Garima Diwaker vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 774

National Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Throu. Astt. Manager vs. Reena Devi And Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 775

Uma Kant Tripathi vs. C/M Bahraich Coop Bank Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 776

And Another vs. Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Rouse Avenue New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 777

Rakesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 778

Mohammad Kamil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 779

Nootan Rai vs. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 780

Kopal Bhartiya and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 781

Devendra Singh vs. Great Home Developers Pvt. Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 782

Masers Rajasthan Motors vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 783

Jaysheel Tiwari vs. Union of India and connected bail applications 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 784

Kalawati Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 785

Shitala Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 786

Bhavna Yadav and 6 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 787

Lucknow Development Authority through Secretary Lucknow vs. Ramrati and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 788

Keshav Bhalla vs. Prescribe Authority /Rent Authority (Additional District Magistrate) and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 789

Larsen And Toubro Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Arghya Chattopadhyay vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Infrastructure/Industrial Development Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 790

'Electricity An Indispensable Need To Live': Allahabad High Court Comes To Aid Of Man Denied Connection For Over A Decade

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.

'Cooked-Up Story So Absurd It Can't Be Believed': Allahabad High Court Discharges Congress MP Rakesh Rathore In Rape Case

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".

Hookah Bars Can't Operate In UP Even In Designated Smoking Areas: Allahabad High Court Says 'Right To Clean Air' Overrides Right To Trade

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.

Can A Dowry Death Case Be Quashed Because Woman Allegedly Died Of Heart Attack? Allahabad High Court Answers

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.

Before Shifting Minor's Custody Over Disrupted Schooling, Court Must Explore If Studies Can Continue Without Changing Custody: Allahabad High Court

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.

Motor Accident | Insurance Policy Mentioning '1+1' Covers Driver, Passenger Despite RC Showing Single Seat: Allahabad High Court

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.

Ad Hoc Appointee Cannot Be Directly Confirmed In Service Without Going Through Statutory Regularization: Allahabad High Court

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.

UP Tenancy Act | Sixty-Day Timeline To Decide Rent Case Is Directory, Not Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

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.

S. 125 CrPC | Both Parents Must Contribute To Child's Maintenance As Per Means; Earning Mother Can't Disclaim Duty: Allahabad High Court

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.

PDS Godown | 20% Rent Hike Ceiling Can't Be Applied Indirectly Where Government Order Held Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court

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.

Police Station CCTV Not Working? Allahabad High Court Lays Down Safeguards For Persons Arrested, Brought For Interrogation

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".

'Who Judges The Judge?': Allahabad High Court Calls For Recalibration Of CJ-Centric Administration, Greater Institutional Accountability

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.

Police Cannot Detain Innocent Family Member To Force Accused To Surrender: Allahabad High Court Awards ₹40K Compensation

Case Title : Arvind Kumar Yadav (Corpus) & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 773

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 773

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the police cannot unlawfully detain an innocent member of the family of the accused to put pressure on the accused to surrender.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed that such detention amounts to an unlawful deprivation of liberty and entitles the detained person to compensation.

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has no power to suspend advocates at an interim stage pending disciplinary inquiry.

The Court clarified that suspension under Section 35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Punishment of advocates for misconduct) is a final order which cannot be passed during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

'Innovative Thought': Allahabad High Court Appreciates Family Court's Order Of 10% Annual Increase In Wife's Maintenance

Case Title : Rakesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 778

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 778

The Allahabad High Court upheld a Family Court's direction providing for a 10% annual increase in a wife's monthly interim maintenance, terming the approach an "innovative thought".

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla welcomed the order, observing that it was "very surprising" that the High Court had not arrived at such an innovative idea.

Lack Of Job, Poor Business No Ground For Husband To Avoid Paying Maintenance If Capable Of Earning: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Mohammad Kamil vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 779

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 779

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife by pleading that he has no job or that his business is not doing well when he is capable of earning.

A bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that such pleas are merely “bald excuses” and “have no acceptability in law”.

Teacher's Challenge To Termination By Private Unaided Trust Not Maintainable In Writ, Dispute Is Contractual: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Nootan Rai vs. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 780

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 780

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teacher by a private unaided educational institution run by a trust is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the dispute being a purely contractual one between employer and employee.

Writ Court Can't Sit As Academic Expert To Decide Equivalence Of Degrees Where Rules Prescribe None: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Kopal Bhartiya and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 781

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 781

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the service rules prescribing the qualification for a post make no provision for consideration of equivalent degrees, the writ court cannot decide whether a degree not named in the rules is equivalent to the one prescribed.

It held that in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot sit as an academic expert to determine such equivalence.

Dispute Over Sale Consideration Doesn't Invalidate Registered Sale Deed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Devendra Singh vs. Great Home Developers Pvt. Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 782

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 782

The Allahabad High Court has held that a registered sale deed cannot be declared void under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 merely on a dispute over payment of sale consideration by the purchaser.

It held that a seller who complains of non-payment must sue to recover the money, and cannot have the sale deed cancelled on that ground.

50% Pre-Deposit For Appeal Not Exhausted At Filing Stage Where Rent Liability Is Recurring: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Masers Rajasthan Motors vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 783

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 783

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the order appealed against fixes a liability recurring from month to month, the fifty percent pre-deposit required by the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 is not exhausted by the deposit made at the stage of filing the appeal.

It held that the requirement continues to operate on the amounts falling due during the pendency of the appeal, and that the appellate court is competent to direct their deposit.

Jaunpur Custodial Death 2021: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 4 Accused Cops, Notes CBI Allegation Of Torture, Murder

Case Title : Jaysheel Tiwari vs. Union of India and connected bail applications 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 784

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 784

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail applications of 4 Uttar Pradesh police personnel accused in connection with the 2021 Jaunpur custodial death case.

In its 95-page order, Justice Samit Gopal reproduced the CBI chargesheet's allegation that the accused police personnel caused grievous injuries to the deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav alias Pujari to extract a confession and subsequently murdered him by inflicting injuries sufficient to cause his death.

Parents Cannot Invoke Habeas Corpus To Compel Adult Daughter To Reside With Them Against Her Will: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Kalawati Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 785

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 785

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the parents cannot invoke the writ of habeas corpus to compel their adult daughter to live with them against her express will.

The High Court observed that once an adult consciously and voluntarily chooses where to reside, her autonomy and decisional freedom deserve due recognition.

Unchallenged Order Directing Salary Payment Cannot Validate Appointment Based On Forged Approval: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Shitala Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 786

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 786

The Allahabad High Court has held that an administrative order directing payment of salary confers no enforceable right to salary from the State exchequer, even where it was never challenged or set aside, if the approval order on which the appointment rests is later found to be forged.

It held that the finality attaching to an administrative order is distinct from the legality of the foundation on which a monetary claim against the exchequer is built.

Meritorious Reserved Candidates Must Be Adjusted In Unreserved Category At Screening Stage, Not Only Final Selection: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Bhavna Yadav and 6 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 787

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 787

The Allahabad High Court has held that a reserved category candidate who scores above the unreserved cut-off must be counted in the unreserved category at the preliminary or screening test stage itself, and not only when the final select list is drawn up, where the marks of the screening test are carried into the final merit.

Condition no. 10 of the advertisement dated 22.12.2025 stipulated that reserved category candidates would be adjusted against the unreserved category in the final selection only, and only where no benefit or concession in the qualifying standard had been availed at the screening examination. It was traceable to the Commission's office memorandum dated 09.01.2020, which circulated a decision taken on 18.12.2019 to the same effect.

Land Acquisition Authority Has No Power To Execute Its Own Award, Power Of Execution Can't Be Read Into Statute: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Lucknow Development Authority through Secretary Lucknow vs. Ramrati and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 788

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 788

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) constituted under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has no power, authority or jurisdiction to execute its own award.

It held that no such power has been conferred by the Act, that no rules conferring it have been framed by the State in exercise of its rule making power, and that a power of execution which the statute does not provide cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation.

Landlord Need Not Personally Occupy Premises For Son's Business To Support Eviction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Keshav Bhalla vs. Prescribe Authority /Rent Authority (Additional District Magistrate) and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 789

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 789

The Allahabad High Court has held that the expression “required by landlord” in the first limb of Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 does not require the landlord to be in physical occupation of the premises himself.

It held that where premises in their existing form are sought for setting up or carrying on the business of the landlord's son, the claim cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because the son, and not the landlord, is to be the actual user.

Subsequent Abeyance Of Debarment Can't Retrospectively Make Bidder Eligible On Bid Due Date: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Larsen And Toubro Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Arghya Chattopadhyay vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Infrastructure/Industrial Development Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 790

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 790

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a tender document declares an entity ineligible to bid if a governmental debarment subsists on the bid due date, an order later keeping that debarment in abeyance operates only from the date it is passed and does not relate back to make the bidder eligible on the due date.

Clause 2.1.18 of the Request for Proposal provided that an entity barred by the Central or State Government, or by an entity controlled by it, from participating in any project would not be eligible to submit a bid where the bar subsisted as on the bid due date.