bar Associations in the state between November 15, 2025, and February 2026.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed before it in 2017, which challenged the legality of the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister and Keshav Prasad Maurya as Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in 2017.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed that there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits the appointment of a person who is already a Member of Parliament as Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister of a State.
'Live-In Relations Not Illegal; State Bound To Protect Couples': Allahabad HC Single Judge Disapproves Of DB Order Deploring Such Ties
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 541
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court (Single Judge) observed that while the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, it cannot be said that such a relationship is 'illegal' or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence.
It added that the right to human life stands on a "much higher pedestal" regardless of whether a couple is married or living together without the sanctity of marriage.
'Larger Conspiracy Not Ruled Out': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash 2017 Rioting FIRs Against MP Chandrashekhar Ravan
Case title - Chandrashekhar Alias Ravan vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected petitions
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED a batch of petitions filed by Chandrashekhar Ravan, the sitting MP from Nageena Constituency in UP and BHIM Army Chief, seeking to quash proceedings concerning 4 FIRs lodged against him in connection with the 2017 Saharanpur rioting incident.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that merely because incidents occurred on the same day, subsequent FIRs cannot be quashed if their "ambit is different" and the offences were committed at different places and times.
Case title - Sushil Kumar Rawat vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman And Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 543
The Allahabad High Court set aside a 10-year suspension imposed by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council on a lawyer on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The lawyer was charged with moral turpitude for alleged bigamy.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed thus:
"The show cause notice was issued on February 17, 2025 for appearance on March 10, 2025 and impugned order was passed on February 23, 2025 which makes it evident that the impugned order is passed ex parte without granting any opportunity of hearing which is violative of the principle of natural justice".
Case title - Rashida Begum vs. State of UP
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 544
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED a criminal revision petition filed by a woman convicted under the Foreigners Act, as it clarified that the trial court's order to authorities to take action for her deportation 'नियमानुसार' ["in accordance with rules"] does not amount to a mandatory direction to deport.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that the direction to proceed "in accordance with rules" implies that the competent authorities are left to act as per the applicable law and this doesn't mean that the convict was being compelled by the court to be deported.
Husband's Attempt To Shift Case After Obtaining Ex-Parte Divorce Reflects 'Ulterior Motive To Delay': Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Nagendra Sharma And Another Versus The State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretry Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow And Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 225 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 545
The Allahabad High Court has held that the husband himself filing for divorce in one Court and after the decree seeking transfer of recall proceedings to another city shows his ulterior motive to cause delay in conclusion of divorce proceedings.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“The conduct of the applicant to prefer the Family Court at Gonda for instituting the proceeding and thereafter to make request for transfer of the subsequent proceeding emanating from the same to the Family Court at Lucknow, is reflective of his ulterior motive to cause delay in the proceeding.”
Case title - Indra Devi vs. State of U.P. and 2 others and a connected plea
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 546
Observing that the absence of teachers frustrates the very purpose of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with the suspension of primary school teachers who were found absent from their school during an inspection.
A bench of Justice Prakash Padia, while disposing of the writ petitions, also issued a mandamus to the State Government to frame a policy ensuring the "presence of teachers in school within time" positively within three months.
Muslim Marriage | Maintaining Second Wife Not Ground To Deny Maintenance To First Legally Wedded Wife: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Modh. Asif v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5182 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 547
While dealing with maintenance dispute arising in a Muslim marriage, the Allahabad High Court has held that a husband maintaining second wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to the lawfully wedded first wife who is wholly dependent on her parents for financial support.
Briefly put, husband approached the High Court against a Family Court order awarding Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance to his first wife on grounds that he was earning merely Rs. 83,000 per annum and the award was exorbitant.
Case title - Sri Hiralal vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 548
Observing that it is a matter of common knowledge that lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship, the Allahabad High Court reduced the maintenance amount payable by a junior advocate to his estranged wife.
A Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh modified the order of the Family Court, Pilibhit, noting that the previously awarded maintenance of Rs. 5K was 'excessive' given the "uncertain and fluctuating income" of the husband, who is a practising lawyer.
Case Title: State Of Up And Another v. Mohan Lal [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 549
While dealing with a delay of 5,743 days in filing Review Petition, the Allahabad High Court held that government departments are obligated to perform duties with diligence which includes filing petitions in a timely manner. It held that law treats private individuals/ entities and government the same and undue benefit of delay condonation must not be granted to the State.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed,
“The government agencies are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of the Government Department.”
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Tripathi v. Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan thru. Chairman and 3 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1272 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 550
The Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking the implementation of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) guidelines for 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR) of Electoral Rolls for the upcoming Three-Tier Panchayat Elections in Uttar Pradesh.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed the plea filed by Narendra Kumar Tripathi, a resident of Sant Kabir Nagar, observing that the State Election Commission's process was already at an advanced stage.
Bareilly Violence | 'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Against India's Sovereignty, Incites Armed Rebellion; No Quranic Basis : Allahabad HC Denies Bail
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 551
Rejecting the bail application of an accused involved in the Bareilly violence of September 2025, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the raising of the slogan "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda" (the only punishment for disrespecting the Prophet is beheading) by a crowd constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the law and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that such slogans incite people to "armed rebellion" and are punishable under Section 152 BNS. The Single Judge opined that it is also against the basic tenets of Islam.
Case title - Babbu Alias Haider vs. State of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 552
The Allahabad High Court directed the Registrar General to once again circulate instructions to all District Judges to sensitize judicial officers falling under their jurisdiction to write order sheets in legible handwriting or get the same typed.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed thus while hearing a bail application filed by one Babbu alias Haider in relation to a 2018 attempt to murder case.
Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State Of U P And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29414 of 2021]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 553
The Allahabad High Court has held that for grant of benefits under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana, the primary source of income/ livelihood of the deceased farmer needs to be seen rather than seeing the revenue records to ascertain whether the agricultural land was in the name of the deceased or not.
The “Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana” has been brought in the State of UP to provide financial assistance to the families of farmers who die in accidents.
Case Title: Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi through its Registrar Versus M/s Umang Cure Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 289 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 554
The Allahabad High Court held that when an agreement is extended by the conduct of the parties, though it may have expired on paper, the applicability of the arbitration clause is also extended.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed
“A perusal of the above determination made by Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that though the agreement may have come to an end on expiry of its term, the arbitration clause operated and for the purpose of determination of the disputes, the arbitration clause could be invoked and that the agreement had not come to an end by efflux time and the same got extended on account of conduct of the parties.”
'Enormity' Of Codeine Syrup 'Racket': Allahabad High Court Rejects Quashing Pleas Of Alleged Kingpin, Co-Accused; Upholds NDPS FIR
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 555
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash multiple FIRs lodged against multiple persons accused of their involvement in the interstate trafficking of Codeine-based cough syrup, specifically 'Phensedyl'.
Dismissing a batch of 23 writ petitions, including that of the alleged Kingpin of the suspected Codeine Cough Syrup Racket, a Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the enormity of the entire matter needs to be investigated.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 556
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed the immediate transfer of a criminal complaint case filed against the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Raebareli MP, Rahul Gandhi, from the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Raebareli, to the Special MP/MLA Court in Lucknow.
A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh thus allowed a Transfer Application filed by BJP Worker, S. Vignesh Shishir (original complainant) under Section 447 BNSS.
Detailed Recovery Memo Signed By Accused Satisfies Requirement Of Written Communication Of Arrest Grounds: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar vs. State of UP and 4 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 557
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a detailed Recovery Memo (Fard Baramadgi), prepared contemporaneously, containing the penal sections invoked and signed by the accused, satisfies the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that where such a document exists, a technical omission of grounds in the formal Arrest Memo would not be fatal, as the same is substantial compliance with the requirement of communicating the arrest ground and will not render the custody illegal or the remand order perverse.
Can Accused Directly File Successive Bail Pleas In HC On New Material Without Approaching Sessions Court? Allahabad High Court Answers
Case title - Teekam vs State of UP
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 558
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a second bail application, or successive bail applications, may be entertained by the HC on the basis of material collected during trial, even though such material was not available to the Sessions Court or the HC when the earlier bail application was rejected.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, however, clarified that in appropriate cases, the HC may direct the applicant-accused to file successive bail applications before the Sessions Court based on new material.
Hindu Marriage Cannot Be Declared Void At In-Laws' Instance After Husband's Demise Due To Bride Being Underage: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: X & Anr. v. Y
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 559
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be declared void at the behest of in-laws at a belated stage raising claim of her being underage at the time of solemnization of the marriage.
Sub-clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that a bridegroom should be of 21 years of age and the bride should be of 18 years at the time of marriage as conditions for a Hindu marriage. Section 11 of the Act provides of void marriages where violation of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Section 5 can be reasons for declaring marriage void if either party to the marriage.
Case title - Farha Naz vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 560
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order passed by the Family Court, which had rejected a wife's application for maintenance on the sole ground that she is a YouTuber and earns through 'Reels'.
A Bench of Justice Harvir Singh observed that the Family court had arrived at the finding that the wife is capable of supporting herself without an actual assessment.
Selective Investigation And Prosecution Under Gangsters Act Corrodes Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6547 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Observing that bail conditions are routinely flouted by gangsters and repeated adjournments are taken in Court, the Allahabad High Court observed,
“At its core, the concept of a democratic State rests on the premise that every citizen is not only equal before law but equally entitled to its protection and equally significant in the eyes of a welfare State. Administrators must bear in mind that the choices they make ultimately shape the administration of justice- and history not only records those choices, it also repeats them. This Court reminds the Home Department that 'selective investigation' and 'selective prosecution' are antithetical to the rule of law and inevitably corrode public trust in governance.”
Termination Of MNIT Lecturer For Consensual Relationship With Student 'Shockingly Disproportionate': Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rajesh Singh Versus Board of Governors, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology and another [WRIT - A No. - 19080 of 2006]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 562
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a 19 year old dismissal order of a professor of Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad who was accused of emotional and physical harassment by an ex-student.
Observing that the case could at best be of a false promise to marriage as the complainant had been in a relationship with the professor for 3 years after leaving MNIT, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held
“No doubt the petitioner has not followed or kept high standard of morality but there is another factor that except the said allegation there is no other allegation against petitioner despite he was doing job for almost three years before the order of termination was passed. In case petitioner got married with complainant after their relationship of three years, possibly no complaint was filed. Therefore, Court finds that morality has to be judged on further conduct of petitioner also and since there is no other complaint placed on record, therefore, the Court finds that punishment is shockingly disproportionate.”
Case Title: Praveen Singh @ Praveen Singh Bafila and another Versus Bahujan Nirbal Varg Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Thru. its Secy. and 21 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 297 of 2025 ]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 563
A division bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict against challenge to an order of the Single Judge whereby it had stayed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was acting as an arbitrator, by which election result of the Bahujan Nirbal Varg Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. (Petitioner) under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1965 was stayed.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar differed on the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge in dealing with the case.
Case Title: Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and Ors. Versus Sri Rishi Dev Mishra and Other [WRIT - C No. - 1005010 of 2006]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 564
The Allahabad High Court has held that Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, a constituent/ Institute of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi is not an industry under 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Definition of 'Industry' under the Act of 1947 reads as
"2(j) "industry" means any business, trade undertaking, manufacturer or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industry occupation or avocation of workmen.”
Case Title: Prabhu Nath Yadav v. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs [WRIT - A No. - 1020 of 2006]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 565
The Allahabad High Court said that a major penalty cannot be imposed on a CISF personnel for the same misconduct for which minor penalty was already imposed, reiterating that "no person can be punished more than once for the same misconduct".
Petitioner was appointed as Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable in 1987. After getting an increment to his basic pay, petitioner was awarded a minor punishment of withholding 2 annual increments. The petitioner was granted increment in 1991, however, increment payable upon crossing the efficiency bar was not granted to the petitioner. This was because he was found 'Not Yet Fit' by the Efficiency Board due to alleged poor track record.
Case title - Vartika Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 566
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed criminal proceedings against international shooter and President's Awardee Vartika Singh, who was facing charges of forgery and defamation after she alleged that she was asked Rs. 25 Lakh as a bribe in return for a berth in the National Commission for Women.
A bench Justice Rajeev Singh observed that there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate the police's claim that she had forged the letters from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the then Union Minister Smriti Irani's office.
'Jailed For 24 Years Sans Evidence': Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Convicted Solely Based On S. 313 CrPC Admission
Case title - Azad Khan vs. State of U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 567
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of dacoity. In this case, the trial court, in 2002, rendered the verdict solely based on his admission in his statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
Finding fault with the same, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar ruled that a conviction cannot be premised solely on an admission made in a statement under Section 313 CrPC, especially when the prosecution fails to adduce any corroborative or incriminating evidence.
Specific Performance | Limitation Is A Triable Issue When Plaint Avers Supplementary Agreement Extended Timeline: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Devendra Srivastava And Ors. vs. M/S Eifel Recreation Club (P) Ltd.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 568
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that a suit for specific performance of a contract cannot be rejected at the threshold as time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if the plaintiff has pleaded explicitly that the subsequent execution of a supplementary agreement extended the original timeline for performance.
A Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that, in such circumstances, the question of whether the suit is barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be ascertained only after the parties have led evidence at the trial stage.
Case Title: Vision Town Planners Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT – C No. - 26271 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 569
Relying on various judgments of itself and the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the New Okhla Development Authority (NOIDA) cannot charge lease rent for the property of which possession has not been given to the lessee.
In Allure Developers Private Limited Vs. State Of U P. And 3 Others, the Allahabad High Court had held that the petitioner therein be granted the benefit of zero period and no lease rent shall be payable for the plot of land of which possession had not been transferred at the time of allotment. The same was reiterated in M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Others.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 570
The Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, has issued a mandatory circular directing all district police chiefs to send instructions in bail and other criminal matters via electronic mode to the Government Advocates in the Allahabad High Court.
This move is in strict compliance with the High Court's directions issued on December 9.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal had issued the direction, noting that under the current manual system, there are significant delays in receiving instructions from police stations in criminal matters.
Magistrate Order U/S 156 (3) CrPC For FIR Registration Not Open To Revision At Instance Of Prospective Accused :Allahabad High Court
Case title - Nahni And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 571
The Allahabad High Court observed that a prospective accused has no locus to challenge an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing the police to register an FIR and investigate, by way of a revision petition.
A Bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a criminal revision petition, noting that an order passed under Section 156 (3) CrPC is an interlocutory order and cannot be challenged in revision under Section 397(2) CrPC.
Sexual Exploitation Of Women On False Marriage Promise A Growing Tendency, Must Be Nipped In Bud: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Prashant Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 572
The Allahabad High Court observed that the tendency of sexually exploiting women on the false promise of marriage and finally refusing to marry her is growing in society, which must be nipped in the bud.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, who rejected the anticipatory bail application of an accused booked under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.).
Case Title: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another [WRIT TAX No. - 2707 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 573
The Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of Information Technology Act regarding dispatch and receipt of service are not applicable to service made under Section 169 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The six modes of service provided under Section 169(1) of the State/Central GST Act are: (a) tendering directly or by messenger; (b) dispatch by speed post, etc. with acknowledgement due; (c) sending communication by email; (d) by making available on the common portal; (e) by publication in a newspaper and; (f) by affixation.
Case Title: M/S Prakash Medical Stores v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 5865 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 574
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be granted to a party for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act where a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act was filed within time.
Limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is 3 months from the date of the order with a grace period of one month which may be condoned by the appellate authority if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within time with sufficient reason.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Singh Versus Suresh Chandra Princ.secy.irrigation Deptt.and 4 Ors. [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2555 of 2017]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 575
The Allahabad High Court has held that the highest officer in a government department will be liable for contempt proceedings against him/ her is a writ court order is not complied with due to confusion in administrative machinery.
Holding that Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh will be liable for contempt in cases relating to the Land Acquisition Act 1984 as well as Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, Justice Salil Kumar Rai held
“The distribution of work between the different departments of the State Government cannot be used as a pretext to not implement the order of this Court. It is the duty of the State Government to ensure full compliance of the order passed by this Court. In case of any non-compliance because of any confusion in the administrative machinery of the State Government regarding the department or officer who is responsible to ensure compliance would make the highest officer of the State responsible and liable in contempt.”
Case Title: Ram Kumar v. Narain And Others [WRIT - C No. - 1001378 of 2000]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 576
The Allahabad High Court has held that a registered adoption deed must be presumed to be in compliance of law unless specifically disproved in independent proceedings.
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides that when a registered adoption deed is produced in a court of law where the sign of the party giving the child and the party adopting the child are present, such deed shall be presumed to be in compliance of law unless it is otherwise proved.
Case title - Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 577
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the nomination of Advocate Naresh Chandra Tripathi for the upcoming Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the framing of contempt charges by a seven-judge Bench of the High Court was merely a prima facie view and did not amount to a conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Wife Outshines 'Uncle' In 'Closest Legal Heir Test' Under Section 2 (Wa) CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rajesh Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.4791 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 578
The Allahabad High Court has held that the wife will outshine 'uncle' in 'closest legal heir test' under Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.
Section 2(wa) of CrPC defines 'victim' as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
In writ petitions filed by uncle of the deceased seeking transfer of investigations from Police authorities to CBI, the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held
“The present petitioner, who is uncle of the deceased, may not come within the purview of victim or legal heir of the deceased, as the wife outshines the uncle in the 'closest legal heir test' to be considered as legal heir in view of Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.”
Case Title: Vinay Mohan v. Smt. Nidhi Singh and Anr. [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 579
The Allahabad High Court has held that special appeal against an order on transfer applcation under Section 24 of CPC is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as such an order is not a judgment.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“an order passed under Section 24 CPC is not a judgment, therefore, an appeal is not amenable on this count under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.”
Case Title: Savitri Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ C No.11232 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 580
Passing an order during vacations, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs on the State of U.P. for illegally demolishing structure on petitioner's property and passing an ex-parte order mutating the revenue records in respect of petitioner's property.
While imposing the cost, Justice Alok Mathur observed
“Mere setting aside of the impugned order will not be sufficient to render complete justice to the petitioner whose property has been illegally demolished by the State authorities. For the aforesaid action, adequate cost has to be imposed, taking into account the conduct of the state officials and the damage caused to the citizen whose property has been subjected to illegal demolition.”
Case title - Sonam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 581
Observing that it is a sad reality that applications for interim maintenance remain pending in courts for a long time, the Allahabad High Court remarked that permitting a woman to live in penury, while her application is decided, cannot be the intent of the law.
The Court emphasized that pendency of the proceedings in Court, without any order in favor of the litigant, should not be to the disadvantage of the litigant. It added that, as with the final maintenance orders, interim maintenance too, must also be granted from the date of filing the application.
Caveat Procedure In Board Of Revenue Faulty: Allahabad High Court Issues Broad Guidelines
Case Title: Tribhawan Goyal v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - B No. - 1332 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 582
The Allahabad High Court has issued broad guidelines for issuing notice on caveats in the Board of Revenue in the State of U.P.
Noticing the hassles in cases where outstation counsels are involved, Justice J.J. Munir observed
“We are of opinion that in order to avoid many a possible hassle, an outstation Counsel, appearing in the matter, may be required by the Board to have a counterpart of his, resident at the station where the Bench of the Board is located, that is to say, the Bench where the caveat is lodged. Alternatively, apart from other particulars, such as e-mail, a WhatsApp mobile number, the learned Counsel, when lodging a caveat, who comes from outstation, must be required to furnish an e-mail address, declaring that on the said address, he can be heard through videoconferencing on facilities to be specified by the Board, such Cisco Webex, Google Meet or NIC's Bharat VC, etc., whichever may be available to the Board, where the caveat is lodged.”
Case Title: Faaiz Qamar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 42054 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 583
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for re-evaluation of answer sheets based on the students presumption that he/ she would get a higher score if re-evaluation is done.
Petitioner appeared in Intermediate examinations. Being unsatisfied with the marks, she applied for scrutiny in Hindi and Biology papers. Upon seeing the answer-sheets, petitioner was sure that she would have scored higher in the subjects and accordingly, moved a representation before the Regional Secretary of the Board.
Case Title: Shri. Manjeet Chawla v. State of U P and 2 others [WRIT - C No. - 20970 of 2018]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 584
The Allahabad High Court has held that formation of District Mineral Foundations vide Section 9-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is a beneficial legislation and must be construed liberally for those who are affected negatively by mining operations.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held
“The object behind creating DMF can be discerned from Rule 3 of Rules, 2017 that it is a benevolent provision inserted with an object to provide help and aid to the affected person and affected area because of mining activity carried out in that area. The law is settled that a benevolent provision should be interpreted liberally to achieve the purpose for which it has been enacted.….. Therefore, narrow interpretation to Section 9-B would render otiose the very object of the insertion of Section 9-B of MMDR Act which is for the benefit of people at large who are affected by mining operation and suffer injury and damage because of mining operation.”
Case Title: M/S Regenvo Mobile Private Limited Lucknow Thru Its Director Rahul Singh And Anr. Versus M/S Siyogi Enterprises Thru Managing Director And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 75 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 585
The Allahabad High Court has held that finding returned by a Sole Arbitrator based on presumption and which has the effect of modifying the agreement, vitiates the arbitral award.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held
“The Sole Arbitrator by returning a finding which is not based on any evidence and material on record and merely is based on presumption coupled with the fact that it has the effect of modifying the terms of the agreement and also amounts to reading something in the clause, which the parties conspicuously left out from being incorporated and this exercise apparently is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and thus vitiates the award.”
Case title - Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director and another vs. Abha Gupta
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 586
The Allahabad High Court has held that a domestic award pertaining to an international commercial arbitration is enforceable by High Court, which has the jurisdiction, under Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti held that
“.. it is the High Court which is the 'Court' for filing an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award pertaining to an international commercial arbitration.”
Case Title: Omkar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Deve. Lko and 3 others [WRIT - C No. - 11631 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 587
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to filing of election petitions under the Municipalities Act, 1916 as such election petitions are not suits.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held
“Although an election petition filed under Section 20 of the Municipalities Act is not a suit, it is an original proceeding which has to be decided in the manner provided for decision of suits. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits. For this reason also, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to filing of election petitions under the Municipalities Act, 1916.”
Case Title: Maloo v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11855 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 588
The Allahabad High Court has held that investigation is rendered unreliable and legally unsustainable if dead persons are included as prosecution witnesses without any explanation.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav held
“The inclusion of deceased persons as prosecution witnesses, without any explanation, goes to the root of the matter and reflects non-application of mind during investigation, thereby rendering the investigation unreliable and legally unsustainable.”
Case Title: Lala and another v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1071 of 1987]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 589
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted 3 accused of murder and serving life imprisonment on grounds that the murder was a blind murder and was carried out by someone else. The Court held that there were major contradictions in ocular and medical evidence and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
While acquitting the 3 accused, the bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar held
“we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and reached a wrong conclusion regarding the appellants' guilt upon conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence.”
Case Title: Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary And 6 Others State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8734 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 590
The Allahabad High Court has held that appointment of a candidate who deliberately enters higher marks in application form for recruitment, to gain undue advantage in selection process is fundamentally illegal.
It held that such candidate cannot seek the benefit of estoppel as the appointment is tainted from the beginning.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, “where a candidate deliberately enters marks higher than those actually secured, thereby placing himself/ herself in a position of unwarranted advantage and ultimately securing appointment, such appointment cannot be termed legal or valid. Such an act, by any stretch of reasoning, cannot be treated as a mere human error or an inadvertent mistake, as it confers an undue advantage upon the candidate to the prejudice of other eligible aspirants and strikes at the very root of fairness and transparency in the selection process.”