NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.
OTHER UPDATES FOM THE WEEK
Chinese Manjha Being Sold Online? Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Examine Issue
The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to examine whether Chinese Manja, despite being prohibited, is still being sold online.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla is presently hearing a 2018 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by petitioner-in-person Moti Lal Yadav, along with two connected PILs filed by one Rajjan Khan, praying for a strict ban on the import, sale and use of the 'Chinese Manjha' across Uttar Pradesh.
Allahabad High Court Orders Expert Verification Of Alleged Forged Signatures On Vakalatnama
The Allahabad High Court has ordered forensic examination of signatures on a disputed vakalatnama after a litigant claimed that he had neither signed the document nor authorised the advocate who had purportedly appeared on his behalf in proceedings relating to the management of Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Ghazipur.
In the ongoing Sri Krishna Janmbhumi title dispute cases, an application has been moved before the Allahabad High Court seeking directions to the Authorities to restrain any person or group from entering the disputed property to hold meetings, perform "Kar Seva," or organise any function.
The application has been moved by Ashutosh Maharaj, who claims to be the President of Sri Krishna Janmbhumi Mukti Nirman Trust (Registered), Mathura, through Advocate Reena N. Singh.