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

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Lucknow Development Authority Can't Levy Interest On Auction Sale Consideration Before Issuing Allotment Letter: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Challan For Speeding Above 60 Kmph On Yamuna Expressway, Says State Can Prescribe Lower Speed Limits

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.

Courts Can't Direct CBI To Secure Prosecution Sanction: Allahabad High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-DM In Illegal Sand Mining Case

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.

Allahabad High Court Defers Raebareli Bar Treasurer Poll, Orders Examination Of Lawyer's Objection To Voter List Exclusion

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.

Labour Court Must First Decide Fairness Of Domestic Inquiry Before Examining Merits Of Charges: Allahabad High Court

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.

AMU Statute Requiring Two-Third Majority Of Executive Council To Terminate Teacher Not Arbitrary: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Sends 82 Y/O Murder Convict Back To Jail After 40 Yrs; Says It Can't Reduce Sentence By Invoking Article 142

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).

Suppressing Advocate Status To File Pleas In Clients' Interests Is 'Gross Abuse' Of PIL Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Reduces Jail Term Of Cop Convicted In 1984 Attempt-To-Murder Case; Victim To Get ₹35,000 Compensation

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.

Maternity Leave For Second Child Can't Be Denied For Want Of Two-Year Gap Under UP Financial Handbook: Allahabad High Court

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.

Cooperative Bank Can't Recover More Than Double The Principal From Farmer-Borrowers Till Reform Committee Reports: Allahabad High Court

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%.

Surcharge Recovery From Pradhan For Loss Caused To Gram Sabha Fund Must Follow Procedure Under Panchayat Raj Act: Allahabad High Court

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.

Suspension Of Sentence Plea Needn't Get Preference If Parties Are Ready To Argue Appeal/ Revision On Merits: Allahabad High Court

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.

Police Have No Business Being 'Nosy Parkers': Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR, Slams Probe Into Consenting Adults' Marriage

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.

Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Enforcement Of Court Sitting Hours; Says Mandamus Against HC Judges Can't Be 'Countenanced'

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".

UP Education Act | List Of Teachers Issued By Principal Not Seniority List; No Acquiescence For Failure To Object: Allahabad High Court

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.

1976 Amendment To UP Ceiling Act Is Retrospective, Fresh Determination Of Surplus Land Not Barred By Res Judicata: Allahabad High Court

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.

Fair Price Shop Dealership | Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: Allahabad High Court

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.

UP Tenancy Act | Third Party Claiming Independent Title Not A Necessary Or Proper Party To Eviction Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

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.

Return Of Plaint Not Sole Remedy Where Court Lacks Pecuniary Jurisdiction; Suit Can Be Transferred U/S 24(5) CPC: Allahabad High Court

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.

Standing Guard To Facilitate Rape Attracts Common Intention Liability U/S 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In 1984 Case

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.

S. 8 UP Anti-Conversion Law | Representation To DM Can't Substitute Pre-Conversion Declaration In Schedule-I Format: Allahabad High Court

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.

Refusing To Defer Physical Test For Pregnant Candidate Forces Her To Choose Between Motherhood & Employment, Not Justified: Allahabad High Court

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.

National Highways Act | Competent Authority Can't Decide Disputed Compensation Shares, Must Refer Matter To Civil Court: Allahabad High Court

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.

'Taxing Justice At Ad-Valorem Rates Is Harsh': Allahabad High Court Urges UP Govt To Ease Burden Of Civil Litigation

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.

S.125 CrPC | Woman Can't Claim Maintenance As Live-In Partner Without Pleading Or Proving Such Relationship: Allahabad High 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.”

No Limitation Period For Filing Writ Petition U/Article 226, But Inordinate Delay Can Be Fatal: Allahabad High Court

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.

'Black Day' In Allahabad High Court History: Judge Recuses From Hearing Bail Matters After Parties Attempt To Approach Him

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.

Once Posts Merge Into One Cadre, State Can't Prescribe Different Pay Scales Based On Pre-Merger Status: Allahabad High Court

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.

Retired Govt Servant Can't Get Gratuity During Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings, Seriousness Of Offence Irrelevant: Allahabad High Court

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.

Subsequent Suit Arising From Same Document Should Ordinarily Be Heard By Court Hearing Earlier Suit: Allahabad High Court

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.

Does Anyone Still Call Advocacy A Noble Profession?: Allahabad High Court Orders Perjury Action Against Lawyers For Playing Fraud On Court

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?"

Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband Sentenced To Life Term For Killing Wife In 1979, Cites 4-Year Delay In FIR

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.

Gram Panchayat Population Must Be Determined On Basis Of Last Published Census, Not Actual Head Count As On Date: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Says Licensed Gun Can't Be Used For 'Joy Firing'; Licensee Must Maintain Ammunition Records

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.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term For Man Who Strangled Live-In Partner, Her Mother & 2 Minor Children In 2009

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.

Notarized Affidavits Accepted: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Litigants Need Not Travel For Photo Verification Before Filing Writ Petitions

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.

Disproportionate Assets Case | Mere Reduction In Alleged Excess Assets During Probe No Ground For Discharge: Allahabad High Court

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.

No Illegal Detention: Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband's Habeas Corpus Plea After Noting Wife Voluntarily Left Matrimonial Home

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.

S. 180 BNSS | Police Must Record Witnesses' Version In Their Own Language, Not Put Inculpatory Leading Questions: Allahabad High Court

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.

Non-Functional CCTV Cameras, Electricity Backup Facilities In Police Stations Reflect Dereliction Of Duty By SPs: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Govt Teacher's Suspension Over Social Media Posts Alleging Misdeeds By BJP Leader

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'.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term Of Father, Brother In 'Honour Killing' Of 2 Minor Girls; Relies On Pre- & Post-Crime Conduct

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.

OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK

Lucknow Court Violence | High Court Orders IB Inquiry Into 4 Accused Advocates, Says It's Time To Identify 'Black Sheep' In Bar

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday ordered a discreet inquiry by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) into the antecedents and activities of 4 advocates accused of assaulting a litigant inside the Lucknow district court premises on July 21. The Court also directed them to disclose their Income Tax Returns (ITR) of the last 10 years, assets, businesses and property transactions.

The directions came in the Court's suo motu proceedings arising out of the July 21 violence inside the Lucknow district court campus, where a litigant, Mohd. Shakir, was allegedly assaulted by a group of advocates.

50K Final Reports Pending For Orders In Lucknow Courts Alone: High Court Cites 'Indifference' Of Presiding Officers, Seeks Statewide Data

The Allahabad High Court last week expressed serious concern over the prolonged pendency of final reports in criminal cases across Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that approximately 50,000 matters involving final reports are pending for orders in the Lucknow judgeship alone.

Observing that such delays adversely affect the administration of criminal justice, a bench of Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari sought district-wise data from all District & Sessions Judges across UP regarding the pendency of final reports and the measures being taken to clear the backlog.

Allahabad High Court Questions Why Revenue Officer Prepared Two Contradictory Orders In Same Case, Suspects 'Something More Than Negligence'

The Allahabad High Court has held that where two mutually contradictory orders are passed on the same date in the same case, one in favour of the litigant and the other against him, the matter cannot be treated as one of negligence on the part of the officer who passed them.

While dealing with two contradicting orders uploaded from the office of the Collector, Deoria, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,

“Even if unsigned order was uploaded on the requisite portal and, thereafter, the signed order was uploaded, the very fact that two orders operate exactly in contrast to each other i.e. one passed in favour of the litigant and the other against him, the matter is not of negligence on the part of the officer, rather it is clear case where two orders were prepared by the officer so as to advance favour to one party and disfavour to other. This very admitted fact of the case reflects that there is something more than a sheer negligence.”

'Police Stations Have Become A Place Of Commercial Activities': Allahabad High Court Orders DGP Inquiry Over Cop's Transport Business

The Allahabad High Court directed the UP DGP to conduct an inquiry into a Ballia police constable's alleged transport business. Observing that police stations have become places of commercial activity, the Court said that policemen are "constantly busy in commercial activities rather than maintaining law and order in the State".

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also directed the DGP and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all police officials and constables of Rasra Police Station (in Ballia District).

Allahabad High Court Orders Production Of 2 Women Allegedly Confined By Father After They Renounced Hinduism To Embrace Islam

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the production of 2 adult women before it in a habeas corpus petition alleging that they had been illegally confined by their father after they voluntarily renounced Hinduism to embrace Islam and decided to marry persons of their choice.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that if the allegations in the petition are ultimately found to be correct, any interference with the women's decisions regarding their faith, marriage and residence would amount to an "unwarranted encroachment upon their constitutionally protected rights to dignity, privacy, personal liberty and decisional autonomy".