LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu And Another v. State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821
Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822
Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823
Dr. Vartika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, along with Lalit Kumar Singh and 47 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824
M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825
P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826
Anuradha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827
Nazar Husain Khan v. Member Secy. State Cadre Authority and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828
Sri Siraj Ahmad v. Satya Narain Singh and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829
Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830
Mohammad Haroon vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831
Bhanu Datta Pathak vs. Hardutta Pathak and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832
Sachin Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833
Christian Community Welfare Society vs. State of U.P. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
In Re- Conduct Of Elections To The Oudh Bar Association 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
Madhu Dubey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
H v. H 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836
Gareeba v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837
Guddo vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838
Dileep Kumar vs. Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839
M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840
: Jaipal vs. Anil Kumar and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841
Dashrath Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842
X & Y vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843
XYZ vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844
Manmeet Kaur v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845
Ali Hasan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846
Dr. Himanshu Mohan v. Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847
S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Thru Executive Director v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry of Labour and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849
Shashi v. Smt. Sona Devi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850
Data Ram vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851
District Judge v. Anand Kumar Verma and others
Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853
Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854
Shashwat Kesarwani and another vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855
Rajeshwari Devi And Others vs. Hari Shankar Pandey And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856
M/s Vikas Constructions vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857
M/s Balaji Construction vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858
Suraj Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title : Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu And Another v. State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821
The Allahabad High Court has requested the Law Commission to recommend suitable amendments to the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, dealing with minor couples after examining the social realities prevailing in India.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that, in certain circumstances, strictly applying the Act could produce consequences that may "advance injustice rather than justice", particularly where a relationship has resulted in the birth of a child.
Allahabad High Court Quashes Rejection Of Police Constable Candidature Over Pending Criminal Case
Case Title : Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822
The Allahabad High Court has held that instructions issued by the Director General of Police on 05.04.2025 will not override the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which continues to hold the field on the grant of character certificates at the time of first appointment to government service. It held that the appointing authority cannot simply adopt the recommendation of the District Magistrate, but must apply its own mind before refusing a candidate appointment.
Case Title : Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823
The Allahabad High Court has held that the State cannot resist execution of a decree by pleading collusion between the decree holder and State authorities, where it contested the suit and every appeal from the Trial Court up to the Supreme Court.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,
“The judgements from Trial Court to Apex Court further demonstrate that at every stage, State was given opportunity through Counsel/special Counsel to argue the matter, as such, it cannot be said that the judgement was passed on the basis of collusion between the plaintiff of the suit and State authorities.”
Case Title : Dr. Vartika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, along with Lalit Kumar Singh and 47 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate has no immutable right to insist that a subject once recognised as allied or relevant to an advertised discipline must continue to be treated as such in a later recruitment.
It held that the identification of allied/relevant subjects is an academic and policy determination falling within the domain of the competent authority, which a writ court cannot replace with its own assessment of academic affinity.
Case Title : M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 CPC raises the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, it must be decided before the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
It held that a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction cannot order an amendment that would bring the suit within its jurisdiction, as such an order would be a nullity.
Case Title : P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826
The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must ordinarily be made in writing, either by a separate application or by a demand carried in the written statement.
It held that an oral prayer can be entertained only in the exceptional case where the Court is not required to decide either the entitlement to permanent alimony or its quantum.
Case Title : Anuradha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate who applies online within time and dispatches the hard copy of the application within the prescribed period by a mode of transmission permitted by the advertisement cannot be excluded from the selection process merely because the postal article reached the recruiting authority after the cut-off date.
Case Title : Nazar Husain Khan v. Member Secy. State Cadre Authority and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828
The Allahabad High Court has held that non-payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee does not by itself invalidate the disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The employee must show a connection between the non-payment and the prejudice he claims to have suffered in defending himself.
Justice Garima Prashad held,
“The plea relating to non-payment of subsistence allowance also does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings. Subsistence allowance is an important protection available to a suspended employee. Where its non-payment prevents an employee from participating in the inquiry or effectively presenting his defence, the resulting proceedings may be vitiated. The employee must, however, show a connection between the non-payment and the prejudice claimed.”
Case Title : Sri Siraj Ahmad v. Satya Narain Singh and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant cannot obtain rejection of a plaint by invoking the bar on civil court jurisdiction in Section 38(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 when the defence he himself sets up raises questions which, under Section 38(2), the Rent Authority has no jurisdiction to decide.
Case Title : Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830
The Allahabad High Court has held that in proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the burden of proving that possession of the excess land was in fact taken over lies upon the State. It held that where the State fails to discharge it, the landholder is entitled to the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Case Title : Mohammad Haroon vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831
The Allahabad High Court has explained when the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), can be invoked in cases involving essential commodities as it clarified that while physical obstruction of essential supplies may attract the NSA, black-marketing cases must ordinarily be dealt with under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (PBMSEC Act).
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that invoking the NSA to detain a person for one year in a black-marketing case, merely because the special law prescribes a maximum detention period of 6 months only, would amount to a "perversion of the law".
Case Title : Bhanu Datta Pathak vs. Hardutta Pathak and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832
The Allahabad High Court has held that the advanced age of a testator, taken together with the fact that the son in whose favour the Will was made was looking after him and his property, does not by itself raise a presumption of undue influence. It held that a registered Will, which carries a presumption of validity, cannot be cancelled on that ground alone.
Justice Siddharth Nandan held,
“The question of a dominating position or fiduciary relationship, depends upon the facts of each case and merely because there was relationship of a father and son, while the father being of old age, cannot itself automatically be inferred that the son was in a dominating position.”
Case Title : Sachin Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular to all police officers warning that misbehavior with government advocates communicating court orders for compliance would amount to contempt of court and be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
The Court directed thus while taking exception to the conduct of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, who had allegedly misbehaved with an Additional Government Advocate (AGA) who was attempting to inform him about a court order.
Case Title : Christian Community Welfare Society vs. State of U.P. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 834
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 834
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to freedom of religion, including the right to perform last rites in accordance with religious beliefs, does not entitle a community to claim a specific plot of land belonging to a local body for establishing a cemetery.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Christian Community Welfare Society, which had challenged the rejection of its request to convert a piece of barren land in Ghaziabad into a Christian cemetery.
Case Title : In Re- Conduct Of Elections To The Oudh Bar Association 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
The Allahabad High Court has called upon the stakeholders to ensure that the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections are conducted in a free, fair, transparent and peaceful manner. The Court said that the Bar must set an example of democratic conduct for society.
A bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that elections must reflect the highest standards of integrity, fairness, transparency, and mutual respect.
Case Title : Madhu Dubey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835
The Allahabad High Court on October 12 consigned to record a petition filed by Madhu Dubey, mother of Bhojpuri actress and model Akanksha Dubey, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into her daughter's death in a hotel room in Varanasi in March 2023.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II opined that the arguments advanced to suggest that the actress's death was homicidal rather than suicidal were misconceived.
Case Title : H v. H 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836
The Allahabad High Court has held that persistent pressure by a wife upon her husband, the only son of his 68-year-old widowed mother, to leave the mother and set up a separate household amounts to mental cruelty and entitles the husband to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“The attempt to deprive the appellant's mother of her son's company in the twilight years of her life is a cruel act on the part of the respondent.”
Case Title : Gareeba v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837
The Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant who files a writ petition along with forged documents cannot be permitted to withdraw it in order to escape the consequences of the proceedings.
Dismissing the petition as an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.
Case Title : Guddo vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the dissatisfaction of a complainant with a police investigation or the failure of policeto invoke particular provisions of the SC-ST Act 1989, does not by itself constitute "wilful neglect of duty" by public servants under Section 4 of the Act.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that prosecution under Section 4 (Punishment for neglect of duties) requires that it must be shown that there was a specific statutory duty and there was a demonstrable omission in performing that duty. It added that material must indicate that the omission was wilful or deliberate.
Case Title : Dileep Kumar vs. Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a petition challenging the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Uttar Pradesh's Ambedkar Nagar district, including the reservation of the Alapur constituency for Scheduled Castes.
The bench said the plea failed to establish grounds for judicial interference and was filed nearly two decades after the delimitation order was passed.
Case Title : M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable where the petitioner had already challenged the same order in a statutory revision and then got the revision concluded as “not pressed”. Such a withdrawal, it held, amounts to abandonment of the claim and attracts the Rule of Public Policy.
The Rule of Public Policy, as the Court explained it, bars a fresh suit where the earlier suit has been abandoned and is enshrined in Order XXIII Rules 1 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Its application to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is no longer res integra, the Court noted, having been settled in Sarguja Transport Services v. State and Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and others.
Case Title : Jaipal vs. Anil Kumar and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841
The Allahabad High Court has held that an execution proceeding is not rendered a nullity merely because the name of a joint decree-holder who had died before its institution continued to be shown in the execution application, where the execution was invoked by a surviving joint decree-holder competent to execute the whole decree.
Order XXI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits any one or more of the persons in whose favour a decree has been passed jointly to apply for execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all and, where one of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased.
Case Title : Dashrath Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to complete Panchayat elections in the State within 3 months under the existing reservation arrangement, including 27 % reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The bench said the polls cannot be delayed pending the Dedicated Backward Classes Commission's inquiry, report or the process of giving lawful effect to its recommendations on OBC reservations.
Case Title : X & Y vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843
The Allahabad High Court has observed that registration of a regular First Information Report (FIR) against Juveniles for "serious offences" is impermissible as per Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.
The Court thus quashed the entire criminal proceedings initiated against two juveniles for the alleged offenses of 'Aggravated Criminal Intimidation' [Section 351(3)] and 'Wrongful Restraint' [Section 126 (2)].
Case Title : XYZ vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844
Observing that a specifically named alleged co-adulterer must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court records an adverse finding against him in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday urged the Chief Justice to consider framing rules governing notice to such a person.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said that a judicial finding attributing an adulterous relationship to a specifically identified person "may have consequences beyond determining the maintenance claim and may prejudice the reputation and dignity of the person concerned".
Case Title : Smt. Manmeet Kaur v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845
The Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed because the appellant chose not to press it, a fresh appeal against the very same order of the Collector is not maintainable. It held that such an appeal is non est, and cannot attract the benefit of the State's stamp settlement scheme.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“… it is safely observed that the subsequent Appeal No.1174/2021 filed under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was not a legally instituted Appeal and was, rather non-est, more particularly when no liberty was granted or obtained for filing an another appeal afresh.”
Case Title : Ali Hasan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846
The Allahabad High Court set aside the life sentences awarded to 2 men convicted in a 1980 murder case after finding that they were juveniles on the date of the offence, nearly 45 years after their conviction by the trial court.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava upheld their convictions but remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to determine the appropriate punishment under the applicable law.
Case Title : Dr. Himanshu Mohan v. Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the First Statutes of a university prescribe specific minimum qualifications for teachers of Management/Business Administration, those qualifications govern the selection, and the general criteria for the faculty under which the department is placed cannot be applied instead.
The General Eligibility Criteria in Statute 11.03.01 of the First Statutes of the University of Lucknow, applied to the Faculty of Commerce by Statute 11.03.04(A), require evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. Statute 11.03.04(G) carries the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 qualifications for teaching posts in Management/Business Administration.
Case Title : S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848
The Allahabad High Court has held that a child of tender age who has been kept away from his mother cannot give an intelligent preference on custody, and his wish to stay with the relatives who raised him cannot outweigh the claim of the mother as his natural guardian.
It held that merely because the grandmother had looked after the child, she could not be said to have a better claim to his custody than the mother.
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Thru Executive Director v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry of Labour and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849
The Allahabad High Court has held that workmen engaged on a contractual basis may claim equal pay for equal work if they show that they were actually performing the work of regularly appointed employees of the post, but the burden of proving parity in duties and responsibilities lies on them.
It held that such workmen must establish through oral and documentary evidence that their work was equal not merely in function but also in quality and sensitivity, and that a common name for the post is not enough.
Case Title : Smt. Shashi v. Smt. Sona Devi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850
The Allahabad High Court has held that a court dealing with an application for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot finally decide who is entitled to family pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits of a deceased employee.
It held that such entitlement flows from the service rules governing the benefit and must be decided by the competent authority, not by applying the general law of succession.
Case Title : Data Ram vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851
The Allahabad High Court has directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that they decide execution applications in maintenance cases within 6 months. The Court warned that non-compliance to this direction may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued the direction while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children.
Case Title : District Judge v. Anand Kumar Verma and others
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 852
The Allahabad High Court has held that a select list prepared under Rule 14(3) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 comes to an end on the expiry of one year and that no appointment can be made from it thereafter.
It held that a direction keeping such a list alive until it is exhausted amounts to legislation and cannot survive against the statutory rule.
Case Title : Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853
The Allahabad High Court has held that a transgender woman, even after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery, would not fall within the statutory definition of 'woman' under Section 69 BNS (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.)
Section 69 BNS prescribes punishment for sexual intercourse with a woman by employing deceitful means or making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it, where the act does not amount to rape.
Case Title : Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail applications of an accountant accused of embezzling over ₹4 crore belonging to a religious institution in Varanasi by allegedly forging bank deposit receipts and siphoning off public offerings.
Given the nature and gravity of the allegations, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal found that the case did not warrant bail.
Case Title : Shashwat Kesarwani and another vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an agreement to sell fixes no date for performance and instead makes execution of the sale deed dependent on the happening of a future event, the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and time begins to run only when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused.
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years for a suit for specific performance of a contract, computed from the date fixed for performance, or, where no such date is fixed, from the date on which the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.
Case Title : Rajeshwari Devi And Others vs. Hari Shankar Pandey And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the marriage of a woman and the death of her husband are admitted, her status as his widow follows as a legal consequence and is not lost merely because she is alleged to have formed a relationship with another man after the husband's death.
Justice Anil Kumar-X held
“The status of widow is a legal status arising from marriage and the death of the husband. It cannot be extinguished merely because an individual or even society chooses, according to personal belief, conduct or convenience, not to recognise such status. A legal status can be displaced only by establishing a legally recognised fact having that consequence.”
Case Title : M/s Vikas Constructions vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857
The Allahabad High Court has held that withholding contractual dues which the State authority itself admits is arbitrary, and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for their recovery. It held that the rule against deciding money claims in writ jurisdiction is not absolute, and does not apply where the amount is admitted by the authority.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held
“Non-payment of even the admitted dues/contractual dues for an uncertain period amount to arbitrary in action and cannot be countenanced in law.”
Case Title : M/s Balaji Construction vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858
The Allahabad High Court has held that experience of building and maintaining a road cannot be equated with experience of internal development works in a township, and that such experience was an essential condition of the tender from which no deviation was permissible.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held
“If the authority were to treat work experience in making a road as equivalent to undertaking internal development works in a Township, then the eligibility condition would be rendered practically meaningless as the specialised nature of work required to develop a Township cannot be equated with that of constructing a road and maintaining it.”
Case Title : Suraj Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859
The Allahabad High Court has held that an undertaking or indemnity bond taken from a government servant at the time of his retirement does not entitle the State to recover salary paid in excess due to wrong fixation of his pay scale. The undertaking which permits such recovery is the one furnished at the time of the pay fixation later said to be wrong.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in High Court Of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held
“In Jagdev (Supra), the aforesaid position has been clarified that if any undertaking was submitted by such government servant at the time of fixation of the pay scale on the basis of the aforesaid undertaking, the amount paid in excess can be recovered. However, that doesn't mean that any undertaking or indemnity bonds taken by the respondents at the time of retirement would entitle them to recover the amount as in Jagdev (Supra), the undertaking, which is to be relied upon is the undertaking at the time of fixation of the pay scale, which is stated to be wrong.”