LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: July 2026 [Citations 341 - 504]
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341 to 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Lal Chand Yadav vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought a direction to the police and the State of UP to recall a Division Bench's orders granting bail and suspending the sentence of a murder convict.
Strangely, the PIL plea also prayed that the appeal pending before the High Court be sent to the MP/MLA Court, which the Court noted is essentially a Court of Sessions and lies lower than the High Court in the judicial hierarchy.
Case Title - Bhanwar Singh vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that sniffer dog evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of a complete record of the exact manner in which tracking was done (the proceedings of the sniffer dog) in the Panchnama and the examination of the dog handler in the court.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that there must be no discrepancy between the version recorded in the Panchnama and the handler's evidence deposed before the Court.
Case Title - Suhail vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the doctor's certificate stating the patient was "conscious" and "able to speak" is sufficient to rely upon a dying declaration even if a separate endorsement regarding the "fit state of mind" of the victim, to make a statement, is absent.
"…the requirement of a doctor's endorsement regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to make his/her declaration is not a rule of law or a mandatory provision, but merely a rule of prudence; the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary, and free from any tutoring, prompting, or other suspicious circumstances", a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi ruled. (emphasis supplied)
Case title - Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits only the 'conversion' of the religious character of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another, but it does not bar the State from acquiring such properties for 'secular' and 'public' purposes.
With this, a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar dismissed a writ petition seeking to halt the widening and beautification of the Dalmandi area in Varanasi, a project undertaken as a part of the UP Govt's Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor development.
Case title - Tayyab vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against 9 persons accused of raping the informant when she was a minor during a 2016 'nikah halala', and later subjecting her to gang rape as an adult during a second, 'double' halala in 2025.
In its 19-page judgment, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena categorically stated that "when it comes to criminal law, unless the law itself makes exception, which it rarely does, there is absolutely no place for pleading personal laws governing marriage, etc., if, interlaced with a matrimonial relationship, a crime were committed".
Case Title: Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association v. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court has held that objections by Apartment Owner's Association cannot invalidate the consent given by individual flat owners for further development and purchase of additional FAR (floor area ratio) by the developer.
Justice Arun Kumar held,
“A representative body cannot, merely by passing a resolution, invalidate contractual declarations and consents furnished by hundreds of individual apartment owners who continue to stand by them. The Association cannot be permitted to substitute its opinion for the autonomous decisions of individual apartment purchasers. Even assuming the Association validly resolved to oppose the project, a collective resolution cannot retrospectively revoke individual declarations executed by hundreds of separate apartment owners. The Association cannot exercise a power of rescission on behalf of non-objecting owners.”
Case title - Baldev Raj Arora vs. Cbi/ Acb Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the statutory bar under Section 362 CrPC (Court not to alter judgment) does not apply to the modification or relaxation of conditions imposed in a bail order.
"…an order granting bail is a merely an interlocutory order and it would not fall withing the scope and ambit of the phrase 'a judgment or final order disposing of a case' used in Section 362 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C will not apply to alteration of a condition put in an order granting bail to an accused person", the Court specifically held.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Intervene In UP ATS Probe Into Funding Of 4,000+ Unaided Madrassas
Case title - Committee Of Management And Another vs State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with the Uttar Pradesh Anti Terrorist Squad's probe into the funding of more than 4,000 unaided madrassas being run in the state.
A bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran dismissed a petition moved by the Madrasa Management Committee and the Teachers' Association, Madrasas Arabia.
Case Title: M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
While dealing with a writ petition seeking No Objection Certificate for construction of a hotel on the land in question, the Allahabad High Court held that the land cannot be claimed as 'pond' without challenging the sale deed for the land which was made 113 years ago.
Case title - Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has categorically ruled that a viscera report cannot be relied upon to secure a conviction if the report was never specifically put before the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that merely questioning an accused with regard to poison being administered to the deceased would be insufficient if the primary scientific evidence (the viscera report) is withheld from them.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court has held that Permanent Lok Adalat's mention of 'conciliation attempted but failed' is a general reference which is not legally sufficient as per the judgment of the High Court in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others.
In Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, the Court had held that the function of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to first try conciliation and settlement between the parties. If the same fails, it must record (briefly) the proceedings in the award so that its decision on the dispute is clear. It held that absence of conciliation attempts would render the award legally invalid as it would be against the provisions of the Act.
Case Title: Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has held that a spot inspection conducted by the District Magistrate in stamp duty deficiency proceedings without issuing notice to the party is an irregularity, and not an illegality, where no prejudice is caused to the party.
The Court held that under Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, it is not mandatory for the Collector to conduct an inspection, but where one is conducted, notice ought to be given to the parties to the instrument.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court has held that assets derived from unknown sources of income cannot presumed to be from scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“A person may have assets derived from unknown source of income, however, that by itself cannot be presumed that the aforesaid assets are derived from schedule offence,” held Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while granting bail to accused in illegal mining in Yamuna Basin case.
Case title – Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a CBI probe into the Ram Mandir donation row, noting a similar plea with similar prayers has already been filed before the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla was hearing the petition filed by practising Advocate Mohit Ashok, seeking an independent, credible, and time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged "embezzlement of donation funds" (including monetary, gold, and silver) at the temple.
Case Title: Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Citaton : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a judgment is not erroneous and subject to review merely because of omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page, unless such omission results in patent error apparent on the face of the record or causes manifest injustice.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,
“…mere omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page in a compilation of documents, by itself, would not automatically render the judgment under review erroneous, unless it is further shown that such omission has resulted in a patent error apparent on the face of the record or has occasioned manifest miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be entertained on every procedural irregularity or alleged defect in presentation of papers.”
Case title - Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a 41-year-old criminal appeal, upholding the 1985 conviction of a Consolidation Lekhpal who was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of ₹300, nearly half a century ago.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus upheld the 1-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to him. He was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 4 weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 stand vitiated where no oral inquiry is conducted and no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet.
It held that a finding of guilt against a charged employee cannot rest on documents which have not been proved through evidence.
Case Title: Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 against a person already in jail is vitiated by non-application of mind, where the Detaining Authority does not know, or wrongly knows, the case in which the detenu is in custody.
It held that without knowing the case, the Detaining Authority cannot form an opinion, based on objective material, that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, which is an essential precondition for preventively detaining a person already in judicial custody.
Case title - Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a first informant dies a natural death before the commencement of a criminal trial or before testifying, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved through a scribe or an investigating officer.
A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava clarified that if an informant's death has no connection whatsoever with the complaint lodged, the contents of the FIR will not be admissible in evidence, and the benefit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be availed in such cases.
Case title - Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an Election Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to verify or declare a caste certificate forged; hence, a duly issued certificate cannot be challenged or scrutinized in an election petition.
A bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari made this observation while dismissing an election petition filed by one Radha Charan, who sought to set aside the election of Vinay Prakash Gond from the 335 Ram Kola Legislative Assembly Constituency in Kushinagar district.
Case title - Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Shariat/Muslim Personal Law permitting puberty as the competent age for a girl to marry runs clearly in the teeth of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, as well as the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev further observed that the age of marriage, for every citizen of the country, irrespective of religion, is same, as has been spelt out by the PCMA.
Case title - Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that a "myopic interpretation" cannot be given to COVID-Duty so as to confine it only to persons specially assigned to discharge their duties in the treatment of people in hospitals.
The bench thus held that essential service workers, such as electricity department employees who ensured uninterrupted electricity supply to hospitals and oxygen plants, are entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors".
Case Title: Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Allahabad High Court has held that a civil suit seeking redemption of a mortgaged property which has already been sold pursuant to an award passed under the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is barred under Section 111(d) of the Act, as the relief cannot be granted without interfering with the award.
Section 111 of the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in matters under the Act. Clause (d) extends the bar to any other order or award made under the Act.
Case title - Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that police department personnel deployed for the prevention and control of COVID-19, as well as for spreading public awareness and helping infected persons, are fully entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors" under the State's welfare scheme.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to release ₹50 lakh ex gratia compensation in favour of the widow of a Head Constable who died after contracting the virus in April 2021.
Case Title: Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the buyer or the seller is not mandatory at the time of execution and registration of a sale deed in Uttar Pradesh, as Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State, is different from the provision contained in the Central Act.
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court affirmed that the testimony of eyewitnesses who are close family members of the victim of the crime cannot be discarded solely on account of their relationship with the victim.
The Court added that a close relative is a natural witness who would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court observed that if a woman dies an unnatural death within the four walls of her matrimonial home and a strong chain of circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, the burden lies upon the inmates of the house to explain the circumstances of her unnatural death under Section 106 Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava added that if the accused fails to offer a cogent explanation for a fact that is inculpatory and especially within their knowledge, it would be added to the chain of circumstances appearing against them.
Case title - Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
The Allahabad High Court has held that a conviction under Section 34 IPC (Common Intention) is legally unsustainable unless the court reaches a definite conclusion that the accused acted in "prior concert" and pursuant to a prearranged plan.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made these observations while acquitting the accused-appellant (Laddan) in a murder case dating back to 1987.
Case Title: Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Government has itself decided to transfer quarters in a weavers' colony to the occupant-weavers in possession, the death of the weaver cannot be a ground to deny the same rights to his widow.
Observing that weaving in India is a hereditary art passed on to the next generation, the Court held that the family of a weaver cannot be displaced from the colony upon the death of the head of the family.
Case Title: S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court has held that Family Court can grant a declaration of divorce /Talaq under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 even if the Talaq is under Muslim Personal Law and is uncontested by the parties or anyone else.
Case Title: Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday reiterated that the statutory period of limitation for a claim cannot be extended by repeatedly sending letters or belated representations to the authorities, without any admission of liability by the state-respondents.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a "one-way traffic".
Case Title: Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person claiming ownership of a property by adverse possession cannot succeed where he has been depositing electricity bills and property tax in the name of the previous owner, observing that such conduct amounts to an acknowledgment of the previous owner's title and demolishes the plea of adverse possession.
Justice Sandeep Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the rejection of a plaint seeking permanent injunction on the basis of alleged ownership acquired through adverse possession.
Case Title: Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court has held that once domestic violence is committed, the husband is not absolved of liabilities under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even after passing of a divorce decree.
Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the husband from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Case title - Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court clarified the exact procedure under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 162 of the CrPC, which needs to be adopted for contradicting a witness during a trial based on omissions in his previous statement made to the police u/s 161 of the CrPC.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held that a casual confrontation of a witness in the dock with the statement taken down by the Police, where there was an omission, cannot serve the purpose of the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.
Case Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 which provides for locating constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large.
It held that a voter cannot claim that his right to vote is violated merely because his constituency has remained reserved for the Scheduled Castes for decades.
Case title - Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband and his family members in a 2017 murder and dowry death case while discarding the deceased's dying declaration, after observing that it was made with the intent to “wreak vengeance” rather than state the truth.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant thus set aside the trial court's judgment that had sentenced the 5 accused to life imprisonment.
Case title - Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an appellate authority acting under Section 6 of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, does not have the statutory power to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it afresh on merits.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the statute vests the appellate authority with the jurisdiction to either "confirm the order, with or without modification, or set it aside".
Case title - Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court quashed the orders passed by the district authorities declaring a man a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. It observed that the Act should not be allowed to be misused as a "tool of oppression" of innocent persons.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the Act is a "powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'" and should be used "very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'".
Case Title - Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of harbouring a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent and passing sensitive data about the Indian Armed Forces to Pakistan.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also clarified that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC are not mandatory and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right to bail in favour of the accused.
Case title (PIL plea 1) - Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case title (PIL plea 2) - Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has refused to entertain two more Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking high-level probes, including a Judicial Commission and a Special Investigation Team (SIT), into allegations of theft of donations for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the petitions on July 7, noting that the subject matter is already pending before the Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by a body of Shia scholars challenging the alleged 'arbitrary' police action of removing portraits of recognized Iranian leaders.
The PIL petition was filed by Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, through its General Secretary, Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi, seeking to restrain the Uttar Pradesh Police from interfering with the display of portraits of leaders, including Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al-Sistani.
Case Title: Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with effect from October 1, 2018, the grant of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary and courts are bound to enforce it, subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act.
Holding that the amended provisions govern agreements executed after that date, the Court upheld a decree directing specific performance of a registered agreement to sell.
Case Title - Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court has observed that where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, a bench of Justice Achal Sachdev stressed that a purposive and socially contextual approach must be adopted while dealing with maintenance claims, rather than adhering to a purely adversarial or technical interpretation of the law
Case Title: Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Noting that the offence of rape is a legal conclusion and not a medical one, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday confirmed the conviction of a man in connection with a 1983 rape case.
The Court clarified that if the testimony of a prosecutrix is free from any basic infirmity, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the medical evidence doesn't strictly corroborate the prosecution's case.
Case Title: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
While granting relief to Tata Projects Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that the National Highways Authority of India, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot arbitrarily terminate a highway construction contract mid-term and fasten the contractor with liability for delay when the delay was caused by the Authority's own failure to hand over encumbrance-free land with a clear right of way, as it was bound to do under the contract.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife as it found his deceptive actions, like giving false assurances, lodging a false police report and eventually absconding, as “relevant conduct” under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed the jail appeal filed by the convict (Pawan Kumar), who challenged a 2016 judgment of a Hardoi Sessions Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Case title - Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has explicitly ruled that an accused's “plea of alibi” must be proved by leading evidence during a criminal trial and the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot unilaterally accept it to be true to file a Final Report.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that it would be "gross illegality” if the IO files a final report relying on the statements of witnesses who supported the applicants' plea of alibi.
Case title - Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a woman does not qualify as a "legally wedded wife" and hence is not entitled to claim maintenance from her partner under Section 125 CrPC if she began residing with him without first divorcing her first husband.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev thus set aside the Family Court's order to the extent that it granted maintenance to the woman from her partner, the man she purportedly married without obtaining a divorce from her first husband.
Case Title: M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) came down heavily on the North Eastern Railway (NER) authorities for their 'whimsical' and “mala fide” actions in repeatedly rejecting the financial bid of a sister government enterprise, the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (KRCL), on flimsy grounds.
Terming the NER's actions as "nothing short of harassment", a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed a June 8, 2026, letter that rejected KRCL's bid due to a purportedly incorrect beneficiary name in a bank guarantee.
Case Title: Netra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable in a contractual dispute where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact and remedy of arbitration is available to the aggrieved party under the agreement.
The Court declined to entertain a challenge to the termination of a fisheries lease and the forfeiture of security, holding that the competing claims over the leased area and the sums due under the contract could be resolved only after the parties led evidence before the agreed forum.
Case Title: Asif Ansari v. Himanshu Sharma and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of an application to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar a party from advancing pure questions of law arising from the pleadings already on record at the stage of final hearing.
It held that where the proposed amendment merely restates legal pleas already discernible from the pleadings and the memorandum of appeal, its rejection causes no legal prejudice.
Case Title: Amarnath v. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Information Commissioner And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court has held that penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be imposed without forming opinion on material and affording opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer.
Case Title: Ajeet Nigam v. Additional District Judge And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition challenging the election of a Corporator under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, filed on the reopening of the District Court after the summer vacation, is within limitation by virtue of Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, where the 30-day limitation period expired during the vacation.
It further held that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions and courts cannot extend the statutory period of limitation, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies where no notification permits acceptance of election petitions during the vacations.
Case Title: Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and does not become mandatory merely because the question it is sought to prove goes to the root of the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction.
The Court held that a commission is a discretionary aid to adjudication and cannot be pressed into service to collect evidence which a party is otherwise required to prove for itself.
Case Title: Mithai Lal And Others v. D.D.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court has held that a sale deed executed after the period fixed in a permission order granted under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 cannot be treated as void where the delay in execution was caused by a statutory restriction on the transfer of agricultural land in force at the relevant time.
The Court held that mutation could not be refused on the ground that such a sale deed was void, as the invalidity of a transfer made without prior permission is curable and does not per se render the transaction void or legally ineffective.
Case Title: Smt. Meenu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court has directed that where an employee is found to have been entitled to gratuity that was wrongly withheld and paid only later along with interest, the interest component shall be recovered from the salary of the officer who wrongly rejected the claim.
It further held that proceedings shall be initiated against the erring officer even after his retirement, where the service rules so permit.
Case Title: M/s Sardar Baldev Singh and Co. Thru. Prop. Sri Karamjeet Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
The Allahabad High Court has held that a petrol pump dealership cannot be terminated on mere suspicion of tampering with fuel dispensing unit.
Justice Irshad Ali added that the dealership cannot be terminated unless it is established with evidence that the alleged irregularity was capable of manipulating fuel delivery to the consumers, and that such manipulation was attributable to the dealer.
Case Title: State of U.P. vs Babloo @ Ashok Singh and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a state appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape as it observed that it was highly improbable for the crime to have been committed while the victim's children and other family members were present inside the house.
The High Court also noted a material discrepancy in the statement of the victim with regard to the commission of rape and found her not to be a "sterling witness" on this point.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar Mishra And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Admin. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court has held that a landholder cannot claim the protection of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to retain surplus land where possession had already been taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the Repeal Act came into force.
The Court also held that a writ petition challenging such ceiling proceedings, filed more than a decade after possession was taken, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Case Title: Satyendra Nath Shukla Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Sessions Judge has the power and discretion under Section 408 CrPC to transfer a part-heard criminal trial to the new court of a transferred judicial officer within the same Sessions Division, provided the new court has the jurisdiction to try the case.
Dismissing a petition that challenged the validity of such a transfer, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that if a criminal trial is transferred so the original presiding officer can retain the "advantage of watching the demeanor" of witnesses, the order "does not defeat the ends of justice" and cannot be termed an "abuse of the process of court".
Case Title - Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a person holding a certificate in 'electrohomeopathy' is not entitled to practice modern medicine (allopathy) as allowing such individuals to treat patients poses a grave risk to public health.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a clinic owner, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that a person who lacks the recognized medical qualification but practices in that system is a 'quack', a "mere pretender of medical knowledge", or a 'charlatan'.
Case Title - Saurabh Pal Singh vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court observed that a long, continuous physical relationship between consenting adults cannot be termed 'rape' when a promise to marry fails, especially when the underlying dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature.
Allowing two connected criminal appeals, a bench of Justice Santosh Rai discharged the accused (Saurabh Pal Singh) of all charges under Sections 376, 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Pinki Alias Preeti Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25% of a husband's net salary as maintenance is only a "broad guideline" and not mandatory.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that courts have the discretion to award more or less, depending on the facts of each case.
The Court also clarified that for the purpose of calculating maintenance, "net income" generally means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.
Case Title: Chandra Bhan and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court has issued a mandatory direction to all the trial courts across Uttar Pradesh that if evidence collected during an investigation indicates a 'homicidal' death inside a matrimonial home, the main charge must be framed under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and an alternative charge under Section 304-B IPC (Dowry Death).
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Dr Ajay Kumar-II passed the order after taking exception to a case where both the investigating officer and the trial Court judge treated a homicidal death under Section 304-B alone while completely ignoring the contents of the dying declaration, which clearly alleged murder.
Case Title - A vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Thru. Secy. New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court observed that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I).
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that a rigid application of age restriction under the Law infringes the fundamental right of the reproductive autonomy recognized as a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
The Allahabad High Court has held that a recruitment process commences on the publication of the advertisement, and not at the later stage of approval of appointment. It held that a law brought into force after the advertisement does not govern a process already set in motion.
It further held that where a new Act comes into force after the advertisement but before the selection is finalised, the process already initiated is protected under the Repeal and Savings clause of the New Act.
Case Title - Lal Babu Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC if the victim and other prosecution witnesses turn hostile during the trial.
Setting aside a 2011 trial court conviction in a kidnapping case, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that since Section 164 CrPC statement is not recorded in the presence of the accused, he has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness and hence, it can't be relied upon to hold the accused guilty
Case title - Mashu @ Aman Joshi vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday reiterated that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender after deliberately evading court and investigation is ordinarily not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
"…the law is discernible on the point that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court without offering any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence and consequently has been declared a proclaimed offender", a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed.
Case Title - Sunil Kumar Jain And 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that writ petitions are not maintainable for general Resident Welfare Association (RWA) disputes regarding day-to-day society management.
Noting a legislative vacuum in the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the Court also directed the UP Government to frame a formal grievance mechanism for the resolution of such disputes by a competent authority.
Case title - Kusum vs State Of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has observed that once a mother has been granted maintenance against her real son under Section 125 CrPC, she cannot subsequently seek "another maintenance" from her step-son for the same purpose.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking modification of a Family Court order to also hold her stepson liable for maintenance, even though her real son had already been directed to pay her ₹8,000 per month.
Case Title: Yaseen And Another Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court imposed ₹50K costs on the Uttar Pradesh Government for the negligence on the part of the police officials, which delayed the disposal of a bail application by more than ten days
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the applicants. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
Case Title - Kali Charan and others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a man in connection with a 1979 gang-rape case concerning a minor but reduced his substantive sentence from 7.5 years to 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI).
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence, noting the 43-year pendency of the criminal appeal and the surviving convict's age (71 years).
Case Title - Niranjan Das v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das in an Uttar Pradesh FIR linked to the alleged ₹2,161 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed:
"If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent".
Case Title - Razzak Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday expressed its "deep anguish" over a Gorakhpur trial court's decision to convict a man under Section 326 of the IPC and sentence him to a mere 3 years of imprisonment for causing the homicidal death of his own father by pouring acid upon him.
"…Trial Judge, by a manifest misappreciation of the evidence and a complete failure to apply the settled principles governing the offence of murder/culpable homicide, recorded a conviction only under Section 326 IPC and imposed a sentence of merely three years' rigorous imprisonment”, a bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed.
Case Title - Kammu and 11 others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1981 murder case after noting that while the prosecution claimed all 12 accused had fired simultaneously at the deceased, the post-mortem revealed only 3 gunshot injuries, creating a glaring contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.
Taking note of this discrepancy along with serious infirmities in the prosecution's case, a Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi set aside the trial court's 1984 judgment, describing it as 'perverse'.
Case Title - Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court refused to discharge a man accused of abetting the suicide of his alleged paramour's husband, observing that the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can amount to instigation.
A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus denied relief to appellant Chandrajeet Singh while taking into account a suicide note that narrated a "systematic pattern of humiliation".
Case Title - Roji Bano And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a working mother who obtains the custody of her minor child by explicitly asserting her financial capability to maintain him/her cannot fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the father [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418].
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a woman and her minor daughter challenging a Family Court's order passed on their application for maintenance filed under Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v Central Bureau of Investigation Lucknow and a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that trial courts must send original records, and not merely photocopies or certified copies, to the High Court in criminal appeals arising from concluded trials, as mandated by Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Clarifying the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, the Court held that the directions issued on April 25, 2018 permitting trial courts to transmit photocopies instead of original records were intended only to prevent pending trial proceedings from being held up, and do not apply to criminal appeals arising from concluded trials.
Case title - Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat) accused of posting objectionable content on social media against the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Armed Forces. He had been in jail since May 2025.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The Court pointed out that, in the present case, despite the charges being framed in February 2025, the trial court failed to examine a single witness till now.
Case title - Gajendra vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is mandatory for the trial court to impose fine along with jail term for convictions under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and the failure to do so is an error in sentencing.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai, however, clarified that in the absence of an appeal either by the State or the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence by imposing a fine, the High Court can't rectify the omission in an appeal preferred solely by the convict.
Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against a litigant and her advocate after finding prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in a public interest litigation filed before it.
The Court acted after a forensic report revealed discrepancies in the signatures appearing on documents filed in the case.
“…explanation offered by...Advocate coupled with findings recorded by FSL in its report, we are prima facie satisfied that...Advocate and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta have committed offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS and, therefore, the matter has to be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions," the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed.
Case Title: Pidilite Industries Ltd. Thru Spl.Attorney Sri Sachin Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Legal Metrology Andor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court has held that the inspection and testing procedure prescribed under Rules 19 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 are mandatory in nature before proceeding against the manufacturer.
Rule 19 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer.
Case title - Haji Iqbal Alias Bala vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court transferred an investigation from Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (UP STF) to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Haji Iqbal alias Bala in connection with an alleged ₹6.33 crore real estate fraud.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla also refused to quash the FIR, noting that doing so would leave the complainant remediless.
Case Title: Satish Gupta v. Praveen Kumar Singhal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant whose right to file a written statement has been closed, cannot be permitted to lead his own evidence, since evidence can be led only to prove facts that have been pleaded and, in the absence of a written statement, there are no pleadings to support it.
The Court held that such a defendant is not shut out of the trial altogether, he may still cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and argue on the basis of the plaint and the plaintiff's evidence, but he cannot lead independent evidence of his own.
Case Title: Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894— after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force— are void ab initio, even if the acquisition notification bore a date prior to the repeal of the 1894 Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla held that where a notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was dated before January 1, 2014, but was published in newspapers, the Official Gazette and by public notice only after that date, the acquisition proceedings would be a nullity in the eyes of law.
Case Title - Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court took serious exception to a criminal trial pending in a Kidnapping case for the past 24+ years, observing that the oft-quoted expression "तारीख पे तारीख" (Tareekh pe tareekh) is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system.
"For years together, the proceedings remained dormant without any meaningful progress, reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality. Justice cannot be permitted to become a casualty of endless adjournments and prolonged institutional inaction", a bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti observed while granting anticipatory bail to 2 men in a kidnapping case registered in the year 2001.
Case Title - Sunil vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the absence of injuries does not, by itself, disprove allegations of rape or penetrative sexual assault; however, inferring penetration from alleged bleeding becomes highly doubtful when a contemporaneous medical report completely rules out any bodily injury without a satisfactory explanation.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that while trustworthy ocular testimony ordinarily prevails over medical opinion, the contemporaneous medical findings can't be ignored if they conclusively negate a material factual assertion made by the prosecution.
Case Title: Santosh and 4 others v. Smt. Asha Rani and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court has held that an executing court can correct a clerical or typographical misdescription of the suit property in a decree in exercise of its powers under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that such correction is not confined to the court which passed the decree.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Where the terms of the decree are clear and unambiguous, the effect must be given to such terms at the same time, however, wherever the decree is vague or ambiguous, it is competent to the executing court to go behind the decree and look into the judgment, even the pleadings and to get assisted in order to have the ambiguity dispelled. Section 47 of the C.P.C. would not be a bar to such course being adopted.”
Case Title: Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the conduct of a government servant who secured voluntary retirement, by the regularization of his unauthorized absence from duty through a sanction of leave without pay, but still challenged the denial of salary for the period of absence.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“The conduct of the petitioner amounts to availing the benefit of voluntary retirement arising out of the same set of facts, while simultaneously challenging the denial of salary for the period of absence. Such conduct cannot be appreciated and is hit by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.”
Case Title: Sunbeam School v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order recording a mutation (Parwana Amaldaramad) which gives effect to a decree of a competent court that has attained finality, cannot be recalled by an administrative order.
While dealing with a case where the order of mutation was set aside ex-parte after lapse of 24 years, without issuing notices to the party, Justice Prakash Padia held,
“Record further shows that judgement and decree dated 23.04.1988 (passed under section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, in favour of predecessor of petitioner) is still intact/ has never been set aside by any competent court of law but only order issuing Parwana Amaldaramad dated 13.04.1989, giving effect to aforesaid judgement and decree dated 23.04.1988, has been set aside, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2012, which is impermissible and without jurisdiction.”
Case Title - Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
In a significant judgment, while observing that gangsters and mafia elements have taken the legal profession as a "means of seeking safe refuge", the Allahabad High Court recently barred advocates facing heinous crime charges from practising before any court/tribunal in the State until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/trials pending against them.
"How, then, can a person facing criminal charges be permitted to espouse the cause of another accused in a court of law, in the capacity of an Officer of the Court, while enjoying the rights and privileges conferred under the Advocates Act, 1961?" the High Court raised the question.
Case Title - Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Trial Courts are not obligated to defer pronouncement of judgment on a maintenance application filed under Section 125 CrPC merely because an application under Section 340 CrPC is filed after the judgment was reserved.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that proceedings contemplated under Section 340 CrPC are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of deemed extension of a mining lease under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015 is available to a lessee only where the application for renewal was a valid application and all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
It held that a lessee who continued mining after the expiry of the lease without a valid mining plan and environment clearance had not complied with the conditions of the lease and could not claim the benefit of deemed extension.
Case Title: Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not raise presumption that a particular holding is a joint family property.
It held that a member of a joint Hindu family can acquire and hold property exclusively in his own name. It held that other members cannot be granted co-tenancy rights over such a holding unless they prove that it was acquired from a joint family nucleus.
Case Title: Smt. Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 22 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction] Act, 1972 is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application for recall of an ex-parte release (eviction) order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
It held that such an order is referable to the procedural powers exercisable under Section 34 read with the Rules framed thereunder, and is not an order under Section 21 or Section 24, against which the Act provides a right of appeal.
Case Title - Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the omission of Section 34 IPC in the operative portion of a judgment is not fatal to a case if the prosecution has successfully established the common intention.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II clarified that Section 34 IPC is not a substantive offence and does not create an offence by itself; instead, it is merely a rule of evidence that recognizes principle of constructive liability.
Case Title: Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a mining lessee defaults in paying royalty and thereby gives the State ground to terminate the lease, the State's unexplained delay in exercising its power to determine the lease under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 amounts to arbitrary action.
It held that the lessee cannot be forced to pay the installments that fell due only because of delay on part of the State.
Case Title - Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court directed the medical examination of a man who has been accused of extracting a victim's obscene photographs and continuously blackmailing her, noting that he doesn't appear to be a person of sound mind.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order after reviewing the nature of the filthy messages and social media posts made by the applicant.
Case Title - Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court has held that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports must disclose specific reasons and scientific data. It added that a report merely recording a conclusion without detailing the tests conducted or the criteria used is inadmissible in evidence.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made these significant observations while recommending a slew of forensic reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system.
Case Title - Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the Uttar Pradesh government for negligence on the part of certain police officials, which delayed the disposal of a bail application and left a man in jail for an extra 15 days.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the bail applicant. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
Case title - Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
In a significant development concerning the demolition action across the state, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on whether the State can be barred from taking any action to demolish the house of an accused for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR.
While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a 2-year hiatus must be put in place so that the State's urge to "satiate the presumable public anger" immediately following the offence would 'dissipate', Justice Siddharth Nandan strongly dissented from placing a blanket embargo on statutory actions for 2 years.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
The Allahabad High Court has held that impleadment of every legal heir of a deceased tenant is not mandatory in eviction proceedings. It held that the tenancy of a deceased tenant devolves upon the heirs as a joint and indivisible unit, and effective representation of the tenancy by one co-tenant in possession suffices. It held that non-joinder of the remaining heirs not being fatal to the proceedings.
Case title - Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a 92-year-old man in connection with a 1982 assault case; however, it modified his sentence to the period already undergone in jail, considering that no useful purpose would be served by sending him to prison now.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Chhotey Lal) in 1984 challenging his conviction by a Sessions Court in Pilibhit for an assault that took place in October 1982.
Case title - VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court cancelled the interim bail of an advocate accused of harassing and stalking a lady colleague while observing that his acts of writing directly to the judge's chamber and showing up in open court in violation of his explicit undertaking were "contemptuous and wholly unprofessional".
Cancelling his bail and ordering that he be taken into immediate custody, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into his conduct to determine whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.
Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her 35-year-old son after noting that the man is instead absconding to evade arrest in a dowry and harassment case.
“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person appointed on compassionate grounds following his mother's death cannot be removed from service on allegations that he concealed his father's government employment, when the authorities were aware of that fact at the time of appointment and had granted him the job after verifying his documents.
The Court held that petitioner's termination in this case, ordered nearly twelve years after the appointment, without any inquiry or charge-sheet or any witness being examined, was illegal.
Case Title: Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for a suit to redeem usufructuary mortgage or recover possession begins to run only when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money and not from the date on which the mortgage deed is executed.
A usufructuary mortgage is one where the mortgagor hands over possession to the mortgagee, who keeps the rents and profits in lieu of interest or towards the principal, until the debt is repaid.
Case Title: State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment to a reserved category post is obtained by producing a forged and fabricated caste certificate, the appointment is void ab initio and the employer need not conduct a full departmental disciplinary enquiry before terminating it.
It held that since the appointment was itself an illegal order, issuing a show-cause notice before dismissal was sufficient, and no chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings were required.
Case title - Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Observing that when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor in a clash, then it would be deemed that it was a “free fight”, where each person is responsible for their own act, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 4 women and upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 land dispute case.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the judgment while dealing with an appeal filed against the June 1988 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur.
Case Title: Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the word 'husband' under Section 80 (Dowry Death) and 85 (Cruelty) BNS will ordinarily include only a person who is legally married to the woman, and not a person whose marriage with the woman is itself void.
In other words, the High Court clarified that a man whose second marriage is void owing to the subsistence of his first marriage cannot ordinarily be treated as a "husband' for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions.
Case title - M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Calcutta Springs Limited seeking approval for its proposed Railway Concrete Sleeper Plant (CSP), holding that the Court cannot direct the grant of approval where the statutory process requires technical evaluation by the competent authority.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the approval mechanism envisaged by the Railways involves technical scrutiny at several stages and that the Court lacks the expertise to substitute its assessment for that of the approving authority.
Case Title: M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that a contract does not become a “statutory contract” merely because one of the contracting parties is an instrumentality of the State falling within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
It held that where a party's rights arise only from a purely commercial contract, that does not bar the State entity from floating a tender for competition venture, and the party has no legal right to challenge such tender.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a sale deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be set aside by the registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, even where the registration is questioned on the ground of impersonation or fraud.
Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P.., the bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“There is no dispute about the settled legal position with respect to the judgment rendered inRe: Smt. Kusum Lata (supra) that a duly registered sale deed under the Act cannot be set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/fraud.”
Case Title: Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has held that Clause 10 of the Circular dated 03.05.1982 issued by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., being only an executive instruction, cannot cut down the right to salary conferred by Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 on teachers of the primary section of an institution running Classes I to VIII.
Case Title: Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in favour of a petitioner who is unable to show a legal right in himself and a corresponding public duty cast by law upon the authority.
It held that where the grievance is in substance one of non-registration of a criminal case, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and must be relegated to it.
Case title - Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has clarified that proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 can validly be initiated on the basis of a Station House Officer's (SHO) report, provided it is forwarded through the Superintendent of Police (SP) to the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970.
Case Title: Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
The Allahabad High Court has held that a special appeal is maintainable against a non-speaking order passed by a Single Judge, notwithstanding the bar contained in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It held that the requirement to record reasons is a facet of natural justice, and that the bar created by Rule 5 must yield to it.
Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1952 bars a special appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of an order of the Government or any officer or authority made in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under a State or Central Act.
Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.
A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.
Case title - Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no legal bar to summoning material witnesses under Section 311 CrPC merely because their examination-in-chief has not yet been conducted.
The bench observed that if the trial court reaches the conclusion that the examination of a witness is necessary, such a witness can be summoned at any stage, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case title - Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court refused to discharge a man accused of posting casteist remarks against Member of Parliament (Nagina Lok Sabha Constituency) Chandrashekhar Azad on Facebook.
The bench observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a “mini-trial”.
Case title - Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court deprecated the practice of advocates seeking adjournments on the ground that they are engaged before the district courts.
The Court said that such conduct "shows lack of respect towards their professional duties as also towards the High Court" and causes "artificial and unwarranted increase in pendency of matters before the High Court".
Case title - Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case alleging rape arising out of a failed consensual relationship after it found that the FIR was lodged to take 'revenge' after the accused decided to withdraw from the relationship and marry another woman.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the material on record reflected that both parties were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period of time and the conduct of the prosecutrix did not support the allegations that the physical relationship was established against her will or without her consent.
Case Title: Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke Section 159, which allows proceedings against a deceased assessee's legal representative, to continue reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of a dead person.
It held that where the notice is issued after the assessee's death, the department must issue a fresh notice to the legal representatives within the limitation period.
Also read : Income Tax Act | Notice To Deceased Assessee Under S.148 Void, Not Curable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an enquiry against an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to seize the mobile phones of the accused in a POCSO case despite allegations that obscene videos and photographs of the victim had been prepared using those devices.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while granting bail to the applicant-accused facing a criminal case registered under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act.
Case title - Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Clarifying that a wife cannot be compelled to file successive execution applications to recover monthly maintenance, the Allahabad High Court has directed all the Family Court Judges in UP to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court judgments on enforcement of maintenance orders, as failure to do so may invite disciplinary as well as contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging orders of a Family Court in Jaunpur which had rejected her execution application seeking enforcement of a maintenance order passed in her favour under Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the HC can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while dealing with an appeal filed by the complainant where it finds that continuation of the proceedings would defeat the "ends of justice" or amount to an "abuse of the process of any Court".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a complainant challenging an order of the Special Judge whereby her application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was treated as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR on the application.
Case title - Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court held that a woman who is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband's existing marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though the marriage between the parties is void.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that a husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and deny maintenance to the woman who had entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.
Case Title: M/s Drosia India Limited Thru. Director Mr. Waheedul Hasan Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) could not levy interest on the auction sale consideration for the period prior to issuance of the allotment letter to the successful bidder of a plot.
It held that under the terms and conditions of the auction, installments became payable only after issuance of the allotment letter, and interest and penal interest could arise only upon delay in payment of those installments. Consequently, no interest could be charged from the date of the auction till the date of allotment.
Case Title: Shaheen Siddiqui and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
The Allahabad High Court has upheld overspeeding e-challans issued to stage carriage bus operators for exceeding the prescribed 60 kmph speed limit on the Yamuna Expressway, holding that the State Government or a competent authority is empowered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prescribe road-specific speed limits lower than the maximum limits notified by the Central Government.
A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad held that the Central Government's notification dated April 6, 2018 prescribing a maximum speed of 100 kmph for certain vehicles on access-controlled expressways does not confer an absolute right on every vehicle to travel at that speed on every expressway.
Case Title - Pawan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a trial court cannot direct the investigating agency, such as the CBI, to ensure that sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is obtained, as such a direction virtually amounts to directing the competent sanctioning authority to grant sanction, which is impermissible in law.
A Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh made the observation while allowing a quashing petition filed by former Saharanpur District Magistrate Pawan Kumar challenging an order of the Special Judge CBI Ghaziabad refusing to accept a CBI closure report and directing the agency to obtain prosecution sanction against him in connection with the alleged illegal renewal of sand mining leases in Saharanpur.
Case Title - Anand Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Registrar Firms Chits And Society Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court deferred the election to the post of Treasurer of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Raebareli, by 1 week and directed the Elders Committee to examine an advocate's objection against the exclusion of his name from the voters' list after granting him an opportunity of hearing.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order on a writ petition filed by advocate Anand Kumar Gupta, who challenged the deletion of his name from the final electoral roll despite claiming to be a Life Member of the Bar Association since 2008.
Case Title: M/s Shahi Export House (Now Known As Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd.) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where the termination of a workman on the basis of a domestic inquiry is referred to a Labour Court, the Labour Court must first decide whether the domestic inquiry was fair, and may take up the merits of the charges only after deciding that issue.
It held that where the inquiry is found to be unfair, the employer must be granted an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges, and the Labour Court must then decide whether the charges are made out on the evidence led before it. Taking up both exercises together, the Court held, vitiates the award.
Case Title: Dr Tanzeem Fatima v. Aligarh Muslim University Thru Vice Chancellor And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has held that Statute 40(3)(b) framed under the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, which requires a two-third majority of the members of the Executive Council present and voting to determine a teacher's employment, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
It held that Statute 40 read as a whole gives a teacher a hearing and the benefit of a due inquiry before the question of her removal is placed before the Council for vote.
Case title - Babu Lal vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the appeal of an 82yearold man convicted of murdering his brother in 1984 and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining part of his life sentence.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay found that the evidence on record did not disclose any mitigating circumstances warranting conversion of the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder).
Case title - Rakesh Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea while observing that suppressing one's status as an advocate to file a petition that essentially advances a client's interests amounts to a "gross abuse of the Court's PIL jurisdiction".
Warning the petitioner, an advocate by profession, to mend his ways, the Court observed that such misuse of the PIL mechanism cannot be permitted.
Case title - Bux Ullah Alias Burey Ali vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the jail term of a former police constable in connection with a 1984 attempt-to-murder case from 6 years to 4 years while also directing that the victim be paid Rs. 35,000/- as compensation out of an enhanced fine of Rs. 40,000/- imposed on the convict.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence considering the 41-year pendency of the appeal without the fault of the convict and the fact that he is now over 60 years old.
Case Title: Smt Shikha Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court has held that maternity leave for a second child cannot be refused on the ground that two years have not elapsed since the earlier spell of such leave was granted. It held that the Code on Social Security, 2020 prevails over the rules contained in the U.P. Financial Handbook.
Section 161 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides that the Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the Code came into force.
Case Title: Baijanth v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. not to recover from any borrower an amount exceeding double the principal loan amount till an expert committee on cooperative banking reforms, ordered to be constituted by the Court, concludes its proceedings.
The Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd, set up in 1959 and registered under the Sahkari Samiti Adhiniyam, 1912, functions under the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Act, 1964. It is the principal provider of long-term agricultural credit in rural Uttar Pradesh and runs 323 branches. Falling outside the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it cannot accept public deposits and borrows almost entirely from NABARD at about 8% per annum on State Government guarantee, lending on to farmers at 11.50% to 14%.
Case Title: Shivpoojan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has held that surcharge under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 can be levied on a Pradhan only on an inquiry conducted by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats. It held that an inquiry held by a committee constituted by the District Magistrate is without jurisdiction and vitiates the recovery order founded on it.
Section 27 of the Act makes every Pradhan and member of a Gram Panchayat liable to surcharge for the loss, waste or misapplication of money or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat where it is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct while he was such Pradhan or member. The prescribed authority fixes the amount according to the procedure prescribed and certifies it to the Collector, who realizes it as an arrear of land revenue.
Case Title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the parties are ready to argue the criminal appeal or the criminal revision on merits, the application for suspension of sentence may not be given preference over final disposal of the criminal appeal or the criminal revision.
"As per our considered opinion, endeavour of the Court should be to decide the criminal appeal at the earliest if parties are ready to argue the appeal on merits", a Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case Title - Saubhangini Shukla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed an FIR lodged against a man accused of abducting a major woman who had voluntarily married him, observing that the police had no business being "nosy parkers" and investigating the marriage between two consenting adults.
"We have repeatedly reminded the Police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required", a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed.
Case title - Arun Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Case Citatio : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking to enforce a 2008 Full Court resolution prescribing court sitting hours. The bench said that a writ of mandamus directed against judges of the High Court "cannot be countenanced".
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra also observed that the petition filed by a practising advocate of the High Court was founded on "incomplete facts".
Case Title: Jai Ram v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court has held that a list merely setting out the particulars of teachers working in an institution, issued by the Principal or by any authority other than the Committee of Management, cannot be treated as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
It held that where no seniority list has been published in the manner prescribed, a teacher cannot be said to have acquiesced in or waived his right to question his seniority by failing to file objections.
Not Every Procedural Irregularity Vitiates An Arbitral Award: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that not every procedural irregularity would vitiate an arbitral award or justify interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh made the ruling in a dispute between the U.P. State Highways Authority and the concessionaire appointed to develop and operate the Meerut-Karnal Road project under a public-private partnership.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. The Addl. Commissioner J Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has held that a decision rendered before 10th October 1975 does not operate as res judicata to bar fresh adjudication of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976.
The Court observed that Section 38-B of the Act insulates fresh adjudication under the amended law from any finding recorded before its commencement on 10th October 1975. It further held that the 1976 amendment operates retrospectively from 10th October 1975 and mandates re-determination of surplus land.
Case Title: Reena Devi Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has held that a married daughter is included within the definition of “family” under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and cannot be refused appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds only because she is married.
It held that she is entitled to be considered subject to fulfilling the remaining eligibility conditions, including local residence and no objection from the other adult members of the family.
Case Title: Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court has held that a third party asserting an independent title adverse to the landlord is neither a necessary nor a proper party to proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
It held that questions of title cannot be brought into eviction proceedings through an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since their adjudication lies beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Authority.
Case Title: Ramesh Chand Sachdeva v. Alok Prakash
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suit instituted before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be transferred by the District Court to a competent court under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the only course available once such a defect comes to light.
It further held that the evidence already recorded by the court lacking jurisdiction is not wiped out by the transfer. it is for the transferee court to decide whether to retry the suit or carry on from the stage at which it was transferred, it held.
Case Title - Subhash Singh and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 Gang-rape case, holding that one who stands guard to facilitate rape shares the common intention behind the offence and can be convicted of rape with the aid of Section 34 IPC, even if he did not himself commit the act of penetration.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the 1985 trial court judgment that convicted the surviving appellants under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Case Title - Divya Priyadarshini Singh @ Zainab Fatma vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a person intending to convert his or her religion under the UP Anti-Conversion Law is mandatorily required to submit a pre-conversion declaration in the prescribed Schedule-I format under Section 8, and a mere representation to the District Magistrate (DM) cannot be substitute to it.
A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad thus dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman who had sought a direction to the DM to consider her representation allegedly submitted under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Case Title: Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
The Allahabad High Court has held that refusing to postpone the physical efficiency test of a woman candidate in an advanced stage of pregnancy compels her to choose between bearing a child and employment, and interferes with her right of reproduction as well as her right to employment.
It held that where the recruitment rules are silent on postponement and lay down no bar against it, the Commission has the power to postpone the test in an extraordinary circumstance, and cannot refuse merely because the rules carry no provision for it.
Case Title: Mohd. Yaseen and others v. Mohd. Asif and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
The Allahabad High Court has held that where co-sharers are seriously at odds over their shares in land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to apportion the compensation between them and must refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 lets the competent authority determine who, in its opinion, is entitled to receive the amount deposited. Section 3H(4) requires it to refer any dispute over apportionment, or over the person to whom the amount is payable, to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose limits the land is situated.
Case Title - Laxmikant Aggarwal vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Observing that taxing justice at "ad valorem rates is, indeed, harsh", the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday urged the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider measures to reduce the hardship faced by litigants pursuing civil remedies.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that disputes over title and possession cannot be decided by administrative authorities and must be taken before the competent civil court.
Case Title: Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot invoke the protection extended to live-in partners where she has neither pleaded such a relationship nor established that a marriage took place. It held that this is all the more so where the man has categorically denied having any relationship with her.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla held,
“Where there is neither any specific pleading regarding the existence of a live-in relationship nor any evidence establishing the solemnization of marriage between the parties, the claimant seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot claim the benefit available to persons in a live-in relationship, particularly when the existence of such relationship has been categorically denied by the opposite party.”
Case title - Hari Narayan Tiwari vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. Chairman And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that although no limitation period is prescribed for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, an inordinate delay in approaching the Court can be fatal.
Observing that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction must be invoked within a reasonable time, the Court dismissed a petition challenging a 2023 order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission after finding that the petitioner had offered no explanation for the delay.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 497
Justice Krishan Pahal of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday described alleged efforts by litigating parties to secure access to and approach him in pending bail matters as a "black day in the history of this Court", holding that such conduct strikes at the very heart of judicial independence.
Justice Pahal consequently recused himself from hearing over 75 connected bail applications and directed that they be placed before the Chief Justice so that the matters could be assigned to another Bench.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 8 others v. Sant Lal Sonkar and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the State Government merges two posts into a single cadre with retrospective effect, it cannot thereafter prescribe two different pay scales for members of that unified cadre on the basis of the post each of them held before the merger.
It held that such a classification answers to no difference in qualifications, duties or responsibilities and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Tax Dispute Not Arbitrable Where Statutory Determination Required : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: U.P. Public Works Deptt. through Chief Engineer Central Zone Lko. v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., through Signatory Sandeep Anne 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a tax-related dispute between contracting parties may be referred to arbitration so long as it can be resolved through interpretation of the contract.
It held that the dispute stops being arbitrable the moment its resolution turns on a determination reserved to the taxing authorities.
Case Title: Hanuman Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity and final retiral dues cannot be released to a retired government servant during the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and that the seriousness of the offence he is facing is irrelevant to the question.
Regulation 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, provides that where departmental or judicial proceedings or an enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal are pending on the date of retirement or are to be instituted after retirement, a provisional pension as provided in Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned.
Case Title: Preeti Mishra and another v. Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two suits between the same parties arise out of the same document and are pending before different courts of competent jurisdiction, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending is ordinarily the more appropriate forum.
It held that the subsequently instituted suit may be transferred to it under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless compelling circumstances indicate otherwise.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 502
In a stern order, the Allahabad High Court ordered initiation of criminal proceedings for Perjury against 2 lawyers after finding that they had secured a favourable order by "playing fraud on this Court".
Making strong observations on the general public perception of the legal profession nowadays, it remarked that the Bar must introspect on "whether anyone other than the members of the Bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore?"
Case Title - Triveni And Other vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife in 1979 after finding that there was an unexplained delay of more than 4 years in lodging the FIR, coupled with contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of death.
Observing that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused-Triveni beyond a reasonable doubt, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside his conviction and granted him the benefit of doubt.
Case Title: Gudia Goswami and 293 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court has held that the expression “population” in Section 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be read in terms of its statutory definition, i.e., the figure recorded in the last published census, and not the number of persons actually residing in the area as on date.
It held that a Gram Panchayat whose census population has fallen below 1,000 after a part of its area is taken into a municipality cannot claim to retain its separate identity by pointing to a higher present-day head count.
NOMINAL INDEX
Lal Chand Yadav vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Bhanwar Singh vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Suhail vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Tayyab vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association v. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Baldev Raj Arora vs. Cbi/ Acb Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Committee Of Management And Another vs State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Netra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Asif Ansari v. Himanshu Sharma and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Amarnath v. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Information Commissioner And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Ajeet Nigam v. Additional District Judge And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Mithai Lal And Others v. D.D.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Smt. Meenu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
M/s Sardar Baldev Singh and Co. Thru. Prop. Sri Karamjeet Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
State of U.P. vs Babloo @ Ashok Singh and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Krishna Kumar Mishra And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Admin. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Satyendra Nath Shukla Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Saurabh Pal Singh vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Pinki Alias Preeti Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Chandra Bhan and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
A vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Thru. Secy. New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Lal Babu Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Mashu @ Aman Joshi vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Sunil Kumar Jain And 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Kusum vs State Of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Yaseen And Another Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Kali Charan and others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Niranjan Das v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Razzak Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Kammu and 11 others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
Roji Bano And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v Central Bureau of Investigation Lucknow and a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Gajendra vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Pidilite Industries Ltd. Thru Spl.Attorney Sri Sachin Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Legal Metrology Andor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Haji Iqbal Alias Bala vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Satish Gupta v. Praveen Kumar Singhal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Sunil vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Santosh and 4 others v. Smt. Asha Rani and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Sunbeam School v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
M/s Drosia India Limited Thru. Director Mr. Waheedul Hasan Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Shaheen Siddiqui and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Pawan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Anand Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Registrar Firms Chits And Society Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
M/s Shahi Export House (Now Known As Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd.) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Dr Tanzeem Fatima v. Aligarh Muslim University Thru Vice Chancellor And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Babu Lal vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Rakesh Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Bux Ullah Alias Burey Ali vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Shikha Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Baijanth v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
Shivpoojan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Saubhangini Shukla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Arun Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Jai Ram v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
State of U.P. v. The Addl. Commissioner J Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Reena Devi Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
Ramesh Chand Sachdeva v. Alok Prakash
Subhash Singh and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
Divya Priyadarshini Singh @ Zainab Fatma vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Mohd. Yaseen and others v. Mohd. Asif and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Laxmikant Aggarwal vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Hari Narayan Tiwari vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. Chairman And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 497
State of U.P. and 8 others v. Sant Lal Sonkar and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
U.P. Public Works Deptt. through Chief Engineer Central Zone Lko. v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., through Signatory Sandeep Anne 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
: Hanuman Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Preeti Mishra and another v. Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Triveni And Other vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Gudia Goswami and 293 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504