LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: August 31 - September 06, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636
Shailesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (B) 637
Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638
The State Bank of India and 5 others vs. Priyanshu Arya and 39 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639
Rajendra Kumar And 33 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640
Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641
Achhaibar Singh v. Board of Revenue And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642
Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644
Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645
Ashok Pandey And Another vs. Sri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646
Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647
Laxmi Narayan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648
Vishv Jaat Sangh Cheritable And Religious Trust And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649
Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650
Budhi Ram And Others vs. Ram Kesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651
Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652
Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw AB) 653
M/s Jaiswal Foods Thru. Proprietor Sudheer Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Govt. Lko. and 22 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654
Manish Kumar and 25 Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lucknow and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655
Kanpur Development Authority v. Sri Nathu Lal Gupta And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656
Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari vs. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657
Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658
Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title - Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636
The Allahabad High Court has held that to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry "soon before" her death.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj made the observation while allowing 3 criminal appeals arising from the death of a woman in September 1991.
Case title - Shailesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (B) 637
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 637
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging a 2015 tender awarded to a private company for the operation of a municipal slaughterhouse, finding that the petitioner had concealed several previous proceedings concerning the same subject matter and had made a false declaration that no earlier PIL or writ petition had been filed.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that the petition amounted to a “gross misuse and abuse of process of law” and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner.
Case Title: Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638
The Allahabad High Court has held that an advocate who withholds material facts within his knowledge and presses a contrary position before the Court is guilty of active concealment which interferes with the administration of justice. It held that such conduct must be distinguished from a statement made in ignorance of the true position, which does not attract the same consequence.
The distinction was drawn while examining the conduct of two advocates on whose common assertion the Court had earlier directed elections of a college committee of management to be held on a particular electoral list.
Case Title: The State Bank of India and 5 others vs. Priyanshu Arya and 39 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639
The Allahabad High Court has held that a policy stipulating that officers who score prescribed marks at training “shall be considered” for placement in a higher grade confers only a right to be considered, not a right to be placed in that grade. It held that a cap restricting such placement to the top 10% of a batch, brought in while the batch was still under assessment, did not change the rules of the game midway.
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar And 33 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640
The Allahabad High Court has held that persons engaged by a District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) cannot claim the benefit of the UP Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, as the agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which discharges functions under the schemes and projects of the Government of India.
Case Title: Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking permission to operate the bank accounts of a degree college by imposing ₹1L Costs as it found that the petitioner had "deliberately withheld" material facts concerning a long-running management dispute and previous proceedings before the Court.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the petitioner had attempted to present a heavily contested dispute over the management of the society running the college as a simple case concerning the de-freezing of bank accounts.
Case Title: Achhaibar Singh v. Board of Revenue And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant whose hereditary tenancy was judicially declared before the date of vesting cannot be ejected under Section 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 merely because the revenue records later describe the plot as a tank.
It held that the authority invoking the provision must establish that the tenant was admitted upon land which, at the relevant time, was recorded as or was a customary tank or other land of public utility.
Case Title: Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that it cannot entertain a writ petition against an order passed by an authority situated outside its territory merely because the petitioner resides within its territory.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta relied on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution turns on where the authority passing the order is located, and not on where the person aggrieved by that order lives.
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644
The Allahabad High Court has set aside eviction proceedings against occupants of a property in Meerut Cantonment, observing that the Cantonment Board's Chief Executive Officer, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, was aware that the petitioners were occupying the property and, despite this, remained silent for 8 years before eviction proceedings were initiated.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also found that the official concerned had acted against well-settled principles, observing that "authorities cannot blow hot and cold at the same time".
Case Title: Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645
The Allahabad High Court quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate who has been in custody for around 5 months in connection with the Noida workers' protest of April 2026.
Allowing her habeas corpus petition challenging her detention, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev found that the detention was based on a "concocted story" by the state. Hence, it directed her immediate release if arrest was not warranted in any other case.
Case title - Ashok Pandey And Another vs. Sri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646
The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a writ petition alleging that the Leader of the Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is a British national.
The petition, which also questioned Gandhi's right to hold the office of Member of the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli, was dismissed as withdrawn after the petitioners failed to produce a single document to support the allegations and claims in the plea.
Case title - Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the disappearance of a Muzaffarnagar man with around 30 criminal cases.
The bench prima facie observed that his absence could lead to two possible inferences, either he had been "done away" with by the police or he was himself hiding to escape the process of justice.
Case title - Laxmi Narayan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 304-B IPC, a provision punishing the Dowry Death offence, does not prescribe any fine in addition to the sentence and hence, the same can not be imposed on a convict.
A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation as it flagged a “glaring error” in the decision of a trial court to impose a fine of Rs. 20K on an accused convicted under the provision.
Case title - Vishv Jaat Sangh Cheritable And Religious Trust And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649
The Allahabad High Court has flagged a trend in which Civil Court decrees are becoming 'meaningless' due to the approach of police and revenue authorities, observing that such authorities appear to treat the Civil Court as "hardly a Court" and its orders and decrees as having no effect.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Vishv Jaat Sangh Charitable and Religious Trust concerning the enforcement of a permanent injunction decree protecting its possession of the disputed property.
Case title - Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650
Uttar Pradesh DGP Rajeev Krishna appeared personally before the Allahabad High Court on September 1 and assured a bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the quality of UP Police investigations would be improved and that police officers would comply with the Court's orders in time.
The assurance came during the hearing of a bail application in a murder case. Justice Jain had earlier expressed concern over the continuous non-compliance of its orders by Investigating Officers and also raised concerns regarding the quality of investigation, particularly in heinous offences like murder.
Case title - Budhi Ram And Others vs. Ram Kesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu male is not prohibited under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, from adopting his own illegitimate son merely because he is the child's biological father.
A bench Justice Arun Kumar held so while deciding a second appeal concerning an adoption allegedly made in 1970. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that the original plaintiff (Ram Kesh), had been validly adopted by one Badlu, who was also his biological father.
Case title - Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 652
The Allahabad High Court recommended an inquiry against a Judicial Officer who granted bail to a husband in a dowry death case, ignoring sufficient material against him as well as the presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
For context, Section 118 BSA provides a statutory presumption in dowry death cases. It says that where a woman dies in circumstances constituting a dowry death and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over Dowry, the Court shall presume that such person caused the dowry death.
Case title - Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw AB) 653
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 653
The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea filed by a practising advocate seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over his alleged remarks concerning the 'Upadhyay' community and revered religious personalities, including the Shankaracharyas.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena observed that a person aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR must ordinarily first exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Foods Thru. Proprietor Sudheer Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Govt. Lko. and 22 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State asserts, on the strength of a fresh verification exercise, that nothing remains outstanding to a contractor, the writ court is not bound to act on that assertion and must itself check the amounts released against the figure the department had earlier admitted to be payable.
Case Title: Manish Kumar and 25 Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lucknow and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appointing authority cannot cancel appointments merely on the direction of the State Government, without applying its own mind.
It set aside the termination of Assistant Managers of the U.P. Cooperative Bank whose appointments were cancelled in 2019 after the Principal Secretary, Cooperative, directed that they be cancelled.
Case Title: Kanpur Development Authority v. Sri Nathu Lal Gupta And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revenue entry which has not been cancelled, corrected or set aside by a competent revenue authority or court, cannot be treated as forged merely because the opposite party alleges forgery.
It held that though such an entry does not by itself create title, its evidentiary effect cannot be ignored altogether, and a party relying on its falsity must establish the same before the competent forum.
Case Title: Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari vs. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely on the basis of the investigating agency's oral apprehension that articles recovered from an accused's personal search could be proceeds of illegal narcotics sale, the accused cannot be deprived of their use.
A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while setting aside an order of the Varanasi trial court refusing to release gold jewellery and ₹850 cash recovered from the accused's personal search in an NDPS Act case.
Case Title: Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658
The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Government Order debarring a candidate who leaves a medical seat before completing the course, from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.
The Court held that while considering the rights of a candidate seeking to vacate an allotted seat, the rights of another candidate who was denied that seat cannot be lost sight of.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659
The Allahabad High Court has held that a pending inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against a Gram Pradhan cannot be treated as infructuous, or allowed to be stalled, merely because her tenure in office has since come to an end.
The Court held that such proceedings must be carried to their logical conclusion, given the consequences that survive the end of tenure under Section 95(2) and Section 27 of the Act.
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Neetu Agarwal & Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court has raised concerns about the manner in which cases are allocated to Government Counsel, observing that files are often handed over at the last minute, leaving counsel with little or no time to prepare for the matter.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said the recurring difficulty was "impeding the course of justice" and observed that merely replacing Government Counsel was not the solution.
Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a suo motu criminal contempt matter concerning a senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal over allegations that she attempted to influence and intimidate a Judicial Officer.
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava directed that the matter be listed before another Bench of which Justice Srivastava is not a member.
Case title: Suo Motu Cognizance Of Incident Dated 21/07/2026 In The Court Premises
The Allahabad High Court modified its earlier order in the suo moto Lucknow Court violence case, directing the Intelligence Department of the Uttar Pradesh Police, instead of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), to conduct the discreet inquiry into the antecedents and activities of advocates against whom allegations have been made.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order in the suo motu proceedings concerning the July 21, 2026 incident at the Lucknow District Court.