LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: July-September, 2026 [Citations 341-772]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Oct 2026 9:22 AM IST
![LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: July-September, 2026 [Citations 341-772]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2026/10/20/750x450_707481-allahabad-hc-quarterly-digest.webp "LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest: July-September, 2026 [Citations 341-772]")
[NOMINAL INDEX AVAILABLE AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER
Case title - Lal Chand Yadav vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought a direction to the police and the State of UP to recall a Division Bench's orders granting bail and suspending the sentence of a murder convict.
Strangely, the PIL plea also prayed that the appeal pending before the High Court be sent to the MP/MLA Court, which the Court noted is essentially a Court of Sessions and lies lower than the High Court in the judicial hierarchy.
Case Title - Bhanwar Singh vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that sniffer dog evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of a complete record of the exact manner in which tracking was done (the proceedings of the sniffer dog) in the Panchnama and the examination of the dog handler in the court.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that there must be no discrepancy between the version recorded in the Panchnama and the handler's evidence deposed before the Court.
Case Title - Suhail vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the doctor's certificate stating the patient was "conscious" and "able to speak" is sufficient to rely upon a dying declaration even if a separate endorsement regarding the "fit state of mind" of the victim, to make a statement, is absent.
"…the requirement of a doctor's endorsement regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to make his/her declaration is not a rule of law or a mandatory provision, but merely a rule of prudence; the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary, and free from any tutoring, prompting, or other suspicious circumstances", a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi ruled. (emphasis supplied)
Case title - Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits only the 'conversion' of the religious character of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another, but it does not bar the State from acquiring such properties for 'secular' and 'public' purposes.
With this, a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar dismissed a writ petition seeking to halt the widening and beautification of the Dalmandi area in Varanasi, a project undertaken as a part of the UP Govt's Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor development.
Case title - Tayyab vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged against 9 persons accused of raping the informant when she was a minor during a 2016 'nikah halala', and later subjecting her to gang rape as an adult during a second, 'double' halala in 2025.
In its 19-page judgment, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena categorically stated that "when it comes to criminal law, unless the law itself makes exception, which it rarely does, there is absolutely no place for pleading personal laws governing marriage, etc., if, interlaced with a matrimonial relationship, a crime were committed".
Case Title: Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association v. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
The Allahabad High Court has held that objections by Apartment Owner's Association cannot invalidate the consent given by individual flat owners for further development and purchase of additional FAR (floor area ratio) by the developer.
Justice Arun Kumar held,
“A representative body cannot, merely by passing a resolution, invalidate contractual declarations and consents furnished by hundreds of individual apartment owners who continue to stand by them. The Association cannot be permitted to substitute its opinion for the autonomous decisions of individual apartment purchasers. Even assuming the Association validly resolved to oppose the project, a collective resolution cannot retrospectively revoke individual declarations executed by hundreds of separate apartment owners. The Association cannot exercise a power of rescission on behalf of non-objecting owners.”
Case title - Baldev Raj Arora vs. Cbi/ Acb Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the statutory bar under Section 362 CrPC (Court not to alter judgment) does not apply to the modification or relaxation of conditions imposed in a bail order.
"…an order granting bail is a merely an interlocutory order and it would not fall withing the scope and ambit of the phrase 'a judgment or final order disposing of a case' used in Section 362 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C will not apply to alteration of a condition put in an order granting bail to an accused person", the Court specifically held.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Intervene In UP ATS Probe Into Funding Of 4,000+ Unaided Madrassas
Case title - Committee Of Management And Another vs State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
The Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with the Uttar Pradesh Anti Terrorist Squad's probe into the funding of more than 4,000 unaided madrassas being run in the state.
A bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran dismissed a petition moved by the Madrasa Management Committee and the Teachers' Association, Madrasas Arabia.
Case Title: M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
While dealing with a writ petition seeking No Objection Certificate for construction of a hotel on the land in question, the Allahabad High Court held that the land cannot be claimed as 'pond' without challenging the sale deed for the land which was made 113 years ago.
Case title - Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has categorically ruled that a viscera report cannot be relied upon to secure a conviction if the report was never specifically put before the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that merely questioning an accused with regard to poison being administered to the deceased would be insufficient if the primary scientific evidence (the viscera report) is withheld from them.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court has held that Permanent Lok Adalat's mention of 'conciliation attempted but failed' is a general reference which is not legally sufficient as per the judgment of the High Court in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others.
In Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, the Court had held that the function of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to first try conciliation and settlement between the parties. If the same fails, it must record (briefly) the proceedings in the award so that its decision on the dispute is clear. It held that absence of conciliation attempts would render the award legally invalid as it would be against the provisions of the Act.
Case Title: Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has held that a spot inspection conducted by the District Magistrate in stamp duty deficiency proceedings without issuing notice to the party is an irregularity, and not an illegality, where no prejudice is caused to the party.
The Court held that under Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, it is not mandatory for the Collector to conduct an inspection, but where one is conducted, notice ought to be given to the parties to the instrument.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court has held that assets derived from unknown sources of income cannot presumed to be from scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“A person may have assets derived from unknown source of income, however, that by itself cannot be presumed that the aforesaid assets are derived from schedule offence,” held Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while granting bail to accused in illegal mining in Yamuna Basin case.
Case title – Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a CBI probe into the Ram Mandir donation row, noting a similar plea with similar prayers has already been filed before the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla was hearing the petition filed by practising Advocate Mohit Ashok, seeking an independent, credible, and time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged "embezzlement of donation funds" (including monetary, gold, and silver) at the temple.
Case Title: Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Citaton : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a judgment is not erroneous and subject to review merely because of omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page, unless such omission results in patent error apparent on the face of the record or causes manifest injustice.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,
“…mere omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page in a compilation of documents, by itself, would not automatically render the judgment under review erroneous, unless it is further shown that such omission has resulted in a patent error apparent on the face of the record or has occasioned manifest miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be entertained on every procedural irregularity or alleged defect in presentation of papers.”
Case title - Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a 41-year-old criminal appeal, upholding the 1985 conviction of a Consolidation Lekhpal who was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of ₹300, nearly half a century ago.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus upheld the 1-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to him. He was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 4 weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 stand vitiated where no oral inquiry is conducted and no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet.
It held that a finding of guilt against a charged employee cannot rest on documents which have not been proved through evidence.
Case Title: Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 against a person already in jail is vitiated by non-application of mind, where the Detaining Authority does not know, or wrongly knows, the case in which the detenu is in custody.
It held that without knowing the case, the Detaining Authority cannot form an opinion, based on objective material, that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, which is an essential precondition for preventively detaining a person already in judicial custody.
Case title - Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a first informant dies a natural death before the commencement of a criminal trial or before testifying, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved through a scribe or an investigating officer.
A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava clarified that if an informant's death has no connection whatsoever with the complaint lodged, the contents of the FIR will not be admissible in evidence, and the benefit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be availed in such cases.
Case title - Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an Election Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to verify or declare a caste certificate forged; hence, a duly issued certificate cannot be challenged or scrutinized in an election petition.
A bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari made this observation while dismissing an election petition filed by one Radha Charan, who sought to set aside the election of Vinay Prakash Gond from the 335 Ram Kola Legislative Assembly Constituency in Kushinagar district.
Case title - Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Shariat/Muslim Personal Law permitting puberty as the competent age for a girl to marry runs clearly in the teeth of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, as well as the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev further observed that the age of marriage, for every citizen of the country, irrespective of religion, is same, as has been spelt out by the PCMA.
Case title - Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that a "myopic interpretation" cannot be given to COVID-Duty so as to confine it only to persons specially assigned to discharge their duties in the treatment of people in hospitals.
The bench thus held that essential service workers, such as electricity department employees who ensured uninterrupted electricity supply to hospitals and oxygen plants, are entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors".
Case Title: Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Allahabad High Court has held that a civil suit seeking redemption of a mortgaged property which has already been sold pursuant to an award passed under the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is barred under Section 111(d) of the Act, as the relief cannot be granted without interfering with the award.
Section 111 of the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in matters under the Act. Clause (d) extends the bar to any other order or award made under the Act.
Case title - Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that police department personnel deployed for the prevention and control of COVID-19, as well as for spreading public awareness and helping infected persons, are fully entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors" under the State's welfare scheme.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to release ₹50 lakh ex gratia compensation in favour of the widow of a Head Constable who died after contracting the virus in April 2021.
Case Title: Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the buyer or the seller is not mandatory at the time of execution and registration of a sale deed in Uttar Pradesh, as Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State, is different from the provision contained in the Central Act.
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court affirmed that the testimony of eyewitnesses who are close family members of the victim of the crime cannot be discarded solely on account of their relationship with the victim.
The Court added that a close relative is a natural witness who would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court observed that if a woman dies an unnatural death within the four walls of her matrimonial home and a strong chain of circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, the burden lies upon the inmates of the house to explain the circumstances of her unnatural death under Section 106 Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava added that if the accused fails to offer a cogent explanation for a fact that is inculpatory and especially within their knowledge, it would be added to the chain of circumstances appearing against them.
Case title - Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
The Allahabad High Court has held that a conviction under Section 34 IPC (Common Intention) is legally unsustainable unless the court reaches a definite conclusion that the accused acted in "prior concert" and pursuant to a prearranged plan.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made these observations while acquitting the accused-appellant (Laddan) in a murder case dating back to 1987.
Case Title: Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Government has itself decided to transfer quarters in a weavers' colony to the occupant-weavers in possession, the death of the weaver cannot be a ground to deny the same rights to his widow.
Observing that weaving in India is a hereditary art passed on to the next generation, the Court held that the family of a weaver cannot be displaced from the colony upon the death of the head of the family.
Case Title: S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court has held that Family Court can grant a declaration of divorce /Talaq under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 even if the Talaq is under Muslim Personal Law and is uncontested by the parties or anyone else.
Case Title: Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday reiterated that the statutory period of limitation for a claim cannot be extended by repeatedly sending letters or belated representations to the authorities, without any admission of liability by the state-respondents.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a "one-way traffic".
Case Title: Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person claiming ownership of a property by adverse possession cannot succeed where he has been depositing electricity bills and property tax in the name of the previous owner, observing that such conduct amounts to an acknowledgment of the previous owner's title and demolishes the plea of adverse possession.
Justice Sandeep Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the rejection of a plaint seeking permanent injunction on the basis of alleged ownership acquired through adverse possession.
Case Title: Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court has held that once domestic violence is committed, the husband is not absolved of liabilities under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even after passing of a divorce decree.
Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the husband from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Case title - Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court clarified the exact procedure under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 162 of the CrPC, which needs to be adopted for contradicting a witness during a trial based on omissions in his previous statement made to the police u/s 161 of the CrPC.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held that a casual confrontation of a witness in the dock with the statement taken down by the Police, where there was an omission, cannot serve the purpose of the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.
Case Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 which provides for locating constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large.
It held that a voter cannot claim that his right to vote is violated merely because his constituency has remained reserved for the Scheduled Castes for decades.
Case title - Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband and his family members in a 2017 murder and dowry death case while discarding the deceased's dying declaration, after observing that it was made with the intent to “wreak vengeance” rather than state the truth.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant thus set aside the trial court's judgment that had sentenced the 5 accused to life imprisonment.
Case title - Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an appellate authority acting under Section 6 of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, does not have the statutory power to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it afresh on merits.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the statute vests the appellate authority with the jurisdiction to either "confirm the order, with or without modification, or set it aside".
Case title - Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court quashed the orders passed by the district authorities declaring a man a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. It observed that the Act should not be allowed to be misused as a "tool of oppression" of innocent persons.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the Act is a "powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'" and should be used "very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'".
Case Title - Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of harbouring a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent and passing sensitive data about the Indian Armed Forces to Pakistan.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also clarified that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC are not mandatory and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right to bail in favour of the accused.
Case title (PIL plea 1) - Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case title (PIL plea 2) - Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has refused to entertain two more Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking high-level probes, including a Judicial Commission and a Special Investigation Team (SIT), into allegations of theft of donations for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the petitions on July 7, noting that the subject matter is already pending before the Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by a body of Shia scholars challenging the alleged 'arbitrary' police action of removing portraits of recognized Iranian leaders.
The PIL petition was filed by Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, through its General Secretary, Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi, seeking to restrain the Uttar Pradesh Police from interfering with the display of portraits of leaders, including Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al-Sistani.
Case Title: Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with effect from October 1, 2018, the grant of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary and courts are bound to enforce it, subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act.
Holding that the amended provisions govern agreements executed after that date, the Court upheld a decree directing specific performance of a registered agreement to sell.
Case Title - Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court has observed that where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, a bench of Justice Achal Sachdev stressed that a purposive and socially contextual approach must be adopted while dealing with maintenance claims, rather than adhering to a purely adversarial or technical interpretation of the law
Case Title: Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Noting that the offence of rape is a legal conclusion and not a medical one, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday confirmed the conviction of a man in connection with a 1983 rape case.
The Court clarified that if the testimony of a prosecutrix is free from any basic infirmity, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the medical evidence doesn't strictly corroborate the prosecution's case.
Case Title: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
While granting relief to Tata Projects Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that the National Highways Authority of India, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot arbitrarily terminate a highway construction contract mid-term and fasten the contractor with liability for delay when the delay was caused by the Authority's own failure to hand over encumbrance-free land with a clear right of way, as it was bound to do under the contract.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife as it found his deceptive actions, like giving false assurances, lodging a false police report and eventually absconding, as “relevant conduct” under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed the jail appeal filed by the convict (Pawan Kumar), who challenged a 2016 judgment of a Hardoi Sessions Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Case title - Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has explicitly ruled that an accused's “plea of alibi” must be proved by leading evidence during a criminal trial and the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot unilaterally accept it to be true to file a Final Report.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that it would be "gross illegality” if the IO files a final report relying on the statements of witnesses who supported the applicants' plea of alibi.
Case title - Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a woman does not qualify as a "legally wedded wife" and hence is not entitled to claim maintenance from her partner under Section 125 CrPC if she began residing with him without first divorcing her first husband.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev thus set aside the Family Court's order to the extent that it granted maintenance to the woman from her partner, the man she purportedly married without obtaining a divorce from her first husband.
Case Title: M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) came down heavily on the North Eastern Railway (NER) authorities for their 'whimsical' and “mala fide” actions in repeatedly rejecting the financial bid of a sister government enterprise, the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (KRCL), on flimsy grounds.
Terming the NER's actions as "nothing short of harassment", a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed a June 8, 2026, letter that rejected KRCL's bid due to a purportedly incorrect beneficiary name in a bank guarantee.
Case Title: Netra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable in a contractual dispute where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact and remedy of arbitration is available to the aggrieved party under the agreement.
The Court declined to entertain a challenge to the termination of a fisheries lease and the forfeiture of security, holding that the competing claims over the leased area and the sums due under the contract could be resolved only after the parties led evidence before the agreed forum.
Case Title: Asif Ansari v. Himanshu Sharma and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of an application to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar a party from advancing pure questions of law arising from the pleadings already on record at the stage of final hearing.
It held that where the proposed amendment merely restates legal pleas already discernible from the pleadings and the memorandum of appeal, its rejection causes no legal prejudice.
Case Title: Amarnath v. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Information Commissioner And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court has held that penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be imposed without forming opinion on material and affording opportunity of hearing to the Public Information Officer.
Case Title: Ajeet Nigam v. Additional District Judge And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition challenging the election of a Corporator under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, filed on the reopening of the District Court after the summer vacation, is within limitation by virtue of Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, where the 30-day limitation period expired during the vacation.
It further held that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions and courts cannot extend the statutory period of limitation, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies where no notification permits acceptance of election petitions during the vacations.
Case Title: Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and does not become mandatory merely because the question it is sought to prove goes to the root of the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction.
The Court held that a commission is a discretionary aid to adjudication and cannot be pressed into service to collect evidence which a party is otherwise required to prove for itself.
Case Title: Mithai Lal And Others v. D.D.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court has held that a sale deed executed after the period fixed in a permission order granted under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 cannot be treated as void where the delay in execution was caused by a statutory restriction on the transfer of agricultural land in force at the relevant time.
The Court held that mutation could not be refused on the ground that such a sale deed was void, as the invalidity of a transfer made without prior permission is curable and does not per se render the transaction void or legally ineffective.
Case Title: Smt. Meenu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
The Allahabad High Court has directed that where an employee is found to have been entitled to gratuity that was wrongly withheld and paid only later along with interest, the interest component shall be recovered from the salary of the officer who wrongly rejected the claim.
It further held that proceedings shall be initiated against the erring officer even after his retirement, where the service rules so permit.
Case Title: M/s Sardar Baldev Singh and Co. Thru. Prop. Sri Karamjeet Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
The Allahabad High Court has held that a petrol pump dealership cannot be terminated on mere suspicion of tampering with fuel dispensing unit.
Justice Irshad Ali added that the dealership cannot be terminated unless it is established with evidence that the alleged irregularity was capable of manipulating fuel delivery to the consumers, and that such manipulation was attributable to the dealer.
Case Title: State of U.P. vs Babloo @ Ashok Singh and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a state appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape as it observed that it was highly improbable for the crime to have been committed while the victim's children and other family members were present inside the house.
The High Court also noted a material discrepancy in the statement of the victim with regard to the commission of rape and found her not to be a "sterling witness" on this point.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar Mishra And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Admin. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court has held that a landholder cannot claim the protection of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to retain surplus land where possession had already been taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the Repeal Act came into force.
The Court also held that a writ petition challenging such ceiling proceedings, filed more than a decade after possession was taken, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Case Title: Satyendra Nath Shukla Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Sessions Judge has the power and discretion under Section 408 CrPC to transfer a part-heard criminal trial to the new court of a transferred judicial officer within the same Sessions Division, provided the new court has the jurisdiction to try the case.
Dismissing a petition that challenged the validity of such a transfer, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that if a criminal trial is transferred so the original presiding officer can retain the "advantage of watching the demeanor" of witnesses, the order "does not defeat the ends of justice" and cannot be termed an "abuse of the process of court".
Case Title - Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a person holding a certificate in 'electrohomeopathy' is not entitled to practice modern medicine (allopathy) as allowing such individuals to treat patients poses a grave risk to public health.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a clinic owner, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that a person who lacks the recognized medical qualification but practices in that system is a 'quack', a "mere pretender of medical knowledge", or a 'charlatan'.
Case Title - Saurabh Pal Singh vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
The Allahabad High Court observed that a long, continuous physical relationship between consenting adults cannot be termed 'rape' when a promise to marry fails, especially when the underlying dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature.
Allowing two connected criminal appeals, a bench of Justice Santosh Rai discharged the accused (Saurabh Pal Singh) of all charges under Sections 376, 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Pinki Alias Preeti Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25% of a husband's net salary as maintenance is only a "broad guideline" and not mandatory.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that courts have the discretion to award more or less, depending on the facts of each case.
The Court also clarified that for the purpose of calculating maintenance, "net income" generally means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.
Case Title: Chandra Bhan and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
The Allahabad High Court has issued a mandatory direction to all the trial courts across Uttar Pradesh that if evidence collected during an investigation indicates a 'homicidal' death inside a matrimonial home, the main charge must be framed under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and an alternative charge under Section 304-B IPC (Dowry Death).
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Dr Ajay Kumar-II passed the order after taking exception to a case where both the investigating officer and the trial Court judge treated a homicidal death under Section 304-B alone while completely ignoring the contents of the dying declaration, which clearly alleged murder.
Case Title - A vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Thru. Secy. New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
The Allahabad High Court observed that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under Section 4(iii)(v)(c)(I).
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that a rigid application of age restriction under the Law infringes the fundamental right of the reproductive autonomy recognized as a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
The Allahabad High Court has held that a recruitment process commences on the publication of the advertisement, and not at the later stage of approval of appointment. It held that a law brought into force after the advertisement does not govern a process already set in motion.
It further held that where a new Act comes into force after the advertisement but before the selection is finalised, the process already initiated is protected under the Repeal and Savings clause of the New Act.
Case Title - Lal Babu Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC if the victim and other prosecution witnesses turn hostile during the trial.
Setting aside a 2011 trial court conviction in a kidnapping case, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that since Section 164 CrPC statement is not recorded in the presence of the accused, he has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness and hence, it can't be relied upon to hold the accused guilty
Case title - Mashu @ Aman Joshi vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday reiterated that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender after deliberately evading court and investigation is ordinarily not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
"…the law is discernible on the point that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court without offering any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence and consequently has been declared a proclaimed offender", a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed.
Case Title - Sunil Kumar Jain And 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that writ petitions are not maintainable for general Resident Welfare Association (RWA) disputes regarding day-to-day society management.
Noting a legislative vacuum in the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the Court also directed the UP Government to frame a formal grievance mechanism for the resolution of such disputes by a competent authority.
Case title - Kusum vs State Of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
The Allahabad High Court has observed that once a mother has been granted maintenance against her real son under Section 125 CrPC, she cannot subsequently seek "another maintenance" from her step-son for the same purpose.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking modification of a Family Court order to also hold her stepson liable for maintenance, even though her real son had already been directed to pay her ₹8,000 per month.
Case Title: Yaseen And Another Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
The Allahabad High Court imposed ₹50K costs on the Uttar Pradesh Government for the negligence on the part of the police officials, which delayed the disposal of a bail application by more than ten days
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the applicants. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
Case Title - Kali Charan and others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a man in connection with a 1979 gang-rape case concerning a minor but reduced his substantive sentence from 7.5 years to 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI).
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence, noting the 43-year pendency of the criminal appeal and the surviving convict's age (71 years).
Case Title - Niranjan Das v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das in an Uttar Pradesh FIR linked to the alleged ₹2,161 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed:
"If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent".
Case Title - Razzak Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday expressed its "deep anguish" over a Gorakhpur trial court's decision to convict a man under Section 326 of the IPC and sentence him to a mere 3 years of imprisonment for causing the homicidal death of his own father by pouring acid upon him.
"…Trial Judge, by a manifest misappreciation of the evidence and a complete failure to apply the settled principles governing the offence of murder/culpable homicide, recorded a conviction only under Section 326 IPC and imposed a sentence of merely three years' rigorous imprisonment”, a bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed.
Case Title - Kammu and 11 others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1981 murder case after noting that while the prosecution claimed all 12 accused had fired simultaneously at the deceased, the post-mortem revealed only 3 gunshot injuries, creating a glaring contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.
Taking note of this discrepancy along with serious infirmities in the prosecution's case, a Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi set aside the trial court's 1984 judgment, describing it as 'perverse'.
Case Title - Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
The Allahabad High Court refused to discharge a man accused of abetting the suicide of his alleged paramour's husband, observing that the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can amount to instigation.
A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus denied relief to appellant Chandrajeet Singh while taking into account a suicide note that narrated a "systematic pattern of humiliation".
Case Title - Roji Bano And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a working mother who obtains the custody of her minor child by explicitly asserting her financial capability to maintain him/her cannot fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the father [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418].
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a woman and her minor daughter challenging a Family Court's order passed on their application for maintenance filed under Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v Central Bureau of Investigation Lucknow and a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that trial courts must send original records, and not merely photocopies or certified copies, to the High Court in criminal appeals arising from concluded trials, as mandated by Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Clarifying the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI, the Court held that the directions issued on April 25, 2018 permitting trial courts to transmit photocopies instead of original records were intended only to prevent pending trial proceedings from being held up, and do not apply to criminal appeals arising from concluded trials.
Case title - Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man (Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat) accused of posting objectionable content on social media against the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Armed Forces. He had been in jail since May 2025.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The Court pointed out that, in the present case, despite the charges being framed in February 2025, the trial court failed to examine a single witness till now.
Case title - Gajendra vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is mandatory for the trial court to impose fine along with jail term for convictions under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and the failure to do so is an error in sentencing.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai, however, clarified that in the absence of an appeal either by the State or the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence by imposing a fine, the High Court can't rectify the omission in an appeal preferred solely by the convict.
Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against a litigant and her advocate after finding prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in a public interest litigation filed before it.
The Court acted after a forensic report revealed discrepancies in the signatures appearing on documents filed in the case.
“…explanation offered by...Advocate coupled with findings recorded by FSL in its report, we are prima facie satisfied that...Advocate and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta have committed offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS and, therefore, the matter has to be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions," the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed.
Case Title: Pidilite Industries Ltd. Thru Spl.Attorney Sri Sachin Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Legal Metrology Andor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
The Allahabad High Court has held that the inspection and testing procedure prescribed under Rules 19 and 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 are mandatory in nature before proceeding against the manufacturer.
Rule 19 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 provides for inspection of quantity and error in packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer.
Case title - Haji Iqbal Alias Bala vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
The Allahabad High Court transferred an investigation from Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (UP STF) to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Haji Iqbal alias Bala in connection with an alleged ₹6.33 crore real estate fraud.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla also refused to quash the FIR, noting that doing so would leave the complainant remediless.
Case Title: Satish Gupta v. Praveen Kumar Singhal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant whose right to file a written statement has been closed, cannot be permitted to lead his own evidence, since evidence can be led only to prove facts that have been pleaded and, in the absence of a written statement, there are no pleadings to support it.
The Court held that such a defendant is not shut out of the trial altogether, he may still cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and argue on the basis of the plaint and the plaintiff's evidence, but he cannot lead independent evidence of his own.
Case Title: Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
The Allahabad High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894— after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force— are void ab initio, even if the acquisition notification bore a date prior to the repeal of the 1894 Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla held that where a notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was dated before January 1, 2014, but was published in newspapers, the Official Gazette and by public notice only after that date, the acquisition proceedings would be a nullity in the eyes of law.
Case Title - Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court took serious exception to a criminal trial pending in a Kidnapping case for the past 24+ years, observing that the oft-quoted expression "तारीख पे तारीख" (Tareekh pe tareekh) is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system.
"For years together, the proceedings remained dormant without any meaningful progress, reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality. Justice cannot be permitted to become a casualty of endless adjournments and prolonged institutional inaction", a bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti observed while granting anticipatory bail to 2 men in a kidnapping case registered in the year 2001.
Case Title - Sunil vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the absence of injuries does not, by itself, disprove allegations of rape or penetrative sexual assault; however, inferring penetration from alleged bleeding becomes highly doubtful when a contemporaneous medical report completely rules out any bodily injury without a satisfactory explanation.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that while trustworthy ocular testimony ordinarily prevails over medical opinion, the contemporaneous medical findings can't be ignored if they conclusively negate a material factual assertion made by the prosecution.
Case Title: Santosh and 4 others v. Smt. Asha Rani and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
The Allahabad High Court has held that an executing court can correct a clerical or typographical misdescription of the suit property in a decree in exercise of its powers under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that such correction is not confined to the court which passed the decree.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Where the terms of the decree are clear and unambiguous, the effect must be given to such terms at the same time, however, wherever the decree is vague or ambiguous, it is competent to the executing court to go behind the decree and look into the judgment, even the pleadings and to get assisted in order to have the ambiguity dispelled. Section 47 of the C.P.C. would not be a bar to such course being adopted.”
Case Title: Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the conduct of a government servant who secured voluntary retirement, by the regularization of his unauthorized absence from duty through a sanction of leave without pay, but still challenged the denial of salary for the period of absence.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“The conduct of the petitioner amounts to availing the benefit of voluntary retirement arising out of the same set of facts, while simultaneously challenging the denial of salary for the period of absence. Such conduct cannot be appreciated and is hit by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.”
Case Title: Sunbeam School v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order recording a mutation (Parwana Amaldaramad) which gives effect to a decree of a competent court that has attained finality, cannot be recalled by an administrative order.
While dealing with a case where the order of mutation was set aside ex-parte after lapse of 24 years, without issuing notices to the party, Justice Prakash Padia held,
“Record further shows that judgement and decree dated 23.04.1988 (passed under section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, in favour of predecessor of petitioner) is still intact/ has never been set aside by any competent court of law but only order issuing Parwana Amaldaramad dated 13.04.1989, giving effect to aforesaid judgement and decree dated 23.04.1988, has been set aside, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2012, which is impermissible and without jurisdiction.”
Case Title - Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
In a significant judgment, while observing that gangsters and mafia elements have taken the legal profession as a "means of seeking safe refuge", the Allahabad High Court recently barred advocates facing heinous crime charges from practising before any court/tribunal in the State until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/trials pending against them.
"How, then, can a person facing criminal charges be permitted to espouse the cause of another accused in a court of law, in the capacity of an Officer of the Court, while enjoying the rights and privileges conferred under the Advocates Act, 1961?" the High Court raised the question.
Case Title - Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Trial Courts are not obligated to defer pronouncement of judgment on a maintenance application filed under Section 125 CrPC merely because an application under Section 340 CrPC is filed after the judgment was reserved.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that proceedings contemplated under Section 340 CrPC are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of deemed extension of a mining lease under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015 is available to a lessee only where the application for renewal was a valid application and all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with.
It held that a lessee who continued mining after the expiry of the lease without a valid mining plan and environment clearance had not complied with the conditions of the lease and could not claim the benefit of deemed extension.
Case Title: Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not raise presumption that a particular holding is a joint family property.
It held that a member of a joint Hindu family can acquire and hold property exclusively in his own name. It held that other members cannot be granted co-tenancy rights over such a holding unless they prove that it was acquired from a joint family nucleus.
Case Title: Smt. Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 22 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction] Act, 1972 is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application for recall of an ex-parte release (eviction) order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
It held that such an order is referable to the procedural powers exercisable under Section 34 read with the Rules framed thereunder, and is not an order under Section 21 or Section 24, against which the Act provides a right of appeal.
Case Title - Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the omission of Section 34 IPC in the operative portion of a judgment is not fatal to a case if the prosecution has successfully established the common intention.
A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II clarified that Section 34 IPC is not a substantive offence and does not create an offence by itself; instead, it is merely a rule of evidence that recognizes principle of constructive liability.
Case Title: Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a mining lessee defaults in paying royalty and thereby gives the State ground to terminate the lease, the State's unexplained delay in exercising its power to determine the lease under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 amounts to arbitrary action.
It held that the lessee cannot be forced to pay the installments that fell due only because of delay on part of the State.
Case Title - Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
The Allahabad High Court directed the medical examination of a man who has been accused of extracting a victim's obscene photographs and continuously blackmailing her, noting that he doesn't appear to be a person of sound mind.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order after reviewing the nature of the filthy messages and social media posts made by the applicant.
Case Title - Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
The Allahabad High Court has held that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports must disclose specific reasons and scientific data. It added that a report merely recording a conclusion without detailing the tests conducted or the criteria used is inadmissible in evidence.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made these significant observations while recommending a slew of forensic reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system.
Case Title - Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the Uttar Pradesh government for negligence on the part of certain police officials, which delayed the disposal of a bail application and left a man in jail for an extra 15 days.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the bail applicant. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
Case title - Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
In a significant development concerning the demolition action across the state, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on whether the State can be barred from taking any action to demolish the house of an accused for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR.
While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a 2-year hiatus must be put in place so that the State's urge to "satiate the presumable public anger" immediately following the offence would 'dissipate', Justice Siddharth Nandan strongly dissented from placing a blanket embargo on statutory actions for 2 years.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
The Allahabad High Court has held that impleadment of every legal heir of a deceased tenant is not mandatory in eviction proceedings. It held that the tenancy of a deceased tenant devolves upon the heirs as a joint and indivisible unit, and effective representation of the tenancy by one co-tenant in possession suffices. It held that non-joinder of the remaining heirs not being fatal to the proceedings.
Case title - Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of a 92-year-old man in connection with a 1982 assault case; however, it modified his sentence to the period already undergone in jail, considering that no useful purpose would be served by sending him to prison now.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Chhotey Lal) in 1984 challenging his conviction by a Sessions Court in Pilibhit for an assault that took place in October 1982.
Case title - VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court cancelled the interim bail of an advocate accused of harassing and stalking a lady colleague while observing that his acts of writing directly to the judge's chamber and showing up in open court in violation of his explicit undertaking were "contemptuous and wholly unprofessional".
Cancelling his bail and ordering that he be taken into immediate custody, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into his conduct to determine whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.
Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her 35-year-old son after noting that the man is instead absconding to evade arrest in a dowry and harassment case.
“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person appointed on compassionate grounds following his mother's death cannot be removed from service on allegations that he concealed his father's government employment, when the authorities were aware of that fact at the time of appointment and had granted him the job after verifying his documents.
The Court held that petitioner's termination in this case, ordered nearly twelve years after the appointment, without any inquiry or charge-sheet or any witness being examined, was illegal.
Case Title: Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for a suit to redeem usufructuary mortgage or recover possession begins to run only when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money and not from the date on which the mortgage deed is executed.
A usufructuary mortgage is one where the mortgagor hands over possession to the mortgagee, who keeps the rents and profits in lieu of interest or towards the principal, until the debt is repaid.
Case Title: State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment to a reserved category post is obtained by producing a forged and fabricated caste certificate, the appointment is void ab initio and the employer need not conduct a full departmental disciplinary enquiry before terminating it.
It held that since the appointment was itself an illegal order, issuing a show-cause notice before dismissal was sufficient, and no chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings were required.
Case title - Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Observing that when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor in a clash, then it would be deemed that it was a “free fight”, where each person is responsible for their own act, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 4 women and upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 land dispute case.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the judgment while dealing with an appeal filed against the June 1988 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur.
Case Title: Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the word 'husband' under Section 80 (Dowry Death) and 85 (Cruelty) BNS will ordinarily include only a person who is legally married to the woman, and not a person whose marriage with the woman is itself void.
In other words, the High Court clarified that a man whose second marriage is void owing to the subsistence of his first marriage cannot ordinarily be treated as a "husband' for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions.
Case title - M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Calcutta Springs Limited seeking approval for its proposed Railway Concrete Sleeper Plant (CSP), holding that the Court cannot direct the grant of approval where the statutory process requires technical evaluation by the competent authority.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the approval mechanism envisaged by the Railways involves technical scrutiny at several stages and that the Court lacks the expertise to substitute its assessment for that of the approving authority.
Case Title: M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
The Allahabad High Court has held that a contract does not become a “statutory contract” merely because one of the contracting parties is an instrumentality of the State falling within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
It held that where a party's rights arise only from a purely commercial contract, that does not bar the State entity from floating a tender for competition venture, and the party has no legal right to challenge such tender.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a sale deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be set aside by the registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, even where the registration is questioned on the ground of impersonation or fraud.
Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P.., the bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“There is no dispute about the settled legal position with respect to the judgment rendered inRe: Smt. Kusum Lata (supra) that a duly registered sale deed under the Act cannot be set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/fraud.”
Case Title: Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
The Allahabad High Court has held that Clause 10 of the Circular dated 03.05.1982 issued by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., being only an executive instruction, cannot cut down the right to salary conferred by Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 on teachers of the primary section of an institution running Classes I to VIII.
Case Title: Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in favour of a petitioner who is unable to show a legal right in himself and a corresponding public duty cast by law upon the authority.
It held that where the grievance is in substance one of non-registration of a criminal case, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and must be relegated to it.
Case title - Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has clarified that proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 can validly be initiated on the basis of a Station House Officer's (SHO) report, provided it is forwarded through the Superintendent of Police (SP) to the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970.
Case Title: Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
The Allahabad High Court has held that a special appeal is maintainable against a non-speaking order passed by a Single Judge, notwithstanding the bar contained in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It held that the requirement to record reasons is a facet of natural justice, and that the bar created by Rule 5 must yield to it.
Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1952 bars a special appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of an order of the Government or any officer or authority made in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under a State or Central Act.
Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.
A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.
Case title - Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no legal bar to summoning material witnesses under Section 311 CrPC merely because their examination-in-chief has not yet been conducted.
The bench observed that if the trial court reaches the conclusion that the examination of a witness is necessary, such a witness can be summoned at any stage, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case title - Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court refused to discharge a man accused of posting casteist remarks against Member of Parliament (Nagina Lok Sabha Constituency) Chandrashekhar Azad on Facebook.
The bench observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a “mini-trial”.
Case title - Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
The Allahabad High Court deprecated the practice of advocates seeking adjournments on the ground that they are engaged before the district courts.
The Court said that such conduct "shows lack of respect towards their professional duties as also towards the High Court" and causes "artificial and unwarranted increase in pendency of matters before the High Court".
Case title - Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case alleging rape arising out of a failed consensual relationship after it found that the FIR was lodged to take 'revenge' after the accused decided to withdraw from the relationship and marry another woman.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the material on record reflected that both parties were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period of time and the conduct of the prosecutrix did not support the allegations that the physical relationship was established against her will or without her consent.
Case Title: Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke Section 159, which allows proceedings against a deceased assessee's legal representative, to continue reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of a dead person.
It held that where the notice is issued after the assessee's death, the department must issue a fresh notice to the legal representatives within the limitation period.
Also read : Income Tax Act | Notice To Deceased Assessee Under S.148 Void, Not Curable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
The Allahabad High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, to conduct an enquiry against an Investigating Officer (IO) who failed to seize the mobile phones of the accused in a POCSO case despite allegations that obscene videos and photographs of the victim had been prepared using those devices.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while granting bail to the applicant-accused facing a criminal case registered under Sections 137(2), 70, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act.
Case title - Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
Clarifying that a wife cannot be compelled to file successive execution applications to recover monthly maintenance, the Allahabad High Court has directed all the Family Court Judges in UP to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court judgments on enforcement of maintenance orders, as failure to do so may invite disciplinary as well as contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging orders of a Family Court in Jaunpur which had rejected her execution application seeking enforcement of a maintenance order passed in her favour under Section 125 CrPC.
Case title - X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the HC can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while dealing with an appeal filed by the complainant where it finds that continuation of the proceedings would defeat the "ends of justice" or amount to an "abuse of the process of any Court".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a complainant challenging an order of the Special Judge whereby her application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was treated as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR on the application.
Case title - Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
The Allahabad High Court held that a woman who is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband's existing marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though the marriage between the parties is void.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that a husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and deny maintenance to the woman who had entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.
Case Title: M/s Drosia India Limited Thru. Director Mr. Waheedul Hasan Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) could not levy interest on the auction sale consideration for the period prior to issuance of the allotment letter to the successful bidder of a plot.
It held that under the terms and conditions of the auction, installments became payable only after issuance of the allotment letter, and interest and penal interest could arise only upon delay in payment of those installments. Consequently, no interest could be charged from the date of the auction till the date of allotment.
Case Title: Shaheen Siddiqui and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
The Allahabad High Court has upheld overspeeding e-challans issued to stage carriage bus operators for exceeding the prescribed 60 kmph speed limit on the Yamuna Expressway, holding that the State Government or a competent authority is empowered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prescribe road-specific speed limits lower than the maximum limits notified by the Central Government.
A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad held that the Central Government's notification dated April 6, 2018 prescribing a maximum speed of 100 kmph for certain vehicles on access-controlled expressways does not confer an absolute right on every vehicle to travel at that speed on every expressway.
Case Title - Pawan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a trial court cannot direct the investigating agency, such as the CBI, to ensure that sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is obtained, as such a direction virtually amounts to directing the competent sanctioning authority to grant sanction, which is impermissible in law.
A Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh made the observation while allowing a quashing petition filed by former Saharanpur District Magistrate Pawan Kumar challenging an order of the Special Judge CBI Ghaziabad refusing to accept a CBI closure report and directing the agency to obtain prosecution sanction against him in connection with the alleged illegal renewal of sand mining leases in Saharanpur.
Case Title - Anand Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Registrar Firms Chits And Society Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court deferred the election to the post of Treasurer of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Raebareli, by 1 week and directed the Elders Committee to examine an advocate's objection against the exclusion of his name from the voters' list after granting him an opportunity of hearing.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order on a writ petition filed by advocate Anand Kumar Gupta, who challenged the deletion of his name from the final electoral roll despite claiming to be a Life Member of the Bar Association since 2008.
Case Title: M/s Shahi Export House (Now Known As Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd.) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where the termination of a workman on the basis of a domestic inquiry is referred to a Labour Court, the Labour Court must first decide whether the domestic inquiry was fair, and may take up the merits of the charges only after deciding that issue.
It held that where the inquiry is found to be unfair, the employer must be granted an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges, and the Labour Court must then decide whether the charges are made out on the evidence led before it. Taking up both exercises together, the Court held, vitiates the award.
Case Title: Dr Tanzeem Fatima v. Aligarh Muslim University Thru Vice Chancellor And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has held that Statute 40(3)(b) framed under the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, which requires a two-third majority of the members of the Executive Council present and voting to determine a teacher's employment, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
It held that Statute 40 read as a whole gives a teacher a hearing and the benefit of a due inquiry before the question of her removal is placed before the Council for vote.
Case title - Babu Lal vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the appeal of an 82yearold man convicted of murdering his brother in 1984 and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining part of his life sentence.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay found that the evidence on record did not disclose any mitigating circumstances warranting conversion of the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder).
Case title - Rakesh Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea while observing that suppressing one's status as an advocate to file a petition that essentially advances a client's interests amounts to a "gross abuse of the Court's PIL jurisdiction".
Warning the petitioner, an advocate by profession, to mend his ways, the Court observed that such misuse of the PIL mechanism cannot be permitted.
Case title - Bux Ullah Alias Burey Ali vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the jail term of a former police constable in connection with a 1984 attempt-to-murder case from 6 years to 4 years while also directing that the victim be paid Rs. 35,000/- as compensation out of an enhanced fine of Rs. 40,000/- imposed on the convict.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence considering the 41-year pendency of the appeal without the fault of the convict and the fact that he is now over 60 years old.
Case Title: Smt Shikha Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
The Allahabad High Court has held that maternity leave for a second child cannot be refused on the ground that two years have not elapsed since the earlier spell of such leave was granted. It held that the Code on Social Security, 2020 prevails over the rules contained in the U.P. Financial Handbook.
Section 161 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides that the Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the Code came into force.
Case Title: Baijanth v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. not to recover from any borrower an amount exceeding double the principal loan amount till an expert committee on cooperative banking reforms, ordered to be constituted by the Court, concludes its proceedings.
The Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd, set up in 1959 and registered under the Sahkari Samiti Adhiniyam, 1912, functions under the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Act, 1964. It is the principal provider of long-term agricultural credit in rural Uttar Pradesh and runs 323 branches. Falling outside the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it cannot accept public deposits and borrows almost entirely from NABARD at about 8% per annum on State Government guarantee, lending on to farmers at 11.50% to 14%.
Case Title: Shivpoojan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
The Allahabad High Court has held that surcharge under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 can be levied on a Pradhan only on an inquiry conducted by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats. It held that an inquiry held by a committee constituted by the District Magistrate is without jurisdiction and vitiates the recovery order founded on it.
Section 27 of the Act makes every Pradhan and member of a Gram Panchayat liable to surcharge for the loss, waste or misapplication of money or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat where it is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct while he was such Pradhan or member. The prescribed authority fixes the amount according to the procedure prescribed and certifies it to the Collector, who realizes it as an arrear of land revenue.
Case Title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the parties are ready to argue the criminal appeal or the criminal revision on merits, the application for suspension of sentence may not be given preference over final disposal of the criminal appeal or the criminal revision.
"As per our considered opinion, endeavour of the Court should be to decide the criminal appeal at the earliest if parties are ready to argue the appeal on merits", a Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case Title - Saubhangini Shukla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
The Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed an FIR lodged against a man accused of abducting a major woman who had voluntarily married him, observing that the police had no business being "nosy parkers" and investigating the marriage between two consenting adults.
"We have repeatedly reminded the Police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required", a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed.
Case title - Arun Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Case Citatio : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking to enforce a 2008 Full Court resolution prescribing court sitting hours. The bench said that a writ of mandamus directed against judges of the High Court "cannot be countenanced".
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra also observed that the petition filed by a practising advocate of the High Court was founded on "incomplete facts".
Case Title: Jai Ram v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
The Allahabad High Court has held that a list merely setting out the particulars of teachers working in an institution, issued by the Principal or by any authority other than the Committee of Management, cannot be treated as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
It held that where no seniority list has been published in the manner prescribed, a teacher cannot be said to have acquiesced in or waived his right to question his seniority by failing to file objections.
Not Every Procedural Irregularity Vitiates An Arbitral Award: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that not every procedural irregularity would vitiate an arbitral award or justify interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh made the ruling in a dispute between the U.P. State Highways Authority and the concessionaire appointed to develop and operate the Meerut-Karnal Road project under a public-private partnership.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. The Addl. Commissioner J Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
The Allahabad High Court has held that a decision rendered before 10th October 1975 does not operate as res judicata to bar fresh adjudication of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976.
The Court observed that Section 38-B of the Act insulates fresh adjudication under the amended law from any finding recorded before its commencement on 10th October 1975. It further held that the 1976 amendment operates retrospectively from 10th October 1975 and mandates re-determination of surplus land.
Case Title: Reena Devi Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
The Allahabad High Court has held that a married daughter is included within the definition of “family” under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and cannot be refused appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds only because she is married.
It held that she is entitled to be considered subject to fulfilling the remaining eligibility conditions, including local residence and no objection from the other adult members of the family.
Case Title: Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 488
The Allahabad High Court has held that a third party asserting an independent title adverse to the landlord is neither a necessary nor a proper party to proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
It held that questions of title cannot be brought into eviction proceedings through an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since their adjudication lies beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Authority.
Case Title: Ramesh Chand Sachdeva v. Alok Prakash
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suit instituted before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be transferred by the District Court to a competent court under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the only course available once such a defect comes to light.
It further held that the evidence already recorded by the court lacking jurisdiction is not wiped out by the transfer. it is for the transferee court to decide whether to retry the suit or carry on from the stage at which it was transferred, it held.
Case Title - Subhash Singh and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 Gang-rape case, holding that one who stands guard to facilitate rape shares the common intention behind the offence and can be convicted of rape with the aid of Section 34 IPC, even if he did not himself commit the act of penetration.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the 1985 trial court judgment that convicted the surviving appellants under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Case Title - Divya Priyadarshini Singh @ Zainab Fatma vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a person intending to convert his or her religion under the UP Anti-Conversion Law is mandatorily required to submit a pre-conversion declaration in the prescribed Schedule-I format under Section 8, and a mere representation to the District Magistrate (DM) cannot be substitute to it.
A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad thus dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman who had sought a direction to the DM to consider her representation allegedly submitted under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Case Title: Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
The Allahabad High Court has held that refusing to postpone the physical efficiency test of a woman candidate in an advanced stage of pregnancy compels her to choose between bearing a child and employment, and interferes with her right of reproduction as well as her right to employment.
It held that where the recruitment rules are silent on postponement and lay down no bar against it, the Commission has the power to postpone the test in an extraordinary circumstance, and cannot refuse merely because the rules carry no provision for it.
Case Title: Mohd. Yaseen and others v. Mohd. Asif and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
The Allahabad High Court has held that where co-sharers are seriously at odds over their shares in land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to apportion the compensation between them and must refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 lets the competent authority determine who, in its opinion, is entitled to receive the amount deposited. Section 3H(4) requires it to refer any dispute over apportionment, or over the person to whom the amount is payable, to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose limits the land is situated.
Case Title - Laxmikant Aggarwal vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Observing that taxing justice at "ad valorem rates is, indeed, harsh", the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday urged the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider measures to reduce the hardship faced by litigants pursuing civil remedies.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that disputes over title and possession cannot be decided by administrative authorities and must be taken before the competent civil court.
Case Title: Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot invoke the protection extended to live-in partners where she has neither pleaded such a relationship nor established that a marriage took place. It held that this is all the more so where the man has categorically denied having any relationship with her.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla held,
“Where there is neither any specific pleading regarding the existence of a live-in relationship nor any evidence establishing the solemnization of marriage between the parties, the claimant seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot claim the benefit available to persons in a live-in relationship, particularly when the existence of such relationship has been categorically denied by the opposite party.”
Case title - Hari Narayan Tiwari vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. Chairman And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that although no limitation period is prescribed for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, an inordinate delay in approaching the Court can be fatal.
Observing that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction must be invoked within a reasonable time, the Court dismissed a petition challenging a 2023 order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission after finding that the petitioner had offered no explanation for the delay.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 497
Justice Krishan Pahal of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday described alleged efforts by litigating parties to secure access to and approach him in pending bail matters as a "black day in the history of this Court", holding that such conduct strikes at the very heart of judicial independence.
Justice Pahal consequently recused himself from hearing over 75 connected bail applications and directed that they be placed before the Chief Justice so that the matters could be assigned to another Bench.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 8 others v. Sant Lal Sonkar and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the State Government merges two posts into a single cadre with retrospective effect, it cannot thereafter prescribe two different pay scales for members of that unified cadre on the basis of the post each of them held before the merger.
It held that such a classification answers to no difference in qualifications, duties or responsibilities and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Tax Dispute Not Arbitrable Where Statutory Determination Required : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: U.P. Public Works Deptt. through Chief Engineer Central Zone Lko. v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., through Signatory Sandeep Anne 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a tax-related dispute between contracting parties may be referred to arbitration so long as it can be resolved through interpretation of the contract.
It held that the dispute stops being arbitrable the moment its resolution turns on a determination reserved to the taxing authorities.
Case Title: Hanuman Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity and final retiral dues cannot be released to a retired government servant during the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and that the seriousness of the offence he is facing is irrelevant to the question.
Regulation 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, provides that where departmental or judicial proceedings or an enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal are pending on the date of retirement or are to be instituted after retirement, a provisional pension as provided in Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned.
Case Title: Preeti Mishra and another v. Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two suits between the same parties arise out of the same document and are pending before different courts of competent jurisdiction, the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending is ordinarily the more appropriate forum.
It held that the subsequently instituted suit may be transferred to it under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless compelling circumstances indicate otherwise.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 502
In a stern order, the Allahabad High Court ordered initiation of criminal proceedings for Perjury against 2 lawyers after finding that they had secured a favourable order by "playing fraud on this Court".
Making strong observations on the general public perception of the legal profession nowadays, it remarked that the Bar must introspect on "whether anyone other than the members of the Bar refer to the profession of advocacy as a noble profession anymore?"
Case Title - Triveni And Other vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife in 1979 after finding that there was an unexplained delay of more than 4 years in lodging the FIR, coupled with contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of death.
Observing that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused-Triveni beyond a reasonable doubt, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside his conviction and granted him the benefit of doubt.
Case Title: Gudia Goswami and 293 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
The Allahabad High Court has held that the expression “population” in Section 11-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 must be read in terms of its statutory definition, i.e., the figure recorded in the last published census, and not the number of persons actually residing in the area as on date.
It held that a Gram Panchayat whose census population has fallen below 1,000 after a part of its area is taken into a municipality cannot claim to retain its separate identity by pointing to a higher present-day head count.
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505
The Allahabad High Court said that a licensed firearm cannot be used for "joy firing" during marriages or religious festivals and that every arms licensee is duty-bound to maintain records of ammunition purchased and its use.
Observing that an arms licence is a 'privilege' subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions, the Court refused to interfere with the cancellation of an arms licence after the licensee failed to account for 757 cartridges allegedly used over the years.
Case Title - Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man for strangulating his live-in partner, her mother and her two minor children to death in Hardoi in 2009.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond the pale of doubt and that there existed a ring of truth in the prosecution story.
Case Title - Biswajit Chowdhury vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in the country is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition, and that litigants are not required to travel to the HC benches in Allahabad or Lucknow for photo verification before instituting writ proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai made the clarification while dealing with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime.
Case Title - Anup Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508
The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot seek discharge merely because the alleged disproportionate assets were reduced during investigation.
It clarified that the mere fact that the discrepancy between income and expenditure was whittled down after investigation, or that such discrepancy constituted only a small fraction of the accused's income, is by itself no ground to discharge the accused.
Case - Anupam Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509
The Allahabad High Court has held that a husband cannot invoke a writ of habeas corpus where the pleadings themselves indicate that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and no prima facie case of illegal detention is made out.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the husband should instead avail the statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.
Case - Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points.
Case - Nagendra Kumar Yaqdav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that non-functional CCTV cameras and backup power facilities, such as generator sets and solar panels, in police stations amount to "dereliction in discharge of duties" by the Superintendent of Police.
The bench added that it is the primary duty of the SP, or Senior Superintendent of Police, to ensure that police stations remain fully equipped with these essential facilities.
Case - Pradeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the suspension of a government primary school teacher who was suspended for social media posts allegedly highlighting the misdeeds of a BJP leader.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan said that merely bringing to light an alleged act of wrongdoing, embezzlement or any matter affecting public interest cannot by itself be construed as 'misconduct'.
Case Title - Ram Prasad and Anr. vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513
The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a father and his son for the 'Honour Killing' of 2 minor girls after finding the appellants' conduct before and after the commission of the crime to be "highly relevant" under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi thus dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ram Prasad and his son, Chandra Bhan, while upholding the 2019 judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha.
Case Title: Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution casts a positive obligation on the State to create and maintain conditions in which lives are not lost to preventable disasters. It held that institutionalising the science of crowd behaviour in academia, administration and policy is a constitutional imperative.
Case Title: Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of a document cannot be referred for scientific examination by a handwriting expert where the original has not been produced, since a photocopy does not preserve the characteristics on which a meaningful comparison of handwriting depends.
It held that the decisive consideration is whether the material proposed to be examined can furnish dependable scientific assistance, and that this assessment lies within the discretion of the authority before which the document is produced.
Case Title - Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1996 double murder case while observing that a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained solely on the "last seen together" theory/evidence unless every link in the chain of circumstances is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that in this case, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances and that the trial court had wrongly relied on unreliable "last seen" evidence and a doubtful recovery of the alleged murder weapons.
Case Title - Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life sentence awarded to 2 women for killing a married woman by setting her ablaze while observing that a dying declaration which is voluntary, truthful and recorded when the maker is in a fit state of mind can, by itself, form the basis of conviction.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava thus dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Sarita Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Malti Devi, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting them under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.
Case title - Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court elaborately explained the step-by-step procedure governing the conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The bench clarified that such an identification parade must strictly comply with the safeguards prescribed under the UP Police Regulations and the UP Jail Manual, as any unexplained delay or procedural lapse seriously undermines their evidentiary value.
Case title - Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
The Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to the aunt (bua) and uncle (fufa) of a woman allegedly murdered in an 'honour killing' in Agra, observing that the case involved serious allegations and that the applicants' custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth.
The Court also noted that the applicants had allegedly remained absconding for the past 7 months despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Case Title: Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court has held that the forum competent to decide a landlord-tenant dispute is determined by the law in force on the date the suit is instituted, and not by the law prevailing when the tenancy was terminated or the cause of action arose.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that where a landlord-tenant dispute is instituted after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and is otherwise governed by that Act, the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Case Title: P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
The Allahabad High Court has held that the convenience of the wife and the welfare of a minor child, though relevant considerations in matrimonial disputes, are not inflexible or overriding grounds for transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It held that the decisive test is whether refusal of transfer would occasion a failure of justice, and that the burden of establishing genuine hardship lies on the applicant.
Case Title: Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court has held that once an employee is permanently absorbed in a cadre, he becomes a member of that cadre for all service purposes, and the cadre in which he was first appointed cannot thereafter be used to deny him the financial benefits attached to the cadre he was absorbed into.
It held that upon absorption, the lien on the earlier post and the incidents of the earlier cadre cease to govern the employee's service conditions.
Case Title: Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court has held that a medical representative is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall apply to sales promotion employees as they apply to workmen within the meaning of that Act.
Character Certificate Can't Be Denied Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Allahabad High Court has held that a character certificate cannot be denied merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held that the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, by itself, could not be a ground to reject an application for issuance of a character certificate.
“….we are of the opinion that due to pendency of the aforesaid case under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the application for grant of character certificate could not be rejected,”
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurance company cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge compensation awarded to a beneficiary under a government welfare scheme by relying on alleged violations of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the insurer and the State Government.
It held that such a dispute is essentially contractual in nature and must be pursued before an appropriate civil, commercial or arbitral forum.
Does Rejection Of Bail Bar Subsequent Challenge To Legality Of Arrest? Allahabad High Court Answers
Case title - Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Distinguishing the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1110], the Allahabad High Court last week held that rejection of a regular bail application does not, by itself, bar a subsequent challenge to the legality of an arrest and judicial remand under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena clarified that the principle laid down in Kusum Sahu would not apply where the Court is concerned solely with the legality of the arrest and remand order, and not with the merits of the prosecution or the defence.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Ban UP Cricket Association Or Order CBI Probe Into Assets Transfer
Case Title: The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
The Allahabad High Court has refused to ban or initiate CBI inquiry against the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association (UPCA). It has also held that no mandamus can be issued to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take over the assets of the UPCA as the UPCA was company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Case title - Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that police authorities and Executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes between private parties, while clarifying that any deviation may invite departmental as well as contempt proceedings.
In its order passed on July 27, the Court emphasized that police can intervene only to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order, as provided under the BNSS or CrPC.
Case Title: Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period within which surcharge can be imposed on a Gram Pradhan for loss, waste or misapplication of Gram Panchayat money or property is governed by the proviso to Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and not by the shorter period prescribed in the third proviso to Rule 257(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947. It held that the Rule is in conflict with the Act.
Case Title - Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
The Allahabad High Court has held that a trial court cannot examine a witness at the pre-cognizance stage to generate fresh evidentiary material, as such a course is "wholly" outside the scheme of Section 190 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that a court which has not yet taken cognizance does not possess a "free-standing power" to collect additional or corroborative evidence, as that function belongs to the investigating agency, and its role at that stage is confined to applying its judicial mind to the material already on record.
Case Title - M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
The Allahabad High Court has held that a contractor cannot indirectly challenge Government action taken against another entity by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary added that where the grievance essentially arises out of contractual rights flowing from Letters of Intent, the appropriate remedy lies before the arbitral tribunal or the competent civil court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a public authority sits over a citizen's application for an indefinite period without any reasonable or plausible justification, the inaction by itself attracts the doctrine of malice in law and shows arbitrariness.
It held that an unjustified delay in permitting a citizen to carry on a lawful trade or business must answer to the “golden triangle”, i.e. Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court has held that although the District Magistrate must proceed to deliver possession of a secured asset once an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is made, and the function is a ministerial one, the authority is free to fix its priority according to the number of cases pending before it.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“There is no doubt that the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has to proceed for dis-possession once an application under Section 14 of the Act is made and the said Act is a ministerial act but it is always upon to the concerned authority to fix priority as per the number of cases pending before it.”
Case Title: Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court has held that a service rule requiring an employee to maintain courtesy in dealings with colleagues cannot be interpreted in a manner that treats every disagreement, fair criticism or discussion about institutional affairs as misconduct.
It held that a faculty member who convenes a meeting to raise concerns about a recruitment process does not thereby commit misconduct, in the absence of material showing an intention to harass, humiliate or undermine a colleague.
Case Title - Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court has termed as 'deplorable' the passing of preventive detention orders without application of mind and without reference to the "grounds of detention". It, therefore, urged the Union Government to redress the situation at the earliest in the larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Gurmel Singh.
Case Title: Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court has held that continuation in service till the end of the academic session after superannuation is a concession and not a vested statutory right, and can be claimed only by a teacher who is actually engaged in regular teaching.
It held that an Associate Professor of an agricultural university who had been posted as In-charge of a research station could not claim the benefit merely because he continued to hold a substantive teaching post and drew his salary against it.
Case Title: Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary authority's expression of agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, recorded in the show cause notice, does not vitiate the punishment order that follows. It held that such agreement is a pre-condition for issuing the show cause notice at all.
It observed that the inquiry officer's recommendation of punishment is expressly contemplated by Appendix I of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Case Title: Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
The Allahabad High Court has held that arrears of rent due to a Nagar Palika Parishad from its tenant cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, as such rent is a contractual due and not a tax.
Section 173-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 permits a Municipality to apply to the Collector for recovery, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, of any sum due to a board on account of a tax, other than a tax payable upon immediate demand. The Collector, on being satisfied that the sum is due, proceeds to recover it in that manner.
Case Title - Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Refusing relief to a former GST Official in a Corruption case, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only concerned with a "strong suspicion" that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied.
"…at the stage of consideration of question of discharge of the accused/ revisionist a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for by the court. Charge can be validly framed against the accused on the basis of grave suspicion raised against him on the basis of material available on record as produced by prosecution", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be dismissed from service under Rule 8(2)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 merely because he stands convicted on a criminal charge, unless the disciplinary authority has first considered the conduct which led to that conviction.
It held that such consideration is a condition precedent to the authority acquiring jurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal.
Case Title - Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
The Allahabad High Court quashed the confiscation order of an illegally confiscated vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as it noted that the authorities proceeded entirely on assumptions that the bovine animals were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain noted that neither any beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle and there was no material whatsoever to show that the animals were being transported to Bihar or to any slaughterhouse.
Case Title - Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹6.70 lakh on a party-in-person after finding that he had misused the Right to Information Act, 2005, by repeatedly filing vague RTI applications concerning the Court's internal functioning and also disturbed the judicial proceedings.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the writ petition challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC) and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount with the High Court Legal Service Committee within 4 weeks.
Case Title - Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
The Allahabad High Court has held that no police officer, irrespective of rank, can direct further investigation in a criminal case during the pendency of trial without first obtaining the permission of the court trying the case.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that this was a settled position of the law under Section 173(8) CrPC, however, now it has been expressly incorporated under Section 193(9) BNSS that prior permission of the Court would be required for the police to conduct a further investigation.
Case - Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband who had been convicted of subjecting his wife to cruelty, abetting her suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that when the trial court itself found that the husband had no contact or communication with his wife for more than 5 months before she died by suicide, it could not be said that he had abetted the commission of suicide.
Allowing the Husband's criminal appeal, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also observed that under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Penalty for giving or taking dowry), not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is a punishable offence.
Case title - XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Expressing serious concerns over the declining standards of legal education in the Law Colleges, the Allahabad High Court recently directed that a redacted copy of a law student's evaluated answer book, in which he was awarded zero marks, along with the question paper, be sent to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Law Commission of India.
The Court asked the BCI to consider whether the standards of legal education presently maintained and the existing mechanism for approval, affiliation and periodic inspection of law institutions require strengthening "to compete with globally competitive legal education standards".
Case Title: Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right of consideration for regularization does not come to an end with the death of the employee and survives through his legal representatives, where the regularization exercise had been set in motion in his lifetime.
It held that such consideration must be undertaken, if necessary notionally, so that the consequential service benefits reach the legal heirs.
Case Title: M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs on a builder for making the homebuyer go through multiple rounds of frivolous litigation for 13 long years.
Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“Taking note of the hardships and vulnerabilities faced by home-buyers, the Government of India had enacted the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with the object of ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the real estate sector and providing an expeditious and effective mechanism for redressal of the grievances of allottees. However, in the present case, the very object and purpose of the Act has been frustrated by the builder, through the institution of various frivolous and vexatious litigation, apparently with a view to delay and evade the discharge of its statutory obligations and liabilities arising under the Act of 2016.”
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.
Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who says the adverse entries in his confidential reports were never communicated to him cannot be called upon to prove that negative. It held that it is for the department to demonstrate that communication was in fact made.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,
“It will appear from above the Tribunal found omission on part of petitioner to demonstrate that he had not been communicated the adverse entries. The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. Petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative. The Tribunal obviously erred in review of its earlier judgment based on the adverse entries, where the department had not resisted the case.”
Case Title: Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
The Allahabad High Court has held that excess salary paid to a Class-III employee because of the employer's own faulty pay fixation cannot be recovered from his post-retiral dues where the mistake is corrected 17 years later and the employee is not shown to have brought it about.
Directing refund of Rs. 11,51,840/- deducted from the retiral dues of a retired Head Constable (Driver), with 7% simple interest, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“In the present case, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for alleged wrongful pay fixation. In the present case, according to the respondents, the wrong fixation of the salary of the petitioner was done in the year 2008, which has been sought to be corrected in the year 2025, after lapse of 17 years.”
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher appointed by a Committee of Management without prior approval of the post and without the qualification prescribed for it can only claim his salary from the Committee of Management which appointed him.
Petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 23rd November 1999, when he held the degree of 'Shiksha Alankar'. Unpaid, he moved the High Court in 2000 and obtained an interim order, and the State's special appeal against it was dismissed in 2009. After a post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 30th June 2010, the Committee requisitioned a teacher in the Hindi subject.
Case Title: Manish Bansal vs. Jagdish Prasad Mittal and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
The Allahabad High Court has held that third party claiming independent title doesn't become necessary or proper party merely by asserting it in a small causes suit. It held that such a person can be brought on record only where his title has to be decided before the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief claimed can be determined.
Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition of parties to a suit. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides for return of the plaint where the plaintiff's right and the relief he claims depend on proof or disproof of a title the Small Causes Court cannot finally decide.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
The Allahabad High Court has held that testing minimum eligibility condition for promotion prior to promotion to the post of Junior Assistant before written test is conducted is valid.
It held that after the enforcement of the U.P. Government Departmental Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014, a minimum typing speed is an eligibility condition for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, and the typing test may therefore be held before the written test and interview prescribed by Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001.
Case Title: Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
The Allahabad High Court has slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for acquiring Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji diety's land at 'Sugriv Kila' in Ayodha for development of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple, without paying sale price.
The Court noted that the State was simultaneously questioning the deity's title and claiming that the land could not have been sold in the first place.
Case Title - Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
The Allahabad High Court has observed that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be used to reopen issues that could have been raised and decided during the original trial, unless the judgment-debtor is able to establish that the decree is void and inexecutable on the face of it.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X made the observation while dismissing a civil revision filed by a judgment-debtor challenging the rejection of his objections to the execution of an eviction decree.
Case Title - Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted two men in connection with a 1978 robbery case, observing that the alleged recovery of a blanket and mosquito net from them did not furnish strong corroborative evidence, particularly since the articles were readily available in the market and bore no distinctive identifying marks.
The Court also found deficiencies in the identification evidence, including the delayed conduct of the test identification parade and the non-production of the torch allegedly used by witnesses to identify the accused.
Case title - Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order framing charges passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) is not an interlocutory order and can therefore be challenged by way of an appeal before the High Court under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus differed with the view of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shahid Yousuf v. NIA, wherein it was held that the order framing charges is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.
Case Title: Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer are not barred merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged over the same incident, as Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial whether or not the officer has been tried judicially.
It held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 cover the subject matter of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and any provision of the Regulations contrary to those Rules stands superseded. It held that the Rules, 1991 were framed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861, superseding all earlier rules on the subject.
Case Title: Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the State's failure to pay professional fees to counsel engaged to defend its cases, observing that such non-payment could constrain advocates to approach the courts.
However, while dismissing an advocate's four writ petitions seeking recovery of about ₹4.8 crore as not maintainable, the Court held that disputed claims for professional fees arising from a contractual engagement cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
The Allahabad High Court has held that the failure of the District Basic Education Officer to send his nominee to a selection committee under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 does not vitiate the selection held in his absence. It held that salary cannot be withheld from the candidate so selected on that ground alone.
Case Title: Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher of an aided institution cannot claim salary from the State exchequer merely on the strength of long continuance in service or subsequent administrative recognition, where the competent University had declined approval to the appointment and had directed a fresh selection which was never held.
The Court held that before a mandamus for payment of public money can be issued, the person claiming salary must first establish the existence and legality of the appointment from which the right is said to flow.
Brothel Customer Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
The Allahabad High Court has held that a man who visits a brothel as a customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as paying money for personal gratification is not procurement for the purpose of prostitution within the meaning of the Act.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held,
“If a person visits a brothel as a customer, then at the most, he may be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the 'purpose of prostitution' as defined under the Act (which requires commercia exploitation). Therefore, a customer who pays money for gratification cannot be prosecuted under Section 3, 5, or 7 of the Act.”
Reliable Dying Declaration Can Form Basis For Acquittal Too: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
The Allahabad High Court has held that a dying declaration which is reliable enough to sustain a conviction can equally form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof for an acquittal being merely preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court was hearing appeals by a husband and his mother against their conviction for cruelty and dowry death, in a case where the deceased had told a Magistrate, within two hours of the incident, that her burns were accidental.
Calling By Caste Name Without Intent To Humiliate Doesn't Attract SC/ST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere use of the word “Chamar”, without material showing that it was used with the intention or knowledge of insulting the victim on the ground of her caste, does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and cannot sustain an order summoning a person to face trial under Section 319 CrPC.
Case Title: Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of lis pendens applies even to a court auction sale, an involuntary alienation, and the auction purchaser takes the property subject to the outcome of a suit already pending over it.
The Court clarified that notice of the prior claim or agreement is not the basis for applying the doctrine; it operates because of the pendency of the litigation itself.
Case Title - Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted a man convicted of culpable homicide in connection with the burning death of his wife, observing that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of relatives/family members and therefore could not be safely relied upon.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed the criminal appeal filed by Jagan against the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad, which had convicted him under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Case Title - Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
The Allahabad High Court has observed that to attract 'common intention' liability under Section 34 IPC, the participation of a co-accused must have a "functional relationship with the offense in question".
The bench clarified that the mere fact that several persons participated in the same occurrence does not make each of them liable for every offence committed during it.
A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by an accused who was convicted of murder with the aid of Section 34 in connection with a 1985 case.
Case title - SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR lodged by a Judicial Official of the State against his doctor-wife and two others after finding that the criminal proceedings were "not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court".
A Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II allowed a writ petition filed by the wife and two others while setting aside the FIR lodged by a Judicial Officer in January this year.
Case title - Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted two accused in a nearly 4-decade-old murder case while observing that mere nomination in the FIR could not sustain their conviction under Section 149 IPC when the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly or its common object.
In fact, the Court found that no specific role or weapon was attributed to the two accused and the Prosecution failed to establish that the accused were part of the alleged Unlawful Assembly or shared a Common Object.
Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after noting that the mandatory joint meeting was not held and incorrect entries were made showing accused persons as being in jail despite the fact that they had been granted bail.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena thus allowed 4 connected writ petitions challenging the same FIR registered at a Police Station in Prayagraj, under Section 2/3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.
Case title - Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
The Allahabad High Court flagged what it described as the "clear misuse of the POCSO Act" by the parents of the victims who submit forged school certificates to show the victims as below 18 years of age.
The Court noted that this practice results in the false implication of several young boys who find it difficult to obtain bail and are easily convicted in view of the presumption provided under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
The Allahabad High Court has held that the termination of a bank employee under a regulation enacted after the Constitution of India but declared as unconstitutional, has retrospective effect and thus such termination cannot stand and would be illegal.
In doing so the court reiterated that the situation is different in case of a law enacted prior to the Constitution which is only eclipsed by its conflict with Part III and may be revived if the fundamental right it offended is amended or authoritatively read differently.
Case title - Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda through its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
The Allahabad High Court has referred the conduct of senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to the court dealing with criminal contempt matters after a Judicial Officer alleged that the Commissioner attempted to influence and intimidate her over a phone call in connection with a pending civil suit.
A Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the alleged telephonic conversation gave a "direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced".
Case title - Jhanvi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614
The Allahabad High Court directed a judicial inquiry into the death of a person who allegedly died while in the custody of the Special Task Force (STF), after noting that the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries on the deceased.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the order while hearing a petition seeking transfer of the investigation into the case to the CBI or another independent agency for a fair and expeditious investigation.
Case title - Durgesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused who is already on interim bail in a case cannot be arrested merely because additional offences have been added during the course of investigation, without the police first approaching the concerned court for appropriate orders.
A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal termed the arrest of an accused, while on interim bail, booked under various provisions of BNS and the SC/ST Act as 'arbitrary'. The Court also directed an inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police officer(s).
Case title - Inder Bhushan Sawhney vs. Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615 and connected matters
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court struck down key provisions of the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, holding that its provisions on rent revision, rent determination and eviction are repugnant to existing Parliamentary law.
A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the 2021 Act, along with provisions providing for eviction by order of the Rent Authority, are repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
Case title - Jitendra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) expressed serious concern over multiple lapses in the medical examination and preservation of forensic evidence concerning an 8-year-old POCSO victim.
The Court described the situation as "deeply disheartening" as it remarked that the lapses represented a “serious failure” in handling vital evidence involving a minor victim.
Case title - Sukaina Rizvi vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a minor Muslim student's plea seeking permission to wear a Hijab (headscarf) with her school uniform, observing that the petitioner had failed to place sufficient material to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice of the Islamic faith.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla also held that a student cannot insist upon modifying a prescribed dress code where it is "uniform, bona fide, nondiscriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity".
Allahabad High Court Doubts Narrative Of Police Encounter, Orders CBI Probe
Case Title: Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619
The Allahabad High Court has questioned a recurring pattern in police encounter cases where police personnel allegedly escape unhurt while a single shot fired by the police ends up hitting the accused in the knee or below.
The Court made the observation while finding serious doubts in the prosecution's account of an alleged police encounter involving an accused who was shot in both legs.
Case Title: Aarambh Agro Purposes Co-Operative Society Ltd and another v. State of U.P. and 13 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620
The Allahabad High Court has held that State authorities who blacklist a firm for an indefinite period in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court act in flagrant disregard of the constitutional mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution.
Article 144 provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the law authoritatively declared by the Supreme Court is, by virtue of that mandate, binding on the State and its officials
Case Title: A v. K 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621
The Allahabad High Court has held that a father, being the natural guardian of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied her custody unless he is shown to be unfit to be her guardian.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,
“In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father has a paramount right to the custody of the children, he cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor child unless it is shown that he is unfit to be her guardian.”
Case Title: Neelabh Gupta vs. Purshottam Das Gupta And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appellate court does not lose its power to grant interim protection in an appeal merely because the application for condonation of delay filed with that appeal is still undecided. An order preserving the subject matter of a proposed appeal, it held, stands apart from an order entertaining or deciding it.
Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“The mere pendency of an application seeking condonation of delay does not, by itself, denude the Appellate Court of the power to pass an appropriate protective order where the circumstances warrant preservation of the subject matter of the proposed appeal.”
Case Title: Ranjana Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623
The Allahabad High Court has held that a clarificatory circular which comes into force after a complaint against a co-bidder is lodged, but before that complaint is finally decided, ordinarily governs the pending complaint.
It held that such a circular would not apply only where it unsettles a right that has already crystallised, or where it is shown to have been framed to defeat an identified complaint.
Case Title: Meisheng Chiang @ Chiang Mei Sheng vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Deptt. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624
The Allahabad High Court has held that the setting aside of a quasi-judicial order by a writ court does not by itself justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer who passed it under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Such proceedings can be directed only where clear, cogent and verifiable facts establish misconduct.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“We find that in case in any successful writ petition where an order of authority below is set aside it cannot ipso facto result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings merely because the authority concerned has passed an order which was contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice or had any other legal infirmities.”
Case Title: St. John S School, Babhanauti, Pachwal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that private schools in Uttar Pradesh affiliated with the CBSE or CISCE are not exempt from the mandate of the RTE Act 2009, which makes education a fundamental right for every child aged 6 to 14 years under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.
The Court directed the State Government to furnish five-year, school-wise data on RTE admissions, including details of children whose admissions were declined or not effected and complaints alleging capitation fee or prohibited screening procedures.
Case title - Vishram Singh vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626
The Allahabad High Court has directed the registration of a criminal contempt case against a man after finding that he filed a review petition in the capacity of a party-in-person containing 'contemptuous' language against a sitting Judge of the High Court.
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed the direction while considering a review petition filed against the Bench's earlier order dated July 9, 2026, by which a special appeal filed (against Single Judge's order) by the petitioner had been dismissed as not maintainable.
Case Title: Lali v. Union Of India Through General Manager North Central Railway 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627
The Allahabad High Court has held that the recovery of a passenger's body in several pieces cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the death fell within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It held that the Railways must establish those exceptions by leading cogent and substantial evidence.
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A makes the railway administration liable to compensate for such a death whether or not it was at fault, subject only to the exceptions in the proviso.
Case title - Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs. Rubi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628
The Allahabad High Court has once again cautioned police authorities and Judicial Officers against a "careless or callous approach" in matters of arrest and remand where the offence carries a maximum punishment of up to 7 years.
The Court's observation was in relation to a habeas corpus plea concerning a juvenile who was repeatedly sent to judicial custody in a case where the maximum punishment was 3 years and, after the addition of another provision, 5 years.
Noida Workers' Protest | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To 'Mazdoor Bigul Dasta' Member In 2 FIRs
Case title - Himanshu Thakur vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to Himanshu Thakur, a member of the workers' union 'Mazdoor Bigul Dasta', in connection with two FIRs arising from the April 2026 industrial workers' protest in Noida.
Both FIRs, Case Crime Nos. 164 and 165 of 2026, concerned alleged mob violence at public places and companies in Gautam Buddha Nagar/Noida, where a large number of workers had allegedly gathered, engaged in stone-pelting and damaged public and company property.
Case title - Birendra Prasad Shukla ,Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Prasad Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630
The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the owner of a building in Lucknow's Aliganj area where a devastating fire claimed 15 lives in June this year, challenging the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)'s demolition order as well as the subsequent demolition action.
The Court, however, permitted the petitioner, Birendra Prasad Shukla (62), the co-owner of the building, to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the law.
Case title - Ashok Kumar vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the 'pugilistic' or 'boxer-like' position of a burnt dead body, by itself, does not establish that the burns were sustained ante-mortem.
The Court said that such a posture of the dead body is a heat artifact which can occur no matter whether a person was alive or already dead when the burning began.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a man against his 1990 conviction for the death of his wife, who suffered extensive burns inside her matrimonial home in 1986.
Case title - Mahendra Kumar Dubey vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632
The Allahabad High Court has directed a preliminary inquiry into discrepancies concerning the issuance, transmission and execution of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, after finding a mismatch between the processes reflected in the trial court's order-sheets and those actually received by the police pertaining to a Criminal Case in Kanpur.
The Court observed that such discrepancies not only affect the rights of accused persons but also raise serious questions regarding the "maintenance and sanctity of the judicial record".
Case title - Shashi Mishra vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633
The Allahabad High Court directed the Sultanpur Bar Association to implement a 30% reservation for women advocates in its Executive Committee and Governing Council. The Court ordered that key posts will be reserved for women candidates on a rotational basis in successive elections.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the directions in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning compliance with the Supreme Court's recent directions in Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka regarding representation of women advocates in Bar Associations.
Case title - Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634
The Allahabad High Court has observed that no adverse inference could be drawn against an accused for failing to explain a circumstance or piece of evidence on which he was not questioned by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while allowing 2 connected criminal appeals and acquitting 3 accused who had been convicted under Section 307 IPC in a 2006 attempt-to-murder case.
Case Title - Krishna Pal and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635
The Allahabad High Court has held that to sustain a conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder), the prosecution must establish that dacoity was the first intention and that the murder was committed in the course of committing the dacoity.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal made the observation while allowing a criminal appeal and acquitting the surviving accused in a 1981 case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary nexus between the alleged dacoity and murder.
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.
Case Title: Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661
The Allahabad High Court has held that codeine-based cough syrup carrying codeine within the permitted limit is not a narcotic drug so long as it is sold or transported for medicinal use, but that the moment it is stocked, sold or transported to be used as an intoxicant, the exemption is lost and it becomes a codeine preparation attracting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Case Title: Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment stood validly made and the appointee could take charge only on the next working day because the intervening day was a public holiday, the holiday cannot by itself postpone the accrual of a service benefit otherwise due to him.
Case Title: Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the real controversy in a suit for injunction is the boundary between two adjoining agricultural holdings, the Civil Court cannot settle that boundary on a map prepared by an Advocate Commissioner.
It held that Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a statutory mechanism of survey and demarcation before the competent Revenue Authority.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664
The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority deciding an application for sanction of a building map has no jurisdiction to hold that ownership of the land is disputed, except where the land belongs to the government or the Gaon Sabha or is the subject matter of proceedings. It held that where the dispute is private, the only question is whether an injunction is in force.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“..the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the ownership of the property is disputed except if the land is either belongs to government of Gaon Sabha or subject matter of any proceedings and in case there is a private dispute, only consideration would be whether there is an order of injunction”
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot dismiss a claim petition at the close of a full trial merely on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, where none of the opposite parties has shown that it suffered any prejudice from the case being tried there.
Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leaves the choice of forum to the claimant. The claim may go to the Tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, to the Tribunal where the claimant resides or carries on business, or to the Tribunal where the defendant resides.
Case Title: Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to undertake an inquiry into the manner in which benefits under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Rules framed thereunder are claimed and disbursed, particularly in cases involving repeated claims by the same persons or their family members.
The direction was passed after a bench of Justice Santosh Rai noted that one Santosh Kumar Dohrey, an advocate by profession, and his family members had received an aggregate ₹23,36,250 in relief/financial assistance across various criminal cases.
Case title - Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667
Rejecting the bail plea of Maulana Taukir Raza Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence case, the Allahabad High Court today observed that the slogan "Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda" cannot be equated with religious slogans such as "Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar", "Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal", "Jai Shri Ram" or "Har Har Mahadev".
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that while these slogans express respect to the concerned God or Guru, the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan was "nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India" and incited people to "an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law".
Case Title: Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668
The Allahabad High Court has held that the service rendered by a government servant before his regularisation, whether as a seasonal, ad-hoc, work-charged or temporary employee, must be counted while determining whether he has the qualifying service required to make him eligible for pension. It held that the pension itself can be computed only on the basis of the regular service rendered by him.
The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, wherein it was clarified that previous ad-hoc or work-charged service is to be counted only towards qualifying service for pension and not towards the amount of pension payable.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669
The Allahabad High Court has held that withdrawing vacancies from a running recruitment, because those posts could not lawfully be filled under the rules named in the advertisement, does not amount to altering the “rules of the game” midway.
It held that correcting the vacancy position is different in kind from changing eligibility or selection criteria. It held that only the latter is barred by the Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.
Case Title: Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670
The Allahabad High Court has held that the protection of prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 is not available to a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis.
It held that the safeguard operates in favour of teachers regularly appointed on the recommendation of the Board, or at least regularised by following the due procedure of law, and that ad hoc teachers appointed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 stand as a separate class.
Case Title: Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671
The Allahabad High Court has held that CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be supplied directly to the applicant when it is covered by the exception contained in Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.
It held that a Court or Commission has the power to call for such footage and to direct its preservation, and may do so once the applicant files a complaint before the appropriate forum.
Case Title: Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person engaged on contract under a government scheme cannot claim a writ of mandamus for continued engagement once the employer has abandoned the scheme. It held that in the absence of any rule, regulation or government order providing for regularisation or absorption, such an engagee has no legal right on which a mandamus can rest.
The Court further held that an employer's decision whether or not to carry on with a scheme cannot be called in question in court unless the engagee shows arbitrariness or discrimination.
Case Title - Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability on a landlord for an accidental death unless the prosecution material discloses a legally attributable negligent act or omission on the part of the owner.
A bench Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation while quashing the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against a landlord in connection with the January 2025 death of a young student, an IIT Aspirant, in a bathroom where a gas geyser was installed.
Case Title: Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a recruitment advertisement, or a notice forming part of it, contains a negative covenant fixing a cut-off date for uploading documents and stipulating that a defaulting candidate loses the right to be shortlisted, an eligibility certificate cannot be filed after that date.
It held that the distinction between existence of eligibility and proof of eligibility does not assist the candidate in such a case, and no extension or relaxation of time is permissible.
Case Title - Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675
The Allahabad High Court has held that even genuine parental concern cannot override the constitutionally protected autonomy of a major individual to choose a life partner.
The Court added that the right to choose one's partner is a facet of personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676
The Allahabad High Court has held that an ad hoc employee regularised under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 cannot claim that his regularisation be treated as effective from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment or from the date on which he became eligible for regularisation.
Case Title: Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677
The Allahabad High Court has held that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force can be dismissed from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which is headed 'Minor punishments'.
It held that the punishments listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) are awardable in addition to, or in lieu of, suspension or dismissal, and are not the only punishments the provision permits.
Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678
The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer of land made during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land is void under Section 5(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It held that the Prescribed Authority cannot validate such a transfer by accepting the choice exercised by the tenure-holder under Section 12-A of the Act.
Case Title - Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, to expeditiously decide ex-IPS officer Amitabh Thakur's challenge to his compulsory retirement, which has been pending before the Tribunal since 2021.
A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order while dealing with a petition filed by Thakur under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking expeditious disposal of his pending Application filed in 2021.
Case Title: Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revisional authority deciding a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has no jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment already rendered by another revisional authority of coordinate jurisdiction in a separate revision arising out of the same appellate order.
Section 219(1) of the Act allows the specified revenue authorities to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and to examine the legality or propriety of the order passed. Sub-section (2) bars a further application under the section by the same person before any other such authority.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681
The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 requires the Inquiry Officer to record the oral evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet in the presence of the charged government servant, and any deviation infringes the principles of natural justice.
It held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be given even where the delinquent employee has not specifically asked for it.
Case Title: Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682
The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against a government servant before his retirement cannot continue after he retires, and no punishment can be imposed on its basis, without the sanction of the Governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.
Regulation 351-A reserves to the Governor the right to withhold or withdraw a pension and to order recovery from a pension of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by a pensioner's misconduct or negligence during service. Departmental proceedings not instituted while the officer was on duty require the Governor's sanction.
Case Title: Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summon the accused even where the police have filed a final report concluding that no case is made out, and that in doing so he is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.
Case Title: Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684
The Allahabad High Court has held that the bar on granting relief at the interim stage which resembles the final relief is not an absolute proposition of law and creates no jurisdictional embargo on the grant of a temporary injunction. It held that the question turns on the facts of each case, with the prima facie case tested at a higher level.
Justice Jaspreet Singh held,
“Thus, to state as a matter of bland proposition that an interim relief which is somewhat similar to the final relief cannot be granted at all would be an incorrect enunciation of law. It was open for the Appellate Court to have discharged the injunction provided it would have considered the facts as well as the material on record and dealt with the findings recorded by the trial court.”
Case Title: Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction or of compensation passed under Section 67(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be executed through the long drawn procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that the Code of 2006 and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 themselves supply the machinery for enforcing such orders.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686
The Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station in District Deoria and the concerned Superintendent of Police (SP), questioning them over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case concerning the illegal detention of 4 petitioners for 10 days.
Case Title: State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be mechanically disqualified from appointment to the police force merely because a criminal case was registered against him.
It held that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which governs verification of the character and antecedents of State Government recruits, provides for an assessment of the candidate's suitability and does not impose a blanket ban on persons against whom a crime has been registered.
Case Title: Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's property where that is expedient to protect his life and limb. It held that the power is not expressly conferred by the Act, but arises as an incident of the right to maintenance and protection.
Case Title: Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689
The Allahabad High Court has held that an agricultural allotment made in 1987 could not be cancelled under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in proceedings started on a private complaint 26 years later, more so where the allottee had by then been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights.
Section 198(6) of the Act fixes the outer limit for issuing a notice to show cause in such proceedings. For an allotment made before November 10, 1980, the notice must issue within seven years of that date; for one made on or after it, within five years of the allotment or lease, or up to November 10, 1987, whichever is later.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690
The Allahabad High Court has held that delay in filing a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the Rules neither expressly exclude the Limitation Act nor create any bar against condonation of delay.
Rule 23(1) of the Rules entitles a police officer whose appeal has been rejected to apply for revision to the superior authority next above the appellate authority, within three months. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies Sections 4 to 24 of that Act, which include Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay, to limitation prescribed by a special or local law, except to the extent expressly excluded by that law.
Case Title: Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691
The Allahabad High Court has held that discriminatory allocation of sugarcane below a mill's estimated requirement cannot be justified on the basis of its low drawl or alleged delay in payment of cane price, particularly where the short allocation itself contributed to the low drawl and affected the mill's ability to make payments.
It further held that sugarcane allocation should account for the fact that only about 60% of the cane supplied is ultimately available for crushing, with the remaining 40% lost to pilferage and other losses.
Case Title: Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692
The Allahabad High Court has held that a defence which, if established, may defeat the plaintiff's claim cannot ordinarily be converted into a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It held that the enquiry rests on the averments in the plaint alone and pleas taken by a defendant in his written statement are not relevant to deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
Case Title: L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693
The Allahabad High Court has held that a court hearing an application to set aside an ex parte decree must decide the question of limitation first, and allowing an application filed 21 years late without any finding on the cause of the delay is a jurisdictional error. It held that until the delay is condoned there is no application before the court in the eye of law.
Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires a court to set aside an ex parte decree if the defendant satisfies it that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.
Case Title - Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of discharge applications filed by police personnel accused of repeatedly beating people in police custody and molesting women.
The Court said that such violence cannot be termed a part of police duty and can only be described as a crime.
Case Title - Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 366 IPC in a 2011 kidnapping case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the absence of third molars (wisdom teeth) could not be made a basis for holding that a person had not attained 18 years. The court added that the mere presence of axillary and pubic hair could not lead to an inference that the same were not fully developed.
Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696
The Allahabad High Court has held that a third person asserting an independent title over a rented property does not become a necessary or proper party to an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court only because that title clashes with the landlord's.
It held that impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to carry a separate title dispute into a suit limited to the landlord-tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction.
Case Title - Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697
The Allahabad High Court has held that Bar Association membership disputes are private in nature and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court sadi that disputes concerning membership, suspension or debarment of members do not involve any public law element.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging his 1-year debarment from the membership of the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
UP Govt Persistent In Using 'Goondas Act' As A 'Tool Of Oppression': Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the Goondas Act, observing that numerous cases before the Court indicate that the State is "persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression".
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while quashing orders passed against a Gonda resident, declaring him a 'Goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and externing him from Gonda district for six months.
Case Title: Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699
The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher who did not possess the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification at the time of appointment is saved where the teacher clears the TET before 31.03.2015, the time limit available under the first proviso to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the State's Government Order dated 05.12.2012.
Case Title : Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700
The Allahabad High Court has held that a regular license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is required for a large-scale slaughterhouse operating beyond the prescribed capacity for a 'petty food business' and that a mere registration certificate cannot authorize such activity.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that the Fundamental right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not dispense with a valid licensing requirement imposed in the interest of food safety and public health.
Case Title : Smt Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of a suit pending before a Court of Small Causes, does not constitute a “case decided” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
Case Title : Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Nagar Panchayat has the authority to licence and regulate cattle markets within its local limits under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, while dismissing a challenge to the license granted for holding a cattle market.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a petition challenging orders dated December 2025 and March 2026, which authorized respondent no. 7 to hold a cattle market at a place in Mahavan town, Mathura district on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Case Title - Mohd. Anzar Ahmed vs. Principal Secretary Basic Education And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703
The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a teacher who was suspended over allegations that students at the school were performing Islamic prayers and wearing uniforms indicating that they belonged to a "special community".
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan directed that the departmental inquiry against the teacher be concluded at the earliest, preferably within 15 days, and ordered that the suspension order remain in abeyance till the conclusion of the inquiry.
Case Title - Shashi Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the multiplication of "optional and non-compulsive litigation” is creating an unwarranted burden on Family Courts and causing delay in the disposal of matters.
A bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a woman seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an execution case concerning maintenance payable by her husband.
Does Conversion Automatically End Scheduled Tribe Status? Allahabad High Court Answers
Case title - Nanhki @ Naimunnisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others along with connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705
The Allahabad High Court has observed that conversion to another religion, by itself, does not automatically end a person's Scheduled Tribe (ST) status.
The Court said that whether a person continues to remain a member of a ST is a question of fact, to be determined by examining the essential attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organization, community life and acceptance by the concerned tribal community
Case title - Adil @ Seeran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Government, while considering a convict's plea for premature release, cannot restrict its consideration to the nature of the crime and the convict's conduct in jail.
The Court added that the authority must take a "far more broad based and holistic" view and consider the wider circumstances relevant to the convict's reformation and possible reintegration into society.
Case Title - Abhishek Tyagi vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Goondas Act is being used as a tool of oppression by the Uttar Pradesh bureaucrats and the State despite the Court's consistent rulings on the issue.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held that the bureaucracy must stop issuing illegal and arbitrary orders, or else it will have to face punitive damages.
"This Court has uptill now refrained from imposing damages on the bureaucrats who are continuously passing whimsical orders in purported exercise of power vested under the Act of 1970, but now time has come when a strong message is required to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop doing this or otherwise face punitive damages for arbitrary and illegal exercise of the power under the Act of 1970", the bench observed.
'He Voluntarily Embraced Islam' : Allahabad High Court Frees Ayush Malik From Home Confinement
Case title - Ayush Malik And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
The Allahabad High Court has set at liberty a 31-year-old man named Ayush Malik after he told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and alleged that his father subsequently subjected him to threats and unlawful confinement.
The Court noted that the material placed before it further indicated that Malik has been "residing under police presence at his house".
Case title - Mubarak Ali vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man who had been in jail for about 2.5 years in a case involving allegations that he sent an email containing derogatory remarks against Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal allowed the bail application of Mubarak Ali, who was booked in 2024 under Sections 153A, 295A, 505(2), 504, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti Thru. President Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710
The Allahabad High Court has held that landowners whose land is compulsorily acquired under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 must be given monetary as well as non-monetary compensation on the same parameters as those prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
It held that any other view would result in arbitrary and hostile discrimination and would not be sustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Princy Thru. Her Husband Gurpreet Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711
The Allahabad High Court has set a major woman, who said she was illegally detained by her father after marrying a man of a different religion, at liberty, while observing that an adult woman has the legal right to choose whom she wants to live with.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by one Princy through her husband/next friend Gurpreet Singh. The Court directed that she be set at liberty from her father's custody, after she categorically stated that she wanted to live with her husband.
Case Title: Smt. Kamla Devi And Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712
The Allahabad High Court has held that the profession or social standing of a person killed in a motor accident cannot by itself determine his income for the purpose of computing compensation.
It held that income has to be established by evidence on record and that an Income Tax Return, though relevant, does not by itself prove the income disclosed in it.
Case Title - Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS 'mandatory', observing that such a step would make criminal investigations more transparent and fair.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the direction while dealing with a bail application filed by a woman accused in a dowry-related case.
Case Title - Karan Singh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Tuesday rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by a Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel accused in a case concerning the alleged custodial death of a man in Gonda, observing that the "plague of custodial death does not show any sign of abating".
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) SC-ST Act, challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gonda.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the penalty of censure and withholding of one salary increment with cumulative effect imposed on a State Tax officer, holding that a charge of not complying with oral directions issued in video conferencing meetings cannot be sustained where neither the dates of those meetings nor their minutes were placed on record. It held that such an order rests on hypothetical charges.
Case Title: Bhavna Pandit vs. State of U.P. and 16 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716
The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash the elections to the executive body of the Civil Bar Association, Bulandshahr, in which no woman lawyer was elected as an office bearer, holding that the requirement of 30% representation for women stood fulfilled by the nomination of four women advocates to the body within four days of the poll.
Case Title - Anil Mithas vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application of Unnati Fortune Holdings Ltd.'s main promoter and builder, Anil Mithas, who faces money laundering charges under the PMLA over the alleged diversion of ₹126.30 crore belonging to homebuyers.
In a significant observation, the bench said that white-collar crime has "grown too pervasive and too costly" to be met with anything less than "firm, uncompromising enforcement".
Case Title - Babboo Shah vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718
The Allahabad High Court slammed the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM) posted in Bahraich district for being 'unmindful' of Constitutional Court Judgments requiring application of mind and display of fairness while approving gang charts under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur noted that neither the SP nor the DM had indicated any "reason, deliberation or application of mind" to the criminal history of an accused while approving the gang chart in a 2021 case.
Case Title - Anuj Kumar Tiwari @Gulu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted short-term bail to an attempt to murder accused lodged in jail to enable him to appear for the UP Homeguard recruitment physical test.
The Court directed that he be released from jail at 4:30 AM and remain in police custody throughout the period.
Case Title - Neha Mishra vs. Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor Central Office Building Mumbai And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720
The Allahabad High Court last week directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to refund ₹19,90,693 that it had debited from a widow's fixed deposit towards her deceased husband's outstanding personal loan and to pay ₹1 Lakh as compensation.
The Court held that the Bank had no legal basis to recover the husband's dues straightaway from the wife's account.
Case Title: Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the certificate on which a public appointment rests is found to be forged, the appointment is void ab initio and its cancellation is not a punitive termination attracting the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It held that a show-cause notice and compliance with the broad principles of natural justice are sufficient.
The Court added that this applies only where the forgery is conclusively established, and not where the material shows a mere discrepancy calling for verification.
Case Title: Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722
The Allahabad High Court has held that where more dependants apply for compassionate appointment than there are posts earmarked for them, requiring the candidates to sit in an objective type test is not an unreasonable way of choosing between them.
It rejected the challenge to the note appended to rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, which restricts such appointments to 5 per cent of the posts filled every year by direct recruitment.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia and 2 others vs. Suresh Kapoor and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a tenant enters into an agreement to purchase the tenanted property from his landlord, the mere execution of the agreement does not bring the tenancy to an end, nor does it make the tenant's possession one in part performance of the agreement under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
It held that the tenant must prove that the tenancy was expressly or impliedly surrendered and that his possession thereafter flowed from the agreement to sell.
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appointment obtained on the strength of genuine qualifications cannot be cancelled merely because the appointee did not disclose that an earlier appointment of his had been cancelled, where that fact had no bearing on his eligibility or selection.
It held that such non-disclosure can justify cancellation only if a clear and direct link is shown between the omission and the securing of the appointment.
Case Title: Harpal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the original tenure holder was dispossessed under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the U.P. Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and took no steps against the dispossession, his legal heirs cannot seek a writ of mandamus for correction of revenue entries or claim the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
It held that failure to object to the dispossession within a reasonable time amounts to waiver of the right to question it.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Chaudhary v. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gorakhpur And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726
The Allahabad High Court has held that deeming provision under Rule 10(5)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 cannot be used to validate the appointment of a teacher which was made without following the mandatory reservation conditions attached to the post.
Case Title: Ram Naresh Singh and 5 others v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727
The Allahabad High Court has held that Rules 5.1 and 5.4.1(i) and (ii) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which allow the Railway Claims Tribunal to release only a part of the awarded compensation and park the rest in fixed deposit depending on the claimant's literacy and financial condition, discriminate between claimants and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
The Allahabad High Court has held that a passport does not guarantee spontaneous passage across border for a person who has criminal cases pending against him. It held that while the grant of passport cannot be denied merely due to pendency of criminal case, the police can apply to court for surrender of passport to prevent the person from leaving the country.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“The mere grant of a passport does not arm the holder with a spontaneous passage across borders. It requires applications for visas from the host country and also immigration procedures. In the event of the holder of the passport is endeavoring to travel abroad, it is always open to the Police or the other prosecuting agency involved to move the Court for the purpose of requiring the holder of the passport to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from leaving Indian shores.”
Case Title: Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint against a Class-I officer of the State which is not backed by an affidavit, as required by the Government Orders governing complaints against Group-A officers, cannot be made the basis of a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the matter has not been placed before the State Vigilance Committee for approval.
It quashed the vigilance enquiry against an IAS officer on a complaint the complainant later admitted was made under a wrong impression.
Case Title: Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to retirement benefits flows from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not linked to the post held.
It directed the State to pay pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that there was no vacant post against which he could have been appointed, noting that he had served for almost 30 years.
Case Title - Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely producing a marriage certificate issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir cannot establish that a valid marriage was solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court said that the essential ceremonies prescribed for a Hindu marriage must be performed.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed thus while quashing the removal of an officer of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) who had been removed from service on the ground that he had made a false declaration about his marital status.
Case Title - Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an interfaith same-sex couple has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live together in a peaceful live-in relationship, observing that family members, relatives, or other persons cannot interfere with the couple's choice to live together.
A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the order while dealing with a writ petition filed by a lesbian couple, who sought protection from alleged threats and harassment by private respondents.
Case Title - Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned against compelling employees to wear Santa Claus red caps in the workplace, observing that such compulsion may hurt the sentiments of people of different faiths and beliefs.
"…this type of action is not permitted in the democratic system of the country wherein every citizen is free to follow his/her faith and belief", a bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cooperative society is divided under Section 126 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the original society also becomes a new body corporate, even if it is allowed to keep its old name and registration number.
It held that upon such division, the delegates of the original society cease to be delegates under Rule 87(ix) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 and cannot continue as members of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank under Rule 453(1)(h).
Case Title - Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
The Allahabad High Court ordered the State Government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a man who was kept in illegal police detention for 5 days, from August 15-August 19, 2026, before being produced before the concerned Magistrate.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar, who alleged that he was unlawfully picked up by 2 armed policemen from his medical shop on August 15.
Case Title: Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legislator who voluntarily gives up membership of his political party incurs disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is only in respect of the House of which he is then a member, and is not thereby barred from contesting an election to Parliament.
It held that Article 102(2) of the Constitution disqualifies such a person only from being a member, and not from being chosen as one.
Case Title: Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
The Allahabad High Court has held that sale of surplus land which has been declared void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be revived by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Section 10(4) of the Act deems any transfer of excess vacant land made during this period to be null and void. Noting that the Repeal Act is silent on such transfers, the Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment.
Case Title - Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant's plea that possession was never handed over under an executed rent deed, and that no landlord-tenant relationship therefore came into existence, raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“The plea of non-delivery of possession raised by the petitioner falls in the latter category. If established, the plea may have a bearing upon the respondent's entitlement to succeed in the rent proceedings. Its determination, however, would necessarily involve an examination of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the rent deed, the conduct of the parties and such other material as may properly be brought on record. The possibility that the defence may ultimately succeed cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. when the respondent's case, as pleaded, discloses the factual basis of the relief claimed.”
Case Title - Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two persons who were booked after allegedly visiting the Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court observed that they were "falsely implicated" on the basis of "presumption and assumption".
Case Title - Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
The Allahabad High Court has held that a divorced woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her former husband even where the divorce was granted on the ground of her desertion, provided she has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman whose maintenance claim had been rejected by the Family Court, Sultanpur.
Case Title - Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the online application form for police recruitment only required a candidate to declare that he had never been convicted, his failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot by itself be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression.
It held that cancellation of candidature on such ground must reflect consideration of the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and an order merely reciting the criminal case is arbitrary.
Case Title - Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
The Allahabad High Court has held that a doctor who pursues postgraduate medical education at a government institution at subsidized rates cannot escape a compulsory government service bond merely because of administrative delays in offering a posting after completing the education.
At the same time, the Court held that a doctor cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the mandatory counselling process for allocation of government service
Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Facing FIR Over Allegedly Fake Law Degree
Case Title - Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer facing an FIR over an allegedly fake law degree. The Court observed that the mere fact that the degree was returned 'unverified' from the University was not sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to establish that the document was forged.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla passed the order while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by one Gaurang Brijvasi in connection with an FIR registered under BNS for the offences of Cheating and Forgery.
Case Title: Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
The Allahabad High Court has held that the guidelines laid down by its bench in Rishi Pal Singh v. State of U.P. for proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not mandatory unless adopted by the State, and an eviction order cannot be assailed merely because they were not followed.
Relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in Shahban v. State of U.P., the Court held that such proceedings are to be decided as per the procedure under the Code and the Rules framed thereunder.
Case Title - Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere fact that evidence has been closed and the suit has reached the stage of final arguments does not by itself bar a court from granting leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to bring additional documents on record.
It held that such a late request calls for closer scrutiny, but the court must also examine whether the delay was bona fide, whether the document is relevant and whether any prejudice to the other side can be cured by safeguards.
Case Title: Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a departmental enquiry, the burden is on the management to first establish the charges and the foundational facts on which they rest, and the delinquent employee cannot be required to disprove allegations that have not been proved against him.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer whose charges were premised on his having worked as System Administrator, a fact which the Bank had failed to prove even before a civil court.
Case Title - Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a mother who was sentenced to death for killing her three children while stating that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that the testimony of the 8-year-old surviving child witness suffered from "irreconcilable contradictions" and exhibited "clear hallmarks of tutoring".
Case title - Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a woman and her alleged paramour in a murder case involving her husband, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting them with the crime.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the judgment of the trial court, which had convicted Hasnera alias Shabana and Shahrukh for the murder of Hasnera's husband, Naeem, and sentenced both to life imprisonment.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today permitted 'The Wire' editor Siddharth Varadarajan to travel to New York, USA, in connection with his scheduled programme.
Varadarajan remains on anticipatory bail in criminal cases arising from a 2020 report and tweets concerning Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Case Title: M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tendering authority cannot cancel a tender at an advanced stage merely because it had wrongly fixed the Performance Bank Guarantee (ePBG) in the bid document. It held that the ePBG is a performance security with no bearing on a bidder's eligibility or ranking, and an error in it can be corrected without re-tendering.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“Correcting the percentage upward, at the tendering authority's own admitted error, and at the volunteered instance of the petitioner, does not touch the essential fabric of the selection process. It is, in essence, curing an error of the author of the tender document, not amending a term that shaped the competitive field.”
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a person is selected through an advertisement for a regular vacancy against a sanctioned post under the applicable service rules, the employer cannot later treat him as a contractual employee merely by describing his engagement as ad hoc or contractual in successive orders. It held that an employee who accepts consolidated remuneration out of economic necessity does not thereby give up his statutory right to the prescribed pay scale.
Case Title - Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
The Allahabad High Court has ordered payment of a separate ₹8 lakh compensation for the loss of an unborn child after a pregnant woman died in a railway accident. The bench reiterated that an unborn child of more than five months in the womb is to be treated as a child in existence for the purpose of compensation.
The Court started that the death of the 7-month-old foetus was an independent loss apart from the death of the mother and consequently directed the Railways to pay an additional ₹8 lakh under the applicable compensation rules.
Case title - Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an independent and discreet inquiry into the circumstances in which a vehicle seized in an excise case was taken out of police custody for a police raid and subsequently involved in a fatal accident.
The Court observed that the circumstances surrounding the removal and use of the seized vehicle raised "serious questions", particularly as the vehicle was later involved in an accident in which a woman died.
Case title - Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
The Allahabad High Court has observed that experience acquired while working in Punjab National Bank (PNB) cannot be counted as experience in a "government office" for the purpose of the specific eligibility condition prescribed in an advertisement for the post of Registrar, Higher Education Department, Government of UP.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak was hearing a writ petition filed by Satya Prakash, whose candidature for the post of Registrar (Higher Education) had been rejected on the ground that his experience did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.
Case title - Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be held 'negligent' merely for failing to act when there was no information or intelligence requiring him to take action.
"The Police do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act cannot be termed as negligence", a bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh said.
The Court thus set aside a punishment of censure imposed on a police officer who had been held responsible for failing to prevent the subsequent collection of explosives that later caused a fatal explosion.
Case Title: Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Medical Assessment Board constituted under the National Medical Commission's guidelines for admission of persons with benchmark disabilities to the MBBS course cannot re-determine the percentage of disability already certified under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
It held that the Board's mandate is confined to assessing the functional competency of the candidate to pursue the course, and re-quantifying disability is an excess of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of a vehicle who was himself travelling in it when beef was recovered cannot resist confiscation under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 by pleading that the meat belonged to passengers who had hired the vehicle.
It held that once the seized meat is confirmed to be beef by an authorised laboratory, the presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act is attracted against him, and it is for him to displace it by cogent evidence.
Case Title: Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed examination questions and answer options cannot be referred to an expert unless there are facts before the Court warranting such a reference.
Dismissing the writ petition of a NEET-UG 2026 candidate, it held that an objection to the answer keys raised by one candidate, examined and rejected by the National Testing Agency and echoed by no other, did not call for interference.
Case Title: Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
The Allahabad High Court has held that a senior citizen who alleges that a gift deed of his property is a forgery cannot have it declared void by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
It held that Section 23(1) of the Act presupposes a valid transfer made on the condition that the transferee will provide the senior citizen basic amenities and basic physical needs, and is attracted only where that condition is broken. It held that a plea that the deed was never executed at all lies before the civil court.
Case Title - Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
The Allahabad High Court has protected the peaceful marital life of a divorced couple with two children who subsequently remarried each other. The Court, however, remarked that the "pious institution of marriage should not be taken lightly".
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the couple seeking protection of their peaceful marital life and assistance in registering their marriage.
Case Title - Fanindra Das vs. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761
The Allahabad High Court observed that electricity is "an indispensable need" in modern times, as it directed the North Eastern Railway to provide an electricity connection to a man who had been forced to live without electricity for more than a decade.
A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran observed that the right to life under Article 21 is not confined to merely meeting a person's basic animal needs and includes access to essential civic amenities such as electricity, sanitation, roads, clean surroundings, sufficient light, and pure air and water.
Case Title - Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762
The Allahabad High Court has discharged Congress MP from Sitapur, Rakesh Rathore, in a 2025 rape case, observing that the story "cooked up" by the complainant is so 'absurd' that it cannot be believed by any person of ordinary prudence.
The Court added that the prosecution material indicated a "long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages".
Case title - M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admin. U.P. Lko. and others and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763
The Allahabad High Court has held that hookah bars cannot operate in Uttar Pradesh and hookah services can not be provided even in "Designated Smoking Areas".
The Court stressed that the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air in a public place cannot be abridged by the commercial interests of an establishment claiming a right to trade.
Case Title - Nirmala Devi vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a dowry death case against a mother-in-law, holding that the fact that a woman died from shock resulting from myocardial infarction (heart attack) could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof at the quashing stage that her death was purely natural.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that where a young woman dies within seven years of marriage amid specific allegations of dowry-related cruelty or harassment, it cannot automatically be presumed at the initial stage that her death was purely natural merely because the medical opinion attributes it to myocardial infarction.
Case Title : V v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order handing over custody of a ten-year-old girl to her father, holding that where the only reason for shifting custody was the interruption of the child's schooling, the Court was first required to examine whether her studies could continue while she remained with her mother, particularly when the child had said she wished to live with the mother.
Case Title : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager/Asstt. Manager vs. Smt. Vijay Kumari and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766
The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurance company which issued a policy recording the seating capacity of a tractor as “1+1” and received premium on that basis cannot afterwards deny liability for the death of a passenger by relying on the registration certificate, which showed the seating capacity as one person.
Case Title : Rama Shankar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee appointed on an ad hoc basis cannot be directly confirmed in service. It held that a confirmation order which is not traceable to any recruitment, service or regularization rules is void ab initio and confers no legally enforceable right.
Case Title : Smt. Smita Wadhawan vs. Smt Rani Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768
The Allahabad High Court has held that the sixty-day timeline for disposal of cases by the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal under Section 33(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 is directory and not mandatory in nature.
Section 33(2) of the Act requires the Rent Authority or the Rent Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of a case as expeditiously as possible and within not more than sixty days of receipt of the application or appeal, and its proviso requires written reasons to be recorded where that does not happen.
Case Title : Archana Rao and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769
The Allahabad High Court has held that the responsibility for maintaining a minor child cannot be fastened exclusively on either parent, observing that both parents are ordinarily required to contribute towards the child's maintenance according to their respective means and financial capacity.
The Court further held that an earning mother cannot altogether disclaim her responsibility to contribute towards the maintenance and other expenses of her children, particularly where her income is higher than that of the father.
Case Title : Sudha Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770
The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority which itself holds a government order inapplicable to a party cannot then fix rent on the strength of justification certificates founded on the very clause of that order. It held that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.
Clause 14 of the Government Order dated 02.05.2018 caps enhancement of rent at 20% of the previously sanctioned rent or the amount recommended in the justification certificate, whichever is less. In an earlier round of litigation in the petitioner's own case, a coordinate Bench had read the clause as applying to godowns taken on rent with effect from 14.07.2015.
Case Title : Raghvendra Dubey And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771
The Allahabad High Court has laid down safeguards for the police to follow when CCTV surveillance at a police station is not functioning. The Court directed that details of persons brought to the station for interrogation or arrested must be recorded contemporaneously in the General Diary (GD).
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that once a CCTV system is functional within a police station, it must remain operational "24/7 X 365 days".
Case Title : Pappu Met @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772
The Allahabad High Court has called for a 'recalibration' of the Chief Justice-centric model of High Court administration as it emphasized the need for a more deliberative, institutionally balanced and participative approach, coupled with stronger institutional accountability.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar made this observation in a judgment arising from four cases in which it flagged issues like delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and also raised broader questions of judicial discipline.
NOMINAL INDEX
Lal Chand Yadav vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 341
Bhanwar Singh vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Suhail vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343
Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344
Tayyab vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 345
Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association v. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 346
Baldev Raj Arora vs. Cbi/ Acb Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Committee Of Management And Another vs State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348
M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Netra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Asif Ansari v. Himanshu Sharma and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Amarnath v. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Information Commissioner And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Ajeet Nigam v. Additional District Judge And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Romil Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Mithai Lal And Others v. D.D.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Smt. Meenu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 397
M/s Sardar Baldev Singh and Co. Thru. Prop. Sri Karamjeet Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Executive Director and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 398
State of U.P. vs Babloo @ Ashok Singh and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 399
Krishna Kumar Mishra And Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Admin. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 400
Satyendra Nath Shukla Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 401
Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 402
Saurabh Pal Singh vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403
Pinki Alias Preeti Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Chandra Bhan and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 405
A vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Thru. Secy. New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 406
Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 407
Lal Babu Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 408
Mashu @ Aman Joshi vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
Sunil Kumar Jain And 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410
Kusum vs State Of U.P. and 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 411
Yaseen And Another Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 412
Kali Charan and others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413
Niranjan Das v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Razzak Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 415
Kammu and 11 others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417
Roji Bano And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v Central Bureau of Investigation Lucknow and a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 419
Asharaf Khan Alais Nisrat vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 420
Gajendra vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 421
Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422
Pidilite Industries Ltd. Thru Spl.Attorney Sri Sachin Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Legal Metrology Andor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Haji Iqbal Alias Bala vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 424
Satish Gupta v. Praveen Kumar Singhal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 426
Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 427
Sunil vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 428
Santosh and 4 others v. Smt. Asha Rani and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Sunbeam School v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 431
Mohammad Kafeel Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Umesh Vidyarthi Versus Madhubala And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 433
Rameshwar Dutt Awasthi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 434
Pardeshi v. D.D.C and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 435
Bashiran and another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 436
Dinesh Chandra Shukla and 3 others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 437
Jai Shakti Realcon v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 438
Rahul Kumar Saroj Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 439
Gyanmati @ Sangathiya Versus State of U.P. (along with connected appeal) 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 440
Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441
Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Shri Chitrakoot Ramlila Samiti And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 443
Roshanlal and others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 444
VSC vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 445
Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446
Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Shri Ram Prakash and 3 others v. Smt. Asha Johri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 448
State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449
Babu and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450
Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451
M/S Calcutta Springs Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Nirmal Kumar Gope vs. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Railways New Delhi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 452
M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 453
Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 454
Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 455
Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456
Faishal Beg vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 457
Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 458
Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459
Gulzar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 460
Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 461
Chhotka vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 462
Lokendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 463
Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 464
Rohit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 465
Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466
X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467
Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
M/s Drosia India Limited Thru. Director Mr. Waheedul Hasan Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 469
Shaheen Siddiqui and 7 others v. State of U.P. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 470
Pawan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 471
Anand Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Deputy Registrar Firms Chits And Society Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 472
M/s Shahi Export House (Now Known As Shahi Export Pvt. Ltd.) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 473
Dr Tanzeem Fatima v. Aligarh Muslim University Thru Vice Chancellor And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 474
Babu Lal vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 475
Rakesh Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Bux Ullah Alias Burey Ali vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
Shikha Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 478
Baijanth v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 479
Shivpoojan Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 480
Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Saubhangini Shukla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482
Arun Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Jai Ram v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
U.P. State Highways Authority v. M/s Abhijeet Meerut Karnal Toll Road Limited 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 485
State of U.P. v. The Addl. Commissioner J Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 486
Reena Devi Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
Ramesh Chand Sachdeva v. Alok Prakash
Subhash Singh and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 490
Divya Priyadarshini Singh @ Zainab Fatma vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 491
Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 492
Mohd. Yaseen and others v. Mohd. Asif and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 493
Laxmikant Aggarwal vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Hari Narayan Tiwari vs State Information Commission U.P. Thru. Chairman And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 496
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 497
State of U.P. and 8 others v. Sant Lal Sonkar and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 498
U.P. Public Works Deptt. through Chief Engineer Central Zone Lko. v. M/s Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., through Signatory Sandeep Anne 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 499
: Hanuman Prasad Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 500
Preeti Mishra and another v. Vishnu Kant Tripathi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 501
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 502
Triveni And Other vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503
Gudia Goswami and 293 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 504
Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505
Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506
Biswajit Chowdhury vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507
Anup Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508
Anupam Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509
Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510
Nagendra Kumar Yaqdav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511
Pradeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512
Ram Prasad and Anr. vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513
Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P. Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
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
Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Kalyan Health Care Products Pharmaceuticals Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of U P and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda through its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613
Jhanvi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614
Durgesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615
Inder Bhushan Sawhney vs. Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615
Jitendra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617
Sukaina Rizvi vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618
Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619
Aarambh Agro Purposes Co-Operative Society Ltd and another v. State of U.P. and 13 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620
A v. K 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621
Neelabh Gupta vs. Purshottam Das Gupta And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622
Ranjana Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623
Meisheng Chiang @ Chiang Mei Sheng vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Deptt. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624
St. John S School, Babhanauti, Pachwal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625
Vishram Singh vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626
Lali v. Union Of India Through General Manager North Central Railway 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627
Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs. Rubi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628
Himanshu Thakur vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629
Birendra Prasad Shukla ,Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Prasad Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630
Ashok Kumar vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631
Mahendra Kumar Dubey vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632
Shashi Mishra vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633
Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634
Krishna Pal and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635
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 (AB) 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
Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661
Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662
Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663
Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664
Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665
Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666
Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667
Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668
Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669
Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670
Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671
Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672
Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673
Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674
Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676
Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677
Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678
Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679
Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681
Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682
Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683
Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684
Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686
State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687
Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688
Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689
Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690
Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691
Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692
L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693
Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694
Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695
Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696
Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697
Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698
Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699
Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700
Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701
Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702
Mohd. Anzar Ahmed vs. Principal Secretary Basic Education And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703
Shashi Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704
Nanhki @ Naimunnisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others along with connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705
Adil @ Seeran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706
Abhishek Tyagi vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707
Ayush Malik And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
Mubarak Ali vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709
Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti Thru. President Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710
Princy Thru. Her Husband Gurpreet Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711
Smt. Kamla Devi And Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712
Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713
Karan Singh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714
Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715
Bhavna Pandit vs. State of U.P. and 16 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716
Anil Mithas vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717
Babboo Shah vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718
Anuj Kumar Tiwari @Gulu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719
Neha Mishra vs. Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor Central Office Building Mumbai And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720
Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721
Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722
Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia and 2 others vs. Suresh Kapoor and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723
Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724
Harpal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725
Anil Kumar Chaudhary v. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gorakhpur And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726
Ram Naresh Singh and 5 others v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727
Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746
Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749
M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
Fanindra Das vs. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761
Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762
M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admin. U.P. Lko. and others and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763
Nirmala Devi vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764
V v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager/Asstt. Manager vs. Smt. Vijay Kumari and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766
Rama Shankar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767
Smt. Smita Wadhawan vs. Smt Rani Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768
Archana Rao and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769
Sudha Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770
Raghvendra Dubey And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771
Pappu Met @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772
