LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: August 10 - August 16, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548
M/s Mahamaya General Finance Company Ltd. vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549
Dharmwati Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550
Reserve Bank of India Through its Assistant General Manager and another vs. Vijayanand Rai 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551
Raju Kashyap and 2 others vs. Smt Archana Jain 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552
Alok Dhangar and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553
Ram Kripal vs. J.D.C. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554
Devendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555
Viddya Dhar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556
Duliram Maurya vs. Nandram 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557
Kunwar Sultan Ali & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558
Kusum Maurya And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559
Devansh Alias Chhotu vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560
Kamal Nayan Singh and 9 others v. State of UP and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Mohd Idrish vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562
Vineet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. And 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563
Vikramaditya Gas Agencies vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564
Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565
Jagdish Kumar Bansal v. Manish Agrawal and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566
Kishan Lal Ahuja and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567
Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568
Arif Khan vs. Smt Roshan Jahan 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569
Anurag Dubey @ Dabban vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570
Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571
Ansad Badruddin And Another vs Anti Terrorist Squad Thru. Its Adg/Sp 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572
Babu Lal v. Prescribed Authority Ceilling Unnao And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573
Chandra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574
Swastik Ventures Pvt. Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575
Rishi Katiyar and 3 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576
Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577
Ritesh Yadav vs. Reserve Bank Of India New Delhi Thru. Its Governor And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578
Mr. Vipin Mishra and 23 Ors. v. Union of India Through Secy. Ministry of Human Resource Deve 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579
M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580
Murti Shri Ram Chandra Ji Virajman And 6 Others v. Ashish and 19 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581
Nasir Farooq vs State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Ms Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583
Kanti Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584
Divya Tripathi @ Divya Mishra vs The Bar Council of Uttar Paradesh and others Thru. its Secy. Lko. and 2 others and a connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585
M/s D.K.Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt.Shradha Agarwal and another vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586
Mohd. Jamil Warsi vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru C.J. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587
Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that advocates who obtained their law degree in the academic session 2009-10 or thereafter and were provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh cannot continue to practise if they fail to qualify the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within 2 years of their provisional enrolment.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that such advocates would not be entitled to practise in "any court, any Tribunal or any other authority" if they fail to qualify the AIBE within the 2-year period.
Case Title: M/s Mahamaya General Finance Company Ltd. vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549
The Allahabad High Court has held that even where the principle of 'same village and same notification' does not strictly apply, the location of the land dealt with in earlier judgments can be relevant consideration for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Court relied on two Supreme Court decisions on land in another village, acquired under earlier notifications, while fixing the market value here.
Case Title: Dharmwati Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an order approving a compassionate appointment has never been withdrawn, recalled or annulled by a competent authority, the salary flowing from that appointment cannot be denied. It held that an administrative order which continues to operate in law cannot be defeated indirectly by refusing the benefits which follow from it.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“An administrative order which continues to operate in the eyes of law cannot be rendered otiose by the simple expedient of refusing its consequential benefits. So long as the approval subsists, the respondents are estopped from questioning its efficacy indirectly while simultaneously declining the salary flowing therefrom.”
Case Title: Reserve Bank of India Through its Assistant General Manager and another vs. Vijayanand Rai 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551
The Allahabad High Court has held that an act of an employee arising out of a purely personal dispute cannot be treated as misconduct under Regulations 32, 34 and 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 unless it has a nexus with the employment or affects the discipline, functioning or reputation of the employer.
Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 obliges every employee of the Bank to abide by the Regulations and obey the orders of those under whose control he is placed. Regulation 34 requires him to serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and to show courtesy and attention in dealings with officers of Government and the Bank's constituents.
Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Raju Kashyap and 2 others vs. Smt Archana Jain 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant in a suit before a Court of Small Causes cannot insist, as a matter of right, that his plea of res judicata be decided at the threshold. It held that whether such a plea is taken up first depends on the nature of the enquiry it calls for, and where it turns on disputed facts, it must be decided along with the rest of the suit.
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars the trial of a matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, which has been finally decided by a competent court (principle of res judicata).
Case Title: Alok Dhangar and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553
The Allahabad High Court has held that the display of a rejection letter on the official website of the department, recording nothing beyond lack of evidence, is not a 'speaking order' and cannot sustain the rejection of an application for a caste certificate.
It added that an order which is not communicated to the person concerned does not become effective.
Further, it held that the duty to record reasons binds an administrative authority as much as a quasi-judicial one.
Child Adopted By Widow Can Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ram Kripal vs. J.D.C. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a son adopted by a widow after the death of her husband is to be treated as the adopted son of the deceased husband as well, and inherits the husband's share.
Following High Court's earlier judgment in Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir, Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,
“This Court in the case reported in 1966 RD 255 Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir has held that the son adopted by widow after the death of husband will be treated to be adopted son of husband also”.
Case Title: Devendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555
Allowing the appeal of a teacher whose qualification was questioned after 29 years of continuous service, the Allahabad High Court has held that the power to cancel an appointment under Section 16-E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act cannot be exercised at a belated stage.
The Court held that it was bound by the full bench decision of the High Court in Dr. Asha Saxena vs. Smt. S. K. Chaudhari and others, wherein exercise of the same power after a lapse of nearly 17 years was held to be arbitrary.
Case Title: Viddya Dhar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an adverse entry against a government servant is confined to a specified period, the service he renders after that period counts towards the ten years of satisfactory service required for grant of selection grade. It further held that a selection grade falling due on the day immediately after superannuation remains admissible to him.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“The adverse remark as per order dated 04.12.2004 was for the specific period from 1977 to 1994-95, meaning thereby since 01.07.1995 till 30.06.2005, petitioner had rendered unblemished service of 10 years(from 1 july 1995 to 30 june 2005) and his increment/selection grade having been due on 01.07.2005 would be admissible to petitioner despite his superannuation on 30.06.2005”
Case Title: Duliram Maurya vs. Nandram 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557
The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchaser cannot seek enforcement of a sale deed after failing to deposit the balance sale consideration for 20 years.
In doing so the court quashed an order granting time to a purchaser, whose suit for specific performance was decreed, to deposit the balance sale amount after noting that he waited for 20 years to move the plea for extension of time to deposit the due amount.
Case title - Kunwar Sultan Ali & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558
The Allahabad High Court ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh Government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation after holding that the women were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert from Hinduism to Islam.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia (35).
Case title - Kusum Maurya And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) imposed ₹1 lakh costs on a couple after finding that they had concealed the fact that the man was already married to secure interim protection from police harassment and coercive action.
Dismissing their petition, a bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani noted that the couple had moved the Court with a false affidavit and with material concealment and even secured interim protection earlier by "concealing the fact and playing fraud with the Court".
Case title - Devansh Alias Chhotu vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560
The Allahabad High Court observed that denial of maintenance, forcing the wife into destitution, violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity.
The Court added that the maintenance ensures that the wife is not compelled to lead a life of destitution for such deprivation would offend the dignity guaranteed under Article 21.
Case Title: Kamal Nayan Singh and 9 others v. State of UP and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State gets its special appeal against a judgment dismissed as not pressed, it accepts the findings of that judgment and is barred from urging the same grounds again in later proceedings between the same parties.
It held that an administrative order rejecting a claim on grounds already turned down by the Court amounts to sitting in appeal over the Court's judgment, a jurisdiction the authority does not have.
Case title - Mohd Idrish vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562
The Allahabad High Court has observed that "hydroponic weed" is 'cannabis' (Ganja) and that the method used to cultivate it does not alter its legal status under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal made this observation while granting bail to one Mohd Idrish, booked under the NDPS Act, in a case concerning the alleged recovery of 2 kg 300 grams of hydroponic weed from his conscious possession.
Case title - Vineet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. And 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bank can recover loan dues from a guarantor after the principal borrower defaults without first exhausting its remedies against the principal borrower.
Referring to Section 128 Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Surety's liability), a bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the liability of the surety is 'coextensive' with that of the principal debtor, which means that the quantum of the guarantor's obligation is the same as that of the principal borrower.
Case Title: Vikramaditya Gas Agencies vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564
The Allahabad High Court has held that an LPG distributor has no legitimate expectation to retain customers on its rolls, as those customers are enrolled on behalf of the Oil Marketing Companies and not for the distributor itself.
Upholding the Policy on Customer Transfer-Market Restructuring dated 21st Febraury 2025, the Court held that a distributor which has accepted the clauses of the Letter of Intent, the LPG Manual and the Distributorship Agreement permitting curtailment of its area of operation and customer base cannot assail the policy without challenging those clauses.
Case Title: Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 cannot be invoked to claim substantive appointment where the short term vacancy against which the teacher was appointed was itself fraudulently created.
Section 33-F provides for regularisation of appointments made against short term vacancies, entitling teachers appointed against such vacancies between May 14, 1991 and August 6, 1993, where the vacancy was later converted into a substantive one, to substantive appointment on satisfying the conditions it lays down. Sub-section (4) provides that a teacher not found suitable or not eligible shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may specify by order.
Case Title: Jagdish Kumar Bansal v. Manish Agrawal and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566
The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any analogous preliminary objection seeking termination of the proceedings at the threshold, cannot be entertained in proceedings under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
Section 33 of the Tenancy Act provides that, save as otherwise provided in the Act, CPC shall not apply to proceedings before the Rent Authority or the Rent Tribunal. Section 34 confers on them certain specified powers of a civil court, such as summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents and receiving evidence on affidavits.
Case Title: Kishan Lal Ahuja and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of the District Magistrate deciding a claim of lapse of acquisition under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is quasi-judicial in character, and the State Government cannot stay or nullify it by an executive order. It held that Section 24 confers no power of review upon the State Government.
Case Title: Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568
The Allahabad High Court has held that an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in compliance with a judicial direction to frame it in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another vs. State of U.P and another cannot be assailed on the ground that the market value ought to have been computed as on 01.01.2014, the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force.
Case Title: Arif Khan vs. Smt Roshan Jahan 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal preferred to the Rent Tribunal under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 must be valued on the subject matter in dispute in appeal, and not on the court fee paid on the application originally instituted before the Rent Authority.
Where a composite decree of eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits is assailed in its entirety, the Court held, mesne profits which have accrued or can be worked out arithmetically by the date the appeal is presented form part of the decretal burden the appellant seeks to shed, and must be reckoned in the court fee.
Acceptance Of Final Report Doesn't Bar Further Investigation: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Anurag Dubey @ Dabban vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570
The Allahabad High Court has held that acceptance of a final report by a Judicial Magistrate does not bar the investigating agency from carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made the observation while dismissing an application challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, which had permitted further investigation in a nearly two-decade-old murder case.
Case title - Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571
The Allahabad High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to inquire as to why Ghaziabad Police officials refused to register an FIR on a woman's complaint against her employer alleging sexual harassment, molestation, inducement and criminal intimidation.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena passed the direction while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the accused employer.
Case title - Ansad Badruddin And Another vs Anti Terrorist Squad Thru. Its Adg/Sp 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in a case alleging a conspiracy to attack Hindu religious organisations and sensitive places in Uttar Pradesh, observing that the trial had made "very poor" progress despite repeated directions for its expeditious conclusion.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the appellants had been in jail since February 17, 2021, but till now, only 5 of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Case Title: Babu Lal v. Prescribed Authority Ceilling Unnao And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573
The Allahabad High Court has held that a finding that a tenure-holder's land is irrigated for the purposes of Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 must rest upon the Khasra entries of Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380, and where the State fails to produce those records, a declaration of surplus land founded on such a finding is a finding based on no evidence.
Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 provides for determination of irrigated land. It turns on whether irrigation facilities existed and whether the land was capable of yielding two crops in the relevant agricultural years.
Case Title: Chandra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two conditions of an e-auction catalogue prescribe conflicting time limits for payment by the highest bidder, they must be interpreted harmoniously in a manner which upholds the transaction rather than voids it.
The dispute turned on two conditions of the catalogue issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) for allotment of plots through e-auction. Its date chart fixed 19.03.2021 for intimation to the H1 bidder and 24.03.2021 as the last date for payment of balance earnest money, stating that dates were to be calculated excluding Saturdays and Sundays. Condition 2(c)(iii) of the post-auction stage separately allowed the H1 bidder 7 days from receipt of the intimation email to allocate the balance amount.
Case Title: Swastik Ventures Pvt. Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575
The Allahabad High Court has held that an investor must be conscious of entire transaction when a commercial plot is bought on “as is where is” basis. It held that physical verification of the site is reasonably expected of a prudent person when plot is being bought through auction.
Case Title: Rishi Katiyar and 3 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576
The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers have no inherent right of transfer under any statute, and that such rights as they have in the matter arise only from the transfer policy itself.
It held that a district-wise Pupil-Teacher-Ratio (PTR) list prepared by the State only to work its policy for inter-district transfer of basic school teachers has nothing to do with the mandate of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and cannot be tested against the Schedule to that Act.
Case title - Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's alleged reference to his wife as a "barren woman" (infertile), in the backdrop of a matrimonial quarrel over childlessness and exchange of abuses between the spouses, did not by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
A bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla thus allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed criminal proceedings against a man who had been summoned for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case title - Ritesh Yadav vs. Reserve Bank Of India New Delhi Thru. Its Governor And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578
The Allahabad High Court has directed banks and financial institutions to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for grievance redressal in cases where bank accounts are frozen or seized in connection with cyber fraud.
The Court also reiterated that where an investigating agency has identified a specific disputed amount, a lien cannot extend beyond that amount in the absence of material showing that the remaining funds are also connected with the alleged offence.
State Can't Implement Central Scheme Selectively By Ignoring Pay Parity Clause: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Mr. Vipin Mishra and 23 Ors. v. Union of India Through Secy. Ministry of Human Resource Deve 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579
The Allahabad High Court has held that a State which adopts a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, takes financial assistance under it and recruits employees solely to implement it cannot enforce only those parts of the Scheme which are administratively convenient while ignoring those which confer corresponding benefits on the employees so recruited.
Clause 12.3 of the Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) Scheme, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme framed to bring children with disabilities into ordinary schools, provides that Special Teachers appointed under the Scheme will be given the same scales of pay as are available to teachers of the corresponding category in that State or Union Territory, besides a special pay on account of the nature of their duties.
Case Title: M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the period of 18 months prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disposal of a settlement application is mandatory and not directory in nature. It quashed an order of the Interim Board for Settlement passed after that period had expired.
Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act requires an order under Section 245D(4) to be passed within eighteen months from the end of the month in which the application was made, in respect of applications made on or after June 1, 2010.
Case Title: Murti Shri Ram Chandra Ji Virajman And 6 Others v. Ashish and 19 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a deed of gift stipulates only that an idol will be installed on the property in future and no idol is ever consecrated or installed, no juristic person comes into existence in whom the property can vest, and persons professing devotion to the deity have no locus standi to sue on its behalf.
Justice Anil Kumar-X held,
“However, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted in the plaint that no idol of Lord Sri Ramchandra was ever consecrated or installed over the disputed property pursuant to the said gift deed. Thus, the very event upon which the alleged endowment was founded never came into existence. In the absence of installation and consecration of the idol, there was no juristic person in whom the property could vest or on whose behalf the present suit could be instituted.”
Case Title: Nasir Farooq vs State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea alleging that shopkeepers dealing in non-vegetarian food were being compelled or harassed to close their shops during the Kanwar Yatra, observing that the petition appeared to be aimed at 'publicity' rather than public interest.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found that the petition did not disclose the names of the shopkeepers allegedly served with closure notices and failed to establish an actual cause.
Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Ms Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583
The Allahabad High Court has held that a developer who took a lease of a smaller, scattered part of the land allotted to it, knowing the balance was not in the development authority's possession, cannot claim the benefit of “zero period” in its entirety, even where the authority was itself in default.
Zero period is a concession granted to allottees of stalled group housing projects under successive Government Orders. For the period declared zero, interest and penal interest are not charged and the instalments are shifted forward. Under the Government Order dated 05.12.2019, where more than 30% of the allotted land is affected, it is available for 100% of the land.
Case Title: Kanti Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584
The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has to be decided on the entire chain of revenue records. It held that a finding returned by isolating a single entry while leaving out continuous Khatauni entries running across several Faslis is perverse in law and cannot be sustained.
Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides a person claiming asami or holding over land or part of land with a right to file a declaratory suit against the landholder.
Case title - Divya Tripathi @ Divya Mishra vs The Bar Council of Uttar Paradesh and others Thru. its Secy. Lko. and 2 others and a connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585
The Allahabad High Court directed that 30% of the posts in the Governing/Executive Council of the Oudh Bar Association, High Court, Lucknow, be reserved for women.
The High Court has also laid down a post-wise reservation and rotation schedule, with the President's post to be reserved for women from 2028 onwards every 3 years.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the directions while dealing with two PIL pleas concerning reservation for women advocates in the Oudh Bar Association.
Case title - M/s D.K.Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt.Shradha Agarwal and another vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586
The Allahabad High Court has held that an existing petrol pump owner has no locus to challenge the approval or No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to a rival petrol outlet merely because the establishment of the new outlet may adversely affect the financial health of his business.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the proprietor of an existing petrol pump at Bahraich, who had challenged the approval and NOC granted for the establishment of another petrol outlet in its vicinity.
Case Title: Mohd. Jamil Warsi vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru C.J. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587
The Allahabad High Court has held that the promotion of a government servant does not wipe out the adverse entries earned by him before the promotion when his case is taken up for compulsory retirement. It held that the entire service record must be looked at in such an assessment, and that even one entry touching integrity can be enough to retire an employee compulsorily.
Case title - Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the power of the Governor to grant premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is a sovereign executive power, but it cannot be exercised arbitrarily, as it remains regulated by the applicable Rules and remission policy.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena made this observation while quashing an order refusing premature release to a convict who had been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
The Allahabad High Court criticized the practice of litigants seeking adjournments in court proceedings and thereafter taking to social media to criticize courts over delays.
"This is the story of every other case, at least in the Courts of this State where litigants most unscrupulously force adjournments and in the next breath sit on the social media sites to criticize Courts about delays. Much of the delay, to the judicial process, are on account of the litigants who stand to gain by it", a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed.
The Allahabad High Court has summoned the District Magistrate, Hardoi, Anunaya Jha, to explain why an inquiry committee was constituted by him to conduct proceedings for the removal of a Gram Pradhan 6 years after his term expired.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning the inquiry proceedings against the former Gram Pradhan.
The Allahabad High Court has sought details of the rules or directives, if any, governing the use of typing font, spacing, signs, and margins while drafting the petition to be presented before the Court.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad sought the details after initially objecting to a petition whose relief clause had been drafted using italicised fonts. The Court had observed that such formatting was not permitted under the Rules of the Court and the orders passed by the Chief Justice.
The Allahabad High Court is set to examine whether proceedings arising essentially from a dispute between a married couple working in the same office can be brought within the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), observing that the legislation is "intended for a different purpose".
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia made the observation while hearing a petition filed by a man challenging a fact-finding report and charge-sheet issued against him following a complaint by his wife under the POSH Act.
Case title: In Re : Road to School, Hamirpur Vs. State of U.P. and others
The Allahabad High Court on Friday took suo motu cognizance of a newspaper report highlighting the plight of 200+ 'Gen Alpha' students in Chandupur village of Hamirpur District in Uttar Pradesh, who had to walk 5 kilometers along with their parents to protest before the District Magistrate over the lack of a road to their school.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra took note of a Dainik Jagaran report published on August 12, 2026, concerning the protest by the schoolchildren and their parents at the office of the District Magistrate, Hamirpur.
The Allahabad High Court has noted that school vehicle drivers found to have adverse reports upon police verification raise a serious issue directly affecting the safety of minor children. The Court was also told that members of the Bar had suggested that school van drivers could, where possible, be women to ensure children's safety.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Brij Raj Singh was hearing a public interest litigation concerning the safety of educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh when it was informed that 527 out of 2,370 school vehicle drivers had been found to have adverse reports under “Mission Bharosa” following police verification.