[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [January-June 2025]Husband Can't Claim Ownership Of Wife's Body, Privacy, Her Consent Paramount; Sharing Intimate Acts' Video A Breach Of Trust: Allahabad HCCase title – Brijesh Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is high...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS [January-June 2025]
Case title – Brijesh Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is high time for husbands to shed the outdated mentality of the Victorian era and realise that a wife's body, privacy, and rights are her own and not subject to the control or ownership of her husband.
The Court underscored that a husband is expected to honour the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in him by his wife and that sharing videos related to their intimate relationship amounts to a violation of the inherent confidentiality that defines the bond between husband and wife.
Case title - Salman vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The Allahabad High Court last week denied bail to a man who has been accused of forcing his wife into prostitution by compelling her to make physical relationships with his friends and other persons.
Noting that the allegations against the husband are rare and the prosecution's case was not a simple case of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus:
“This Court is of the view that aforesaid allegation is serious blow to the Supreme honour of the victim and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim, it leaves behind a traumatic experience, a rapist not only cause physical injuries, but more indelibly leaves a blot on the most cherished possession of a women i.e. dignity, honour and reputation.”
Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Against Motion To Impeach Justice Shekhar Yadav Over His VHP Event Speech
Case title - Ashok Pandey vs. Chairman Of Rajya Sabha Thru. Secy. General And Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed against an impeachment motion submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General by 55 MPs seeking the impeachment of Justice Shekhar Yadav over the speech delivered by him at Prayagraj on December 8 at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Legal Cell).
A bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed the PIL plea filed by Advocate Ashok Pandey after it orally remarked that it was not satisfied with the maintainability of the PIL plea.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4 [WRIT - A NO. 16300 OF 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4
While granting interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues to a Nagar Palika employee, the Allahabad High Court observed that unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him.
Imposing cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor for delaying the payment of retiral dues of the employee despite no conclusive charges against him, Justice J.J.Munir held
“No employee should be allowed to retire, with disciplinary proceedings pending against him, unless these are commenced virtually on the eve of his retirement, for very compelling reasons, or the charges are so serious and facts so complicated that the process of inquiry would certainly extend beyond the employee's superannuation.”
Case title - Arvind vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a woman who is raped undergoes two crises- the commission of a crime, where her dignity is wounded and her sense of security is destroyed and the subsequent trial, where she is forced to relive the traumatic experience.
“It is often stated that a woman who is raped undergoes two crises- the rape and the subsequent trial. While the first seriously wounds her dignity, curbs her individual, destroys her sense of security and may often ruin her physically, the second is no less potent of mischief inasmuch as it not only force her to relive through the traumatic experience, but also does so in the glare of publicity in a totally alien atmosphere, with the whole apparatus and paraphernalia of the criminal justice system focused upon her,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed in an order passed on Tuesday denying bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl.
Case title - Manish Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court emphasised the importance of ensuring a safe and respectful environment for women artists who are part of orchestras as dancers and singers, noting that they are often subject to sexual harassment and exploitation.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that societal perceptions sometimes undermine their basic human rights, reducing these artists to objects of lust and that such attitudes towards them perpetuate gender-based violence and strip such women artists of their dignity.
Case Title: Ram Bali Ram v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7 [WRIT - A No. - 14564 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court terminated the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner-employee in which chargesheet had issued in 2009 and no action was taken since then.
Petitioner was a Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Though he was set to retire on 31.12.2009, he was suspended on 29.12.2009 due to a pending inquiry against him. He was served a chargesheet on 29.12.2009. After his retirement, the post retiral dues were withheld and there was no action regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Case Title: M/S Akriti Food Industry Llp v. State Of UP And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 8 [WRIT TAX No. - 2070 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 8
While directing that the order under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 uploaded in the “Additional Notices and Tabs” on the GST portal be treated as the show cause notice, the Allahabad High Court observed that
“If in a decision making procedure adopted by the authority is de hors the provisions of the act or rules framed thereunder, it is liable to be rendered as flawed one.”
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman, employed in the police department and currently on childcare leave, along with her live-in partner, who is also married to another woman and a father of a 12-year-old child, while imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar imposed this cost on the petitioners as it noted that the petitioners had moved the HC with his protection plea concealing the fact that petitioner no. 2 (man), without divorcing his earlier wife, started living in a relationship with petitioner no.1 (woman.
Case title - Gandharv Kumar @ Gaurav vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Teachers play a crucial role in shaping the future citizens of a democratic nation, influencing their academic development and mounding their civil consciousness and ethical values.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added that the role of a teacher is multifaceted and carries significant responsibilities that extend beyond the mere imparting of knowledge, and the impact of responsibilities extends beyond the classroom.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 11
While granting bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a married woman on the pretext of providing her government job, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that nowadays, there can be no presumption that in all rape cases, the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.
“No doubt in the matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given primary consideration, but at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that nowadays there can be no presumption that in all the matters, prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed.
Case title - Arun Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 12
While granting bail to a man accused of committing rape against a 30-year-old widow having three children, the Allahabad High Court observed that if a married woman having experience in sex does not offer resistance, it cannot be said that her physical relation with a man was against her will.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed this while granting relief to a 20-year-old accused arrested in September 2024, who is currently facing a chargesheet under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC.
Case Title: Amit Dhama v. Smt Pooja And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 13 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 922 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Observing that the mother is the natural guardian of a 4-year-old daughter, the Allahabad High Court has held that even if the company of the minor daughter was given to the husband at the time of separation, it would not deprive the mother of her right to custody of the daughter.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Merely because the mother has been deprived of the company of her daughter at the time when the couple separated and fact that the daughter had continued to be in company of the father for sometime itself would not be sufficient circumstance to deny custody of the minor daughter to the mother who is her natural guardian. Various physical, emotional and psychological needs of the four year old daughter would be better protected in the care and custody of her mother.”
Case title - Atul Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping his inter-faith live-in partner on the false promise of marriage, on the condition of marrying the prosecutrix under the Special Marriage Act and depositing ₹5 lacks as a Fixed Deposit to protect the monetary security of the prosecutrix as well as her child.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that it is a case where the applicant and the prosecutrix are willing to live together peacefully and comfortably as husband and wife along with their infant child.
Case Title: Zulfikar Ahmad And 7 Others vs. Jahangir Alam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 15 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6479 of 2021]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant is usually at the pleasure of the landlord and will have to release the property if the landlord so desires. It was held that the Court must see if the need of the landlord is bonafide before ruling against the tenant.
“A tenant should be at the pleasure of landlord in a sense that as and when the landlord needs the property for his personal use, he will have to release. The court has to just see, whether the need is bonafide one or not,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Case Title: Rachit Verma v. Smt. Anuradha Dey [FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2021]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 16
While granting a decree of divorce on grounds of desertion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that merely because the wife consumes alcohol does not amount to cruelty unless it is followed by uncivilized behavior.
The bench held,
“Consuming of Alcohol by itself does not amount to cruelty, if it is not followed by unwarranted & uncivilized behavior. Though, consuming of alcohol in middle-class society is still a taboo and not a part of culture, however there is no pleadings on record to show as to how consuming of alcohol has caused cruelty to the husband/appellant.”
Case title - Sachin Sonkar vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the act of sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage is a reprehensible offence which reduces the victim to an object for someone's personal gratification.
Emphasising that such an act cannot be executed by a subsequent offer of marriage, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the law does not allow for the acceptance of a compromise in cases where such serious offences have been committed, particularly in matters related to sexual exploitation and coercion.
Case title - Jaimangal Yadav vs. The State Of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted a murder accused who had been given remission in the year 2021 upon completing 25 years in Jail, as it found manifest illegality in the trial court judgment pronounced in March 2002.
The Court noted that the 'extra-judicial confession' relied upon by the trial court had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the same was highly improbable.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19 [WRIT - A No. - 16814 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order for transfer of the petitioner by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited as being malicious and without justification. It was held that the transfer order cannot be used a measure for punishment.
“The exercise of the power of transfer as a substitute for the infliction of lawful punishment in exercise of the employer's disciplinary jurisdiction, is verily an instance of malice in law,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar v. Smt. Shradha Goel 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 880 of 2017]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court has held that decision of the Trial Court/ Family Court cannot be set aside because of failure on part of the husband in leading evidence when there is no other infirmity in the order.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Refusal/ failure on part of the husband to lead any evidence would not be sufficient for this Court to extend a further opportunity to the husband to adduce evidence when no procedural infirmity is shown in the proceedings of the trial court.”
Case title - Rekha And 3 Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court has observed that after the commencement of the trial, the degree of satisfaction required to be recorded by the trial court while summoning any other person as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC should be more than the standards needed for the stage of framing of charges.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj added that the discretionary power u/s 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that the evidence on record must strongly suggest more than a "prima facie" case against such a person and his involvement in the commission of the crime.
Case Title: Alka Singh Chauhan v. Shakti Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 473 of 2019]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court has held that order passed by the Supreme Court expediting divorce proceedings cannot be a ground to deprive the wife of her right to contest divorce proceedings.
Observing that the Family Court had not fairly adjudicated the divorce proceedings, the bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“The undue hot haste in which the Court has proceeded cannot be approved of. Although there was a direction by the Supreme Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude it within six months but such direction was to resist any uncalled for adjournment claimed by the parties. The order of the Supreme Court cannot be construed as depriving the wife to contest the proceedings.”
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 23
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court effectively tossed out the "unfettered powers" of the Uttar Pradesh Police to open Class-B history sheets against citizens without observing the principles of natural justice.
For context, as per the UP Police Regulation, Class-B history sheets are opened for “confirmed and professional criminals, who commit a crime other than dacoity, burglary, cattle theft and theft from railway goods, wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal, personal files are maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department.
Case Title: Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 24 [WRIT - A No. - 9071 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court haS quashed the termination order of Additional Private Secretary in the State Secretariat of Uttar Pradesh, who was sacked for allegedly forwarding a WhatsApp message which is stated to have contained objectionable remarks concerning the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of the state.
The order was quashed on grounds of lack of evidence to establish intention to harm the reputation of the government.
Case title - Chandrakant Tripathi vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Allahabad High Court quashed a complaint case pending against a man for the past 32 years where he was facing charges under Sections 194, 211 IPC for giving false evidence during a murder trial.
Granting relief to the accused, a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh noted that it is nearly impossible to hold a fair trial of the applicant-accused after such a long time-lapse, and the same would be a sheer waste of public time and money apart from causing harassment to the applicant-accused.
Case title - Nishant Roy vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Taking note of the surge in cybercrimes across the nation, the Allahabad High Court observed that cybercrime in our country is like a silent virus, and it has affected an uncountable number of innocent victims who have been defrauded of their hard-earned money.
The Court also noted that cybercrime affects people across the nation, irrespective of religion, region, education, or class and that such crimes must be curbed.
Case title - Mukhtiyar Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court observed that religious places are primarily for offering prayers to the divinity, and thus, the use of loudspeakers cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when such use often creates a nuisance for the residents.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed this while dismissing a writ plea moved by one Mukhtiyar Ahmad seeking a direction from the state authorities to permit the installation of loudspeakers on a Masjid.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The Allahabad High Court observed that live-in relationships have no social sanction. Still, the youth are attracted to such relations, and it is high time that we found some framework and solution to save moral values in society.
A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava added that we live in a changing society, where moral values and the normal conduct of the young generation in the family, society, or at their workplace are changing swiftly.
Case title - In Re- Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing Of Criminal Appeals vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 29
A full bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that where the High Court has consciously issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of an accused, against whose acquittal/conviction an appeal has been moved, the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, as the case may be, would have no jurisdiction to release such person on bail.
A bench of Justices Sangeeta Chandra, Pankaj Bhatia, and Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan reasoned that the fate of the accused or appellant/convict would be governed as per the terms of the order of the High Court under which non-bailable warrants have been issued.
Case Title: M/S Annapurna Construction Co. vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 30 [Writ C 32144 of 2021]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The Allahabad High Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enter contractual unless exceptional circumstances are present, which include respondents agreeing to the outstanding dues. It held that a writ of mandamus can be issued in such cases.
In brief, the Petitioner won the contract to construct a residence under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor Yojana at Kishanpur, Kanpur Nagar, under 'Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission'. The Petitioner completed the work within the stipulated time, and possession was handed over.
Case Title: Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 29 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has held that place of marriage reception is not relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 19(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction under the Act upon a court within whose local limits the marriage between the parties was solemnized.
Case title - Dilip Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has observed that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is not permissible merely because the Government issues an order in this regard.
It added that the public prosecutor must apply his mind by mentioning in his application that he is satisfied that it has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while upholding an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, dismissing the state's application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against the applicant in an extortion case.
Case title - Pramod vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Denying bail to father-son duo accused of committing rape against real daughter/sister and impregnating her, the Allahabad High Court last week termed it a case of an unforgivable betrayal of blood and trust.
“I find that facts of this case and allegation of rape on victim by her real brother and father are very rare and heinous in nature…The hands of father and brother meant to protect the dignity of his daughter and sister became weapons of her destruction,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked.
Case title - Faraheem Qureshi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely insulting a particular political party or a group that is not inextricably associated with any religion or its belief will not attract the ingredients of Section 295-A IPC as it does not amount to outraging the religious feeling or belief of a class of citizens.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also added that this provision won't be attracted if a person insults a religion unwittingly, carelessly, or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.
Case title - Jagriti And 2 Others vs. State Of Up And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 35
The Allahabad High Court directed that custody of a minor child be handed over to the father, citing the mother's alleged actions of eloping with another man without seeking a formal divorce from her husband.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the future of the minor child, a budding citizen of a glorious country, cannot be permitted to be taken care of by 'such a mother' who fled away with a person without divorcing her husband.
Case title - Shubhra Rai vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 36
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a female teacher requesting a mid-term intra-district transfer as it emphasised that marital discord can't be a strong enough ground for seeking transfer.
While rejecting her plea, the Court highlighted the example of uniformed personnel who serve the nation under some of the harshest conditions.
“Save a thought for our men and women in uniform, who serve in the most inhospitable terrains under most trying conditions. If our uniformed personnel start vying for cozy home postings, who will protect the nation's sovereignty. Teachers should remember the inspiring lives and conduct of our uniformed personnel who put service of the nation before satisfaction of personal comfort and welfare”, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed.
Case title – Raj Pal Singh Dishwar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Allahabad High Court last week ordered the reinstatement of one Raj Pal Singh Dishwar to the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), whose services were dispensed with for allegedly making some objectionable comments against the 'Father of Nation' (Mahatma Gandhi).
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that the entire action against the petitioner appeared to be full of malice.
Case Title: Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has held that the question of equivalence of qualification for eligibility and employment is to be decided by the employer and the same cannot be interpreted by the Courts to treat any qualification to be equivalent to qualifications.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that
“the question of equivalence of qualification in the matter of examining the eligibility for the purpose of employment, is to be decided by the employer and the Courts cannot treat any qualification to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement.”
Case Title: Sri Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 12 of 2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved within one year of marriage on grounds of mutual incompatibility, unless there is exceptional hardship or exception depravity as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The parties had filed for mutual dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the same was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on grounds that minimum period for moving the application as provided under Section 14 of the Act, had not elapsed.
Case title - Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act on the allegations of harassing his wife (complainant/informant) for dowry as well as for enticing away her minor sister and subjecting her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked that the accused's alleged conduct is not only a breach of the sacred bond of marriage but also an egregious violation of familial trust and moral integrity.
Case Title: Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 453 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41
In a plea to expedite a 14-year-old criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Registry to register a PIL pertaining to the creation of courts in the trial judiciary, and place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Justice Rajeev Singh held that, “this Court is of the view that the issue related to the creation of 9149 courts is related to interest of public at large and, therefore, the Registry is directed to register the PIL as a separate case and place it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.”
Case Title: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after submission of defence and that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held
“Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction should be raised not later than the submission of the defence. If the excess of jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the objection should be made at that very time. In any case, objection on the question of jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.”
Case title - Manorma Tiwari vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
In a scathing observation, the Allahabad High Court recently slammed a litigant (petitioner) who moved the court against the swift proceedings in a case under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that it was ironic that while social media and public platforms often criticize the judiciary for prolonged court proceedings and frequent adjournments, a member of the same public when appearing as a litigant, was objecting to swift court proceedings.
Case title - Rakesh Rathor vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Thr Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress's Member of Parliament from Sitapur Lok Sabha constituency, Rakesh Rathore, in connection with an FIR against him over allegations of sexually exploiting a 35-year-old woman.
However, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan disposed of his plea at the admission stage, giving him the liberty to appear/surrender before the trial Court within two weeks and file his regular bail application, taking all pleas and grounds available to him.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Tranning New Delhi And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea as withdrawn, challenging Swatantra Prakash Gupta's appointment as the State Information Commissioner.
The PIL plea, filed by the petitioner in person, Ashish Kumar Singh, challenged Gupta's appointment as the SIC, contending that it violates Section 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a provision that bars the pursuit of any profession by an appointee.
Case title - Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the statement made by a rape survivor under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate stands on a high pedestal, and a sanctity is attached to such statement recorded during the course of the investigation than that of her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the Investigating Officer.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision plea filed challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, wherein the protest petition filed by the revisionist (informant) against the final (closure) report submitted by the police against a rape accused had been dismissed, and the final report had been accepted.
Case title - Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court rejected a writ petition moved by YouTuber and Instagram influencer Mridul Madhok seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him over allegations of body shaming, defaming and making false claims regarding fitness influencer Kopal Agarwal.
Observing that a cognizable offence was found to have been committed by Madhok after perusing the impugned FIR, the court rejected his petition.
Case title - Sushil Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Presiding Officer sitting in the Trial Court while recording the evidence must not act like a spectator and tape recorder and must actively participate in the court proceedings.
The court added that if any witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, the court itself must ask relevant questions to the witness, and if it finds sufficient grounds, it must proceed against such witness in accordance with law.
Case Title: Smt. Rekha v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25993 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49
While hearing a bail plea of an accused mother living with her minor son in prison, the Allahabad High Court has issued several directions to various state authorities regarding the protection and welfare of children who are living with parents lodged in prisons.
Stressing their right to education and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that
“Prison walls cannot obstruct the onrush of the fruits of Article 21 for children.”
Case Title: Hari Shankar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15637 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court has held that a son has every right to be in business independent of his father and the father's request for release of the rented shop so his son can start an independent business is a bona fide need, justifying the tenant's eviction.
Justice Ajit Kumar held that “if the son has been doing business with his father, he has every right to get settled independently in a business and father is absolutely justified in setting up a need for the release of the shop in question to settle his son.”
Case Title: Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41474 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51
While granting bail to a man accused of murder, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that the applicant was kept in prison for more than 7 years without the trail ending anytime soon. It was held that such detention was unjust and unwarranted.
Justice Krishan Pahal held,
“Keeping the applicant in custody under these circumstances, when there is no realistic possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, is both unjust and unwarranted. Justice demands that the applicant's continued detention be reconsidered, and appropriate relief be granted without delay.”
Case Title: Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court quashed a Government Order to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement, citing primacy of statute over executive fiat.
Petition was filed challenging Clause 4(1) of G.O. dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection of claim for gratuity to the petitioner. By said G.O., gratuity was denied ostensibly due to teachers working for additional years, which entitled them to more service benefits.
Case title - Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases, to harass the husband's family or the person in a domestic relationship, the aggrieved party implicates relatives who have never lived with them in the shared household.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal added that while issuing notice under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the courts must look into whether the person who is being implicated is living or ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.
Case title - Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Denying bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl, the Allahabad High Court has recently observed that in our country, a minor girl, who is a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than implicate somebody falsely.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said that the Court must keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, where it would be unusual for a girl to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault to implicate an innocent person.
Case Title: Udhaw Singh vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 850 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that not providing an advanced copy of the application filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to the accused does not violate the principles of natural justice, as the accused has no right to oppose it.
Case title - Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Denying relief to a man accused of committing the dowry death of his wife, the Allahabad High Court observed that the presence of the Investigating Officer is not required at the stage of framing of the charge.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania also cautioned the judicial officer for making adverse remarks against a previous judicial officer who had handled the matter and ordered those remarks to be expunged.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Against Loudspeakers In Maha Kumbh Citing Insufficient Material
Case Title: Brahmachari Dayanand Indian Inhabitant and another vs. Union of India and 4 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 57 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 265 of 2025 ]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation against installation of loudspeakers in Maha Kumbh on grounds of lack of data to indicate that the public address system was causing noise above the permissible limits.
Petitioners approached the High Court claiming that while they were campaigning in Sector 18 of the Maha Kumbh, the camps around them have been using loudspeakers (public address systems) and LCDs which are causing noise pollution. Petitioners claimed that such noise pollution caused hinderance in their meditation, etc.
Contempt Plea Not Means To Arm Twist Or Harass: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost
Case Title: Shiv Shankar v. Ravindra Kumar Mandar, District Collector And 2 Others [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 491 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a contempt applicant alleging that the Gaon Sabha had not removed encroachments as per the directions of the Writ Court.
Case Title : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Smt. Arti Devi and 8 Others [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1780 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 does not take away the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation as awarded and later recover the same from the owner. It held that the principle of “Pay and Recover” is still applicable in the Amended Act to ensure the protection of third-party rights.
Case Title: Piyush Gupta And Anothers v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25418 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Food Business Operator cannot be held responsible for quality of the raw materials used by him when the same have been bought from registered manufacturers in sealed packet with proper invoice.
While dealing with Turmeric Powder manufactured by Goldiee Masala contaminated with lead chromate, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held
“if any food business operator like a restaurant purchased any raw material or ingredient of food from a registered manufacturer in a sealed packet with a proper invoice, then it would be deemed that the raw material or ingredient of food is of standard quality. If the ingredient of food in sealed packet is found to be unsafe, then prima facie liability will be of its registered manufacturer or its distributor and not of the restaurant unless the seal of packet or its invoice is disputed or doubted.”
Case title - Rajbhar Ekta Kalyan Samiti Thru. It Chairman Shri Pawan Kumar Rajbhar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Great men are remembered by their name for the work they do, irrespective of their caste, observed Allahabad High Court while dismissing a PIL plea seeking the removal of 'Kshtriya' from the name 'Srawasti Naresh Sushail Dev Bhar' engraved on the foundation stone at the Chittorajheel Paryatak Sthal statue/idol (Bahraich), and replacing it with 'Bhar'.
A bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi opined that though it respects the sentiments of the PIL petitioner, yet it cannot embark on an academic question like the one which has been agitated in the present writ petition.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Ram Naresh And 5 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 62 [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 206 of 2001]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 62
While overturning the acquittal of 3 accused and sentencing them to Life Imprisonment in connection with a 1995 Murder case, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the prosecution is not obliged to answer each and every hypothesis put forth by the defence/accused persons.
A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan said that murders are not committed without prior notice to anyone. Thus, those who appear to be natural witnesses may not be labelled as false or planted witnesses.
Case title - Kavita Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to provide adequate security to the wife of 42-year-old Ghaziabad advocate Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, who was shot dead by two assailants in his chamber in 2023, if she applies under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
A bench of Justice Nand Prabha Shukla passed this order while disposing of the plea of Kavita Chaudhary (wife of the deceased advocate) seeking transfer of Trial if the Murder case pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to be transferred to any other competent Court at Aligarh.
Case Title: U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) And Another vs. Spml Infra Ltd.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others (2018), held that the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies prospectively to court proceedings initiated on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
Case title - Rajneeta vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 65
The Allahabad High Court today strongly reprimanded the Meerut District Magistrate (DM) for showing a "lack of compassion" in delaying the compensation to an acid attack survivor.
Strongly disapproving of the prolonged delay in the matter, the court ordered the DM concerned to forward the relevant documents to the Union Government in one week so that the concerned Department could act on a war footing and pay additional compensation to the survivor/petitioner in six weeks.
Case title - Gyanendra Kumar vs. Union Of India And 7 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 30-day deadline for issuing a show cause notice, as outlined in Clause 8.5.6 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012, framed by the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), is mandatory in nature.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed thus while allowing a writ plea filed by Gyanendra Kumar (dealer) challenging a show cause notice issued to him on September 8, 2023, with regard to an alleged discrepancy found in the joint inspection.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 2 others v. Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 459 of 2023]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court has held that name in board examination certificates can only be changed after obtaining a decree from a Civil Court regarding change in name. It held that mere reference to change in Aadhar card and PAN card is not sufficient for the Board to change the name of a person.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that
“Acquiring a new name by choice is covered by Chapter-VI of the Act in the sense that a person seeking to acquire a new name, may obtain a decree of declaration from the civil court to the effect that, henceforth, he would be known as a person by his newly acquired name. In such event, the date of decree would be relevant and would operate from the said date, prior whereto, the plaintiff seeking declaration would be known by his previous name.”
Case title - Suresh Chandra Pandey vs State and UP and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it has issued a notification to expand the inquiry of the Judicial Commission. The commission will now inquire into the loss of life and property, if any.
The Court was apprised that the Commission will also look into the coordination of the Mela administration and the District Administration with the Health Services Administration regarding the loss of life and property during the stampede.
Case Title: M/s Mukesh and Associates v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT), Allahabad [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 460 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere non-mentioning of the place of arbitration in the arbitral award does not vitiate it.
An arbitral award between the parties was challenged before the Commercial Court, Prayagraj where it was held that since the place of arbitration was not mentioned in the award, it was non-speaking and was, thus, set aside. Both parties challenged the order of the Commercial Court before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title - V-MARC INDIA LIMITED vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Emphasising that the punishment of blacklisting is required to be imposed upon a person only in rare cases, as the same is extremely harsh and stringent, which deprives a person of his right to carry on business, the Allahabad High Court recently noted that the authorities often use the tool of blacklisting as a mechanism for extraneous reasons.
“Such practices are deprecated by this Court. It is to be further noted that the period of blacklisting has to be proportionate to the fault committed by the person upon whom the blacklisting is being done,” a bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit remarked.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Raping Dalit On-Duty Nurse At Midnight
Case title - Dr Shahnawaj vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a doctor accused of committing rape upon a 20-year-old Dalit nurse inside his cabin, at a private hospital. The alleged incident occurred in August last year while the victim was on night duty at the hospital.
A bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, however, granted bail to the co-accused Mehnaz, a nurse, and Junaid, a ward boy, who allegedly assisted the prime accused (Doctor Shahnawaz) in committing the alleged offence.
Case Title: Gazal Srivastava And 2 Others v. Dhajaram Charitable Trust,New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman Captain Dilavar Singh Sanghwan(Rtd.)And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 72 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2694 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court held that when there is no transfer of property between a private individual and his company, the property cannot be considered a property of the company for the purpose of recovering debts. Further, the Court held that merely because the property finds mention in the balance sheet will not make it a company property in absence of a sale deed.
“There being no material to suggest that there was any registered sale deed in favour of the company, only on account of the property being presumed to be shown in the balance sheets, the company would not be the owner of the property,” held Justice Pankaj Bhatia.
Case Title: M/S Gaursons Sportswood Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 73 [WRIT - C No. - 41880 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 73
In a plea concerning the development of Noida Sports City, the Allahabad High Court said that the homebuyers–some of whom had booked apartments in completed towers but where the builders were not granted permanent completion certificate–cannot be penalised due to New Okhla Development Authority's failure (NOIDA) to perform its statutory duty in "ensuring planned and systematic development" of the project.
It underscored that homebuyers cannot suffer due to dereliction of duties by NOIDA authority's officers as well as failure of builders to complete their obligations.
Case Title: M/s Xanadu Estates Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 74 [WRIT - C No. - 26640 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court observed that the members of the consortium of builders who were responsible for the development of NOIDA Sports City were only interest in development of the residential areas rather than developing the sports facilities which was the primary object of the development plan.
Case Title: M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 75 [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 75
The Allahabad High Court has directed CBI inquiry against the officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottees/ builder allegedly involved in a "scam" pertaining to the development of the Sporty City project in Noida.
Ordering CBI inquiry and dismissing writ petitions filed by the allottees seeking various reliefs against NOIDA, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed
“The action of the officials of the Noida Authority is highly questionable. In fact, the entire process of allotting Sports City to the petitioners and in the implementation of the Sports City, there were large scale bungling and a huge benefit was extended to the builders by the conniving officials of the Noida Authority. Shockingly, no action is taken against the builders and the conniving officials whose deeds have resulted in such a huge scam.”
Case title - Adarsh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction against the marketing and sale of a 'Beedi' brand in the name and style of 'Shankar Parwati Chhap' along with the Logo.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed the PIL plea, leaving it open to the petitioner, Adarsh Kumar, to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Case title - Ashok Pandey vs Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. To President New Delhi and 2 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today dismissed a lawyers's plea seeking a direction to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to pay him Rs. 1 crore as fees and expenses, claiming that he filed certain cases in the Supreme Court to save the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, from "humiliation, insult, torture, and removal."
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected his plea as well as his request to grant the Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court as per Article 134A of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Priyanka Bharti vs State of UP and others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Observing that act of tearing pages of 'Manusmriti' in a live TV debate prima facie amounts to a cognizable offence, the Allahabad High Court denied relief to Rashtriya Janata Dal Spokeperson and Jawaharlal Nehru University Ph.D. student Priyanka Bharti by refusing to quash an FIR lodged against her.
Bharti has been charged under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly tearing a few pages of Manusmriti during a live debate organized by the news channels India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh, where she was participating as a spokesperson for the RJD.
Case Title:- M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 79 [WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2022]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intention to evade tax is established by the fact that the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill and the goods taxable at 18% were taxed only at 5%.
The Court held that after 2018, it was mandatory for the assesee to download e-way bill with goods in transit.
“It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way bill would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: Smt. Sunita vs. Smt Parmjeet Kaur 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 136 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court has held that a court does not have the skill or the expertise to match signatures in the documents produced before it and must obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert instead of perusing them with bare eyes.
While dealing with a case of rejection of application for handwriting expert to verify signatures made in Gurumukhi by the Small Causes Court, Justice Ajit Kumar held
“In the circumstances, therefore, the Court itself cannot be considered to be having the needed expertise and skill to match the signatures on various documents produced before the Court.”
Case Title: Kanyawati vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [WRIT - C No. - 27598 of 2020]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned the State Authorities against using land of private citizens without acquiring the same through proper procedure prescribed in law, stating that in case of any default heavy penalty will be imposed on the officers responsible for the same.
Though in the case before it the Court refrained from imposing cost, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed,
“The State Authorities are required to be cautious that they should not utilize the land of the citizens without due authority of law or without following the proper procedure of acquisition, else the authorities, who may be found responsible for such utilization of land without due procedure of law shall be held responsible personally and the court will have to impose heavy penalty for such actions on the part of the Authorities, which shall be recovered from their personal account.”
Case Title: Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Secretariat Administration Dept. Lko And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82 [WRIT - A No. - 9193 of 2023]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 once a seniority list is published, the authority publishing the same becomes functus officio and cannot reagitate the seniority list again and again.
Justice Alok Mathur held
“On perusal of the U.P Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, we find that there is no provision for review of the final seniority list which has been once prepared after following the procedure prescribed under rule 5, meaning thereby that once a final seniority list has been issued after deciding the objections filed by the concerned parties against the tentative seniority list, finding authority becomes functious officio and does not retain any power to repeatedly exercise the same power to redetermine the seniority between the same group of persons again and again.”
Case title - M/S MANOJ PETROLEUM AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a company complying with rules and regulations established by the various Ministries and public regulators would not by itself suffice for bringing it within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution,
With this, the bench held that 'Nayara Energy' (formerly Essar Oil Limited), an oil refining and marketing company, does not fall under the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shivakar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [WRIT - A No. - 10045 of 2020]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to an employee who was confined in jail for almost 3 years holding that missed work due to confinement in jail does not entitle the employee to get back wages for the said period as the principle of 'no work no pay' applies.
An FIR against the petitioner was lodged under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly taking bribes for electricity connection from consumers. Thereafter, petitioner was lodged in jail from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018. When petitioner approached the authority for payment of wages for the said period, his request was rejected on grounds of 'no work no pay' principle. Accordingly, petitioner approached the High Court seeking payment of wages for the period of confinement.
Case Title: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 85 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1126 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that when a reference for release application of property attached under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is made by the competent authority to a court of law, a duplicate copy of the original records must be retained by the competent authority to deal with any other release application which is made.
Case Title: Proview Constructions Limited v. Union Of India And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 28679 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable against a scheduled private bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it prohibits a person/company from withdrawing their money from the bank which is a violation of the conditions of the license granted to the bank by the Reserve Bank of India.
Case title - Nipendra Kumar Sharma And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 87
In the abetment of the suicide case of 25-year-old TCS Manager, Manav Sharma, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday refused to quash an FIR lodged against his in-laws in Agra.
Noting that the FIR against them prima facie reveals the commission of the cognizable offence, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed their writ plea.
Case title - Amna Khatoon And 2 Others Vs. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Vice Chancellor And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has recently directed the Registrar of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) to be cautious and precise in its future advertisements for the posts of Lecturer, ensuring that no ambiguity surrounds the eligibility criteria.
“…such ambiguity should be removed i.e. words shall be chosen carefully and instead of ambiguous words “concerned/relevant/allied subject”, the University must specifically mention about qualification so that all eligible candidates may participate in advertisement and no one be left prejudiced,” a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed in the operative part of its order.
Case Title: R.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others [WRIT - A NO. 13305 OF 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Union of India and various departments of Indian Railways for denying the benefit of notional increment to employees retiring on 30th June, despite the decision of the Supreme Court in Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others and Union of India & Ors. Vs M. Siddaraj.
Case Title: Shafique Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6586 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Allahabad High Court has held that approval for a post sanctioned 30 years ago cannot be withdrawn only on grounds that it was not created by competent authority. It held that the person employed on such post cannot be denied salary after 30 years of continuous work and being paid without allegations of fraud or malpractice.
Madarsa Jamia Alia Arabia Alinagar, Mau is a non-government aided minority Institution run and managed by a society namely Jamila Alia Arabia, Mau whose registration was renewed on 14.09.2019 for further period of five years. The affair of the Madarsa including the services of teaching and non-teaching staff are governed by U.P. Non-Government Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition Rules, 1987 which was later on amended in the year 2016.
Case Title: M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1022 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the cogent material. The burden of proof is shifting to the department only in the re-assessment proceeding or subsequent proceeding not being the original proceeding. In other words, the assessee in the original proceeding is duty bound to bring the material on record in support of its claim but in the subsequent proceeding i.e. re-assessment proceedings, the burden shifts on the revenue.”
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking A CBI Probe Into Mahakumbh Mela Stampede
Case title – Keshar Singh and 2 others vs. State Of U.P. and 13 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the stampede at the Mahakumbh Mela in Allahabad (January 29), which killed 30 people and left 60 more injured.
Case title - Satya Sanatan Dharm Dharmatma Kalyan Samiti vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a total and complete ban on the printing, publication, distribution and circulation of the textbook 'Tathakathit Gayatri Devi Mantra Ki Vastavikta'.
The PIL plea claims that the textbook written by Sant Gyaneshwar Swami Sadanand Ji Parmhans argues that Goddess Gayatri, the personified form of the Gayatri Mantra, a popular hymn from Vedic texts, is 'Kalpanik' [“fictitious”].
Case Title: Seema Padalia And Another V. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C NO. - 39180 OF 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order rejecting refund of stamp duty, holding that a retrospective amendment in 2021 to the state stamp act imposing a limitation period cannot extinguish a right based on the agreement entered into prior to the amendment.
Petitioners had purchased stamp papers worth ₹4,37,000 in 2015 for executing a tripartite sale and sublease agreement with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and M/s AGC Realty Private Ltd. for a residential unit in “Homes 121,” Sector 121, Noida. Thereafter, an agreement was drawn upon these stamps, however, the same was not presented for registration and accordingly remained unused and unutilized. There was a restriction imposed on transfer and sale of flats by NOIDA in the project "Home 121" of which the property in question was a part. Consequently, the agreement did not fructify as the NOIDA did not assent/join in this transaction.
Case title - Akash And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Observing that grabbing the breasts of the victim, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath the culvert before fleeing the spot won't come under the offence of rape or an attempt to rape, the Allahabad High Court modified a summoning order, altering the charges against two accused.
Initially summoned to face trial under Section 376 IPC (Rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, the High Court instead directed that the accused be tried under the minor charge of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
Case Title: Saurabh Lal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 16327 of 2022]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 96
The Allahabad High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased employee are disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment when major penalty imposed remains in record at the time death and not where the major penalty though imposed, had adverse impact only for few years.
A major penalty (not specified) was imposed on the father of the petitioner for a period of 2 years. After the expiry of this period the petitioner's father was granted promotion to the post of Manager of Union of India, Branch Collectrate, District Mau, U.P. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Deputy Branch Head at Branch Amiliya, District Rewa (U.P.).
Case title - Uzma Abid vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 97 [WRIT - C No. - 7449 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court directed the Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Etawah, to ensure that a high-security prisoner's religious practices, including offering prayers five times a day during Ramadan, are not “interfered with” and that he is “allowed” to retain the Quran in his possession.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla passed this order while disposing of a plea moved by the wife of a murder convict who claimed that her husband was not being allowed to offer prayers as per the religious practices in the month of Ramadan inside the prison and that the Quran has also been taken from him.
Case Title: Vipul Kohli v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8170 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The Allahabad High Court quashed proceedings against a man booked under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370 IPC who was found in a compromising position with a woman inside a Thai Spa in Noida.
Allahabad HC Upholds YEIDA's Cancellation Of Jaypee's 1000 Hectare Lease, Directs Return Of Deposit
Case Title: M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd v. State of U.P. and another [WRIT - C No. - 6049 of 2020]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court upheld the cancellation of 1000 hectare land allotted to M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. However, the Court directed YEIDA to return the amounts deposited by JAL in pursuance of the orders of the Court as well as the amount received by YEIDA from JAL in furtherance of the lease deeds and allotment letters whether prior to cancellation or thereafter in proportion of the area of land resumed.
Case Title: M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd v. State of U.P. and another [WRIT - C No. - 6049 of 2020]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition in contractual disputes is maintainable if it has been filed to protect the rights which were created by the contract/ agreement. It held that new rights cannot be sought to be created under the contract by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
M/s Jai Prakash Associates (JAL) defaulted in payments of leased rent, premium and interest thereof, lease deeds for the entire 1000 Hectare of land under the Special Development Zone Project were cancelled by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). The cancellation of lease and allotment was challenged and upheld by the High Court on various grounds.
Case title – Suman Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a Magistrate is not required to issue a notice to the informant in every case where he is taking cognizance only against the charge-sheeted persons, while leaving out other accused, though named in the FIR, but not charge-sheeted.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that issuing notice to the informant, allowing him/her to address the Magistrate regarding non-charge-sheeted persons, would prolong the matter, causing unnecessary delay.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7574 of 2025
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that while passing an order imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court has to consider that such a condition won't be unjust or would deprive the individual's right of appeal.
In doing so the court said that the imposition of the condition is not mandatory and the court has the discretion to reduce or exempt it in appropriate cases.
Case title - Aslam vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the District Magistrate of Hapur to promptly process and release the ex-gratia amount under the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund to a male acid attack survivor within four weeks.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal emphasized the need for the state authorities to show due sensitivity in cases involving acid attack survivors.
Case title - State of U.P. vs. Devendra Kumar Dixit 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The Allahabad High Court held a man guilty of criminal contempt of court for sending a complaint in 2016, levelling unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against HC Judges.
Perusing the record and contents of his complaint, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that he made “frivolous and baseless” allegations of corruption against the Judges, “without any basis or evidence” which had the effect of “scandalising and lowers the authority of the Court” as per Section 2(c) of the Act, 1971.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 63857 of 2007]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of termination of a probationer is neither an order of dismissal nor removal unless there is something against his character or integrity, which would make it an order of punishment.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held
“It is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal. However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary.”
Case Title: Smt. Maimuna Begum v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 122 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 106
While dealing with issue of reimbursement of medical bills, the Allahabad High Court has held that where there is entitlement of incidental benefits of service, the same should not be denied on grounds of delay and limitation in law.
Petitioner, widow, approached the employer for reimbursement of the medical bills of her husband. Her claim was rejected as being barred by limitation. Accordingly, she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleading that she being a widow was in shock of the death of her husband and could only approach the authority after her recovery.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Dixit v. Union Of India And 7 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41735 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court has quashed orders issued by the Food Corporation of India for recovering alleged excess fees paid to an empanelled advocate, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court held that the authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction in passing a stigmatic order which was depriving the petitioner of the compensation for the services he had offered.
Case Title: Smt Chandani Pandey v. State Of Up And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3371 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court has held that for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, whether the candidate has done graduation or has a post-graduation degree is irrelevant. It held that the merit list must be prepared based on the minimum qualification, i.e., High School and Intermediate qualifications, not graduate and post-graduate degrees.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking consideration for her candidature on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, which was rejected because she could not upload her post-graduation degree with the application form due to technical glitch.
Case Title: M/S Durga Travels Thru. Proprietor Pankaj Sharma And 3 Others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1133 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court has held that Additional Commissioner of Police is not subordinate to Additional District Magistrate and cannot be delegated the authority to possess or further delegate power to possess assets under Section 14(1-A) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Perusing Sections 14(1) and 14(1-A), Justice Pankaj Bhatia held
“it is clear that Section 14 empowers the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take possession of the property concerned. Section 14(1-A) further empowers the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to “authorized any Officer subordinate to him” to take possession of the said assets and thereafter to forward such assets to the secured creditor. Thus, in terms of the mandate of Section 14 (1-A), it is clear that the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can either take the possession himself or can authorize any officer subordinate to him.”
Case title - Taufik Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The Allahabad High Court has observed that unlawful religious conversion being a serious offence, the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
The Court also stressed that any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamount to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is “not acceptable” to the Court.
Case Title: Whorra Brothers v. Smt. Kastoori Devi And Another [WRIT - A No. - 1000097 of 1995]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 15 lakhs on a tenant for withholding property and not paying rent for more that 45 years to the landlady who wanted the property back to start a factory for her newly graduated son.
While dismissing the tenant's petition against appellate authority order directing release of property, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,
“In the present case, release was sought for establishing business of the son of the landlady, who had graduated sometime in the year 1981 and was unemployed and wanted to set up a manufacturing unit continues to be deprived of his right to fulfill his desire to establish a business of manufacturing over span of almost 40 years, the entire generation of the son is lost. The tenant has not paid rent since 1979, considering the quantum of premises under occupation by the sub tenant of the petitioners, a cost of Rs.15 lakhs is imposed upon the petitioners, which shall be paid by the petitioners jointly and severally…”
Case Title: Veer Bahadur Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 169 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 112
While drawing a distinction between a witness to a document and a person who executes such document, the Allahabad High Court held that a witness does not agree to the terms and conditions of the document, whereas a person executing the same does.
Respondent no.3 was allotted the property in question in an auction for retail outlet dealership. Petitioner filed a complaint against the said respondent alleging that he had violated the mandatory provision laid down under Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure June, 2023 while leasing the property.
Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. State of UP Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court refused relief to Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi in VD Savarkar Defamation Case pending before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in Lucknow.
Gandhi moved the HC, challenging an order of the court summoning him as an accused in December of last year.
Case title - Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court refused bail to two alleged 'Sikh For Justice' Members and Khalistani sympathisers, who were arrested in January last year on the allegations of conducting 'recce' around Ayodhya's Ram Janm Bhoomi Temple.
A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh noted that the trial court, while denying bail to them had found prima facie sufficient material against them that they planned to disturb law and order in Ayodhya on January 22, the day when the Pran Pratistha (Consecration Ceremony) was scheduled to be held of at Lord Ram Temple.
Case Title: Sunita Nishad And Anr. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal through Registrar And Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 35050 of 2019]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25 lakhs on guarantors of a loan for deliberately prolonging litigation regarding a property auctioned in 2017.
While directing the guarantors of the loan (petitioners) to vacate the auctioned premises and awarding the cost in favour of the auction purchaser, Justice Sangeeta Chandra held,
“This Court having gone through the judicial precedents as aforesaid relating to writ jurisdiction being an equitable jurisdiction and the responsibility of the litigant to approach this Court with frank and full disclosure of facts, avoiding any active misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, finds that the petitioners have filed this writ petition in an attempt to deliberately pollute the stream of justice.”
Case Title: Ramji and Others v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT-C NO. 14904 OF 2016]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ Court can go into the question of de facto possession of surplus land if disputed facts can be discerned by the Court. It held that the State must establish that de facto possession of the land was taken prior to enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 so as to prevent abatement of proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Case title - Ibrahim vs. State of U.P along with connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of seven individuals, including a man who murdered his daughter and her lover in 2006 in a tragic case of 'honor' killing.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri noted that the incident, which occurred 19 years ago, was a result of the father's disapproval of the relationship between his daughter and her lover, which served as the “sufficient motive” to kill the deceased.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad And Others vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 118 [WRIT-C NO. 25120 OF 2020]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the District Judge is the appropriate authority to determine issues relating to adequacy & sufficiency of compensation and not the District Magistrate.
Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 describes the powers available to the authorities in disputes for compensation. Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act reads as
“(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, be determined by him.”
Case Title: Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 119 [WRIT TAX No. - 1892 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of Rs.17,49,330/- with NOIDA. Petitioner pleaded that he filed his return under Section 39 of the GST Act. The tax deposited by the petitioner to NOIDA was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B due to mistake on part of NOIDA.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of committing rape against a college student, as it noted that the victim had 'herself invited trouble' and was 'responsible' for the alleged act of rape.
The victim alleged that the accused, whom she met at a bar, raped her twice in his relative's apartment after she had agreed to go to his place to rest, as she was heavily intoxicated and needed support after consuming alcohol.
Case Title: X v. State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court granted police protection to an interfaith live-in couple, while hearing a plea filed by their minor daughter, which claimed that the erstwhile in-laws of the child's mother were threatening the couple.
A division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit in its order observed that it appeared that the biological father and mother of the child are of different religion and had been living together since 2018. The court noted that the child is presently one year and four months old.
Case title - Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. High Court Judicature of Allahabad, Bench at lucknow
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court sentenced Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey to six months' simple imprisonment for using abusive language against HC judges, calling them 'goondas' in open court in 2021.
Pandey has been found guilty of committing criminal contempt of court by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, as it concluded that Pandey's conduct shows that he treats the judicial process with “utter disdain” and continues to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav And 2041 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10478 of 2022]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 100 each on more than 6,400 petitioners who had approached the High Court against law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors (2018).
In 2017, 5he Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors held though the authorities would have been permitted to proceed in terms of the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 in the normal course, however, since 66,655 teachers had been appointed due to the interim order passed by it, the Court had allowed filing up of remaining vacancies after issuance of fresh advertisement and not in terms of the advertisement dated 7th December, 2012.
Case title - Usman Ali vs. State of U.P. and 12 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court observed that once an investigation is complete, a charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has begun, superior courts should ordinarily refrain from reopening the investigation or transferring it to another agency. Instead, the Magistrate receiving the chargesheet or the court trying the offences should be allowed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Case Title: M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 125
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of seller's registration.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the record shows that the registration of the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 and not from its inception which goes to show that the transaction between petitioner and seller was registered and having valid registration in his favour.”
Case title - Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court quashed the arrest of a man in connection with a forgery and cheating case. It noted that neither the reasons nor grounds for his arrest were communicated in writing at the time of his arrest, violating his constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate under Section 50 CrPC.
In its order passed last week, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed that the right of an arrested person to be informed in writing of the grounds of arrest and furnishing of such written grounds to the arrested person is an imperative requirement of law.
Case Title: Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1680 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 127
While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court observed that “compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire burning.”
This observation was made by Justice Ajay Bhanot in the context that financial conditions for grant of compassionate appointment have not been defined anywhere but has to be examined in light of the applicable law.
Case Title: Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT A No. - 6716 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 128
While setting aside order deducting 10% pension of the Jail Superintendent for 3 years on account of misconduct, the Allahabad High Court held that misconduct is different from carelessness, or inaction and therefore, no punishment could have been given under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation.
It was held that under the said regulation, pension can be withheld due to grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the government, which does not include losing control subordinates leading to prisoners escaping.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sethia (Deceased) v. State of U.P. and another [WRIT TAX No. - 917 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives.
Section 93 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for liability to pay tax in case of death of the proprietor of the firm. Section 93(1)(a) provides that when the business is continued after the death of the proprietor, the legal representative shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under the Act.
Case title - Shreya Kesarwani And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court earlier this month observed that couples who marry of their own will against the wishes of their parents cannot claim police protection as a matter of right, unless there is a real threat perception to their life and liberty.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava noted that while in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, in the absence of any threat perception, such a couple must “learn to support each other and face the society.”
Case Title: M/s LR Print Solutions v. M/s Exflo Sanitation Pvt Ltd. and 2 others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8387 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and others and Hindustan Construction Company Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that automatic stay on the operation of arbitral award is not granted merely by filing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016.
Case title - Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape by a 25-year-old woman, noting that the FIR seemed to arise more from the 'emotional aftermath' of their failed relationship, rather than from any bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing.
The Court observed that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after the relationship between the applicant and the victim fell apart, and that the timing and circumstances surrounding the complaint suggested a 'retaliatory motive' rather than a 'genuine' pursuit of justice.
Case title - Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 133
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has held that even the marriages between two Hindus (a Male and Female) performed in Arya Samaj Temples are valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if they are solemnised in accordance with Vedic or other relevant Hindu rites and ceremonies and that the marriage venue, be it a temple, house, or open space, is irrelevant for such purpose.
Case Title: Merino Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [WRIT TAX No. - 1406 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by the assesee.
Case Title: X & Others v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mother-in-law can file a case against her daughter-in-law or any other person, as being harassed or tortured would bring her under the purview of aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
Justice Alok Mathur in his order held:
“In case, mother-in-law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law or any other member of the family, certainly she could be brought within the fold of aggrieved person and would have a right to maintain the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Case title - Ishan Chaudhary And Another vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court observed that a non-agricultural land use declaration under Section 80(1) or 80(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, does not imply that the land has been partitioned among co-bhumidhars.
Interpreting Section 80 (4) of the Code, a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf clarified that if one of the co-bhumidhars wants to apply for non-agricultural use of jointly owned land, then either all co-bhumidhars must apply together, or if only one of the co-bhumidhars is applying for the same concerning his own share, the land in question must already be partitioned as per the provisions of Section 116 of the 2006 Code and the relevant Rules.
Granting relief to three students of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow (RMLNLU), rusticated/expelled earlier this month over their alleged act of misbehaviour with teachers during a fresher's party, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday allowed them to appear in their forthcoming semester examinations.
A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the students, two of whom were rusticated and one expelled, noting that no show-cause notice was issued to two of them prior to the issuance of the adverse orders.
Case Title: M/S Rajan Construction Company vs.State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 137 [WRIT-C NO. 34248 OF 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 137
On Friday, the Allahabad High Court observed that the condition restricting tender participation to pellet manufacturers in and around the National Capital Region (NCR) aims to reduce stubble burning by farmers, which is a major cause of air pollution in the area. The Court held that this tender condition is neither 'arbitrary' nor 'discriminatory', but framed in the larger public interest. It further noted that it is within the employer's domain to determine the tender conditions best suited to serve the 'public interest'.
Case title - Imran Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that liking a post doesn't amount to publishing or transmitting it and would not be an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act [Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form].
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that a post or message can be said to be 'published' when it is posted, and a post or message can be said to be transmitted when it is shared or retweeted.
Case title - Amarjeet Pandey vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 139
In an order, the Allahabad High Court raised serious concerns over the growing trend of litigants manipulating their date of birth in criminal proceedings to obtain 'favourable' legal outcomes, such as being declared a juvenile.
In a strongly worded order, the Court also criticised the laxity of law enforcement agencies in conducting proper age verification as required by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Case title - Shailendra Kumar vs. The State Of U.P. And 5 Others and connected petitions
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 140
While holding that compassionate appointment of teachers compromises quality of education thereby violating fundamental right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad High Court declared Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21-A of the Constitution of India insofar as they relate to appointment on the posts of teachers on compassionate grounds.
Case Title: Smt. Minakshi Gupta v. Kailash Chandra [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 207 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court has held that just because the parties agreed for mutual divorce after more than 1 year of separation period, the Court cannot neglect the separation period prior to the agreement for divorce. It held that the period of separation prior to the meeting of minds will be considered under sub-section (1) in section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for divorce by mutual consent. Sub-section(1) of section 13 provides that petition for divorce by mutual consent can be presented by parties together on the grounds that they have been living separately for one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and the marriage must be dissolved. Sub-section (2) provides the procedural aspect for deciding such petition.
Case title - Khushbu Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) U.P. Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a woman accused of killing her husband in collusion with her mother and alleged lover, with whom she is said to have had an illicit relationship.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted bail to the accused (Khushbu Devi) by extending the benefit of Section 480 BNSS, noting that her husband has died and she is in jail, and there is no one in the family to look after her minor children, who are in 'abandoned condition'.
Case title - Animesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Refusing relief to 4 Uttar Pradesh police officials accused of abusing, assaulting, and unlawfully confining a doctor and his companions at a police post, the Allahabad High Court observed that acts falling outside the scope of a public servant's official duties do not require prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC.
“Merely because the applicants are police officials, it would not provide any shield to the applicants. Police uniform is not license to assault innocent citizens,” a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh remarked as it prima facie found a case against the accused police officials booked under Sections 323, 342, 394 IPC.
Case title - Vikash Chaturvedi vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. For Law And Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the recent transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
A bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed that the transfer, administration of oath, and functioning of a judge are the concomitants of his/her tenure, which is protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Rd. Transport Corp. Faizabad v. Smt. Meena Srivastava And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 145 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 602 of 2011]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court has held that the salary of a son who has been appointed on compassionate grounds after father's demise in a road accident cannot be taken as salary of the deceased for determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Claimants' husband/ father was getting off from a bus when his leg got stuck. The bus started without noticing that his leg was stuck and as a result, he was seriously injured and was declared dead at the hospital.
Claims Of GST Department Are Barred Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 146 [WRIT TAX No. - 1716 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, the Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of Goods and Service Tax Department are barred after the aproval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal.
Case Title: M/S K.C. International Situate And 2 Others vs. Indian Bank Kanpur Main Branch 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 147 [WRIT - C No. - 263 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 147
While dealing with challenge to recovery proceedings initiated by bank, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Court must not interfere in matters pertaining to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 unless the actions by the bank are patently illegal and/or mala fide.
Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held
“This Court is required not to interfere in matters with regard to the SARFAESI Act unless this Court finds patent illegality and/or mala fide actions being taken by the bank authorities.”
Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024 ]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the assesee to download the complete E-way Bill including Part-B of the E-way Bill for transactions after April 2018.
Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held
“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 12020 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) based on adverse entries in against him in his service record which had attained finality.
Holding that adverse entries existed which could lead the Screening Committee to recommend compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held, “as the petitioner is a Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary litigant must have complete faith in the judicial system and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even remotely create perception against the justice delivery system.”
Case Title: Waseem Riaz v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29865 of 2024 ]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the property seized by an investigating agency is not needed for the logical conclusion of trial/ litigation, the same must be released in favour of the rightful owner. It held that who is the rightful owner of the property so seized must be decided based on preponderance of probabilities.
Holding that no person can be deprived of his/her property without the authority of law, Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori held,
“when the property, so seized by the investigating agency, need not physically remain with the prosecution to bring the trial or litigation, relating to or connected with the seized property, to its logical conclusion, then the seized property shall be released to the rightful owner, or the person who is entitled thereto. As to who is the rightful owner or the person entitled to the possession of the property shall be guided by the proof based on preponderance of the probabilities.”
Case Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another [WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient.
Section 75 of the GST Act is a general provision relating to determination of tax. Section 75(6) of the GST Act provides that “the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.”
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 152
The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a petition filed by suspended-Station House Officer (SHO) Dinesh Kumar Verma seeking to quash criminal proceedings including the summoning order in connection with the 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder case, wherein he has been booked over allegations of dereliction of official duty.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh criticised the officer's conduct as it took into account both procedural violations and a glaring lack of sensitivity in handling the case involving a 19-year-old Dalit woman, a gang rape survivor, who later succumbed to her injuries.
Case title - Rida Fatima Khan And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education, New Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea by JEE (Main) 2025 candidates seeking a re-exam, who claimed that they could not reach the examination centre in time due to a traffic jam caused by the passage of the Chief Minister's convoy.
A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh, though expressing sympathy for the students, observed that a writ of mandamus could not be issued in the matter, as the case did not involve any legal right and its consequential denial, which would warrant judicial intervention.
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. - 1386 of 2023]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the authority on verification has mentioned the details of the goods found and verified the correctness of the invoices and the goods in transit, it cannot be permitted to change the stand later and say that the goods were not in accordance with the invoice.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held
“Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”
Case title - Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrance Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the Uttar Pradesh Government's order to terminate a Standing Counsel's empanelment/contract, terming it as 'illegal' and 'arbitrary'.
The termination followed the petitioner's inability to connect to the Hardoi District Magistrate, whose phone was switched off during court hours, due to which the DM was summoned by the Court in October last year.
Case Title: Smt. Santosh Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila Jain [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11807 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revisional court cannot assume jurisdiction of an execution court and decide an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, when the same is pending before the executing court.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, after concluding that the issue of res judicata should be adjudicated first. The Court said that the revisional court should have remanded the matter to the executing/trial court to decide it as a preliminary issue, rather than dismissing the application under O21 R97.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar v. Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Lucknow and Others [WRIT-C NO. 21818 OF 2023]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the insurance company wants specific details to be filed in the form for issuing insurance policy, it must insist upon the person seeking the policy to disclose the same. Once the policy has been issued to the person without disclosing such facts and premium has been recovered by the insurance company, it cannot repudiate the contract on grounds of suppression/ non-disclosure of material facts.
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the recent remark by Businessman and husband of Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi, Robert Vadra, on the Pahalgam terror attack.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla asked the petitioner [Hindu Front For Justice (through its President, Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri)] to avail alternative remedies under the law, including but not limited to filing an FIR or a criminal complaint.
Case title - Aditya Murti vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Anti Corruption Bureau Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused who has been enlarged on bail cannot seek permission as of right to travel abroad merely to attend a relative's wedding and have a pleasure trip.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi emphasised that an accused cannot claim an automatic right to travel abroad for non-essential purposes merely because such permission was granted to him earlier.
Case title – State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Alias Gabbar S/O Brahamdutt 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Overturning an order of acquittal concerning an accused who raped a 18-year-old girl on 2016, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that even if a woman is accustomed to sexual intercourse, even then she cannot be raped.
The bench also observed that it would be 'ridiculous' to accept the submission that a rape survivor, who had been subjugated and 'overpowered' mentally, psychologically and physically, must be shown to have suffered internal and external injuries to make her deposition trustworthy.
Case title - Prashant Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 161
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 161
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the dismissal of an accused's writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR would not create a bar on the filing of an application for the grant of anticipatory bail
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that a writ petition for quashing the FIR and an application for anticipatory bail are altogether different remedies, which are to be decided on different sets of considerations and grounds.
Allahabad High Court Disposes PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into LoP Rahul Gandhi's Citizenship
Case title – S. Vignesh Shishir vs UOI and others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court on Monday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a BJP Member from Karnataka (S. Vignesh Shishir) last year, seeking a CBI probe into Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha Rahul Gandhi's alleged British Citizenship.
Though a bench of Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi and Justice Rajeev Singh did not prescribe a specific timeline for the Union of India to decide on the petitioner's representation seeking cancellation of Gandhi's citizenship, it granted petitioner the liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies.
Case Title: Ahswani Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 6 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that provision for bail cancellation is to ensure that justice is done and to prevent the accused from tampering evidence upon being set at liberty through bail order. It further held that cancellation of bail and rejection of bail are two different scenarios as cancellation interferes with the liberty already granted to a citizen by the bail order.
Case title - Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 164
In a significant Judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that unnatural sexual intercourse by a man with his wife without her consent, even if she is above 18 years, would be punishable u/s 377 IPC though that may not be rape as per Section 375 IPC.
“…it is clear that carnal sex, other than penile-vaginal intercourse is not a natural orientation of sex for the majority of women, therefore the same cannot be done by the husband, even with his wife without her consent,” the bench observed in its order.
POCSO Act Not Meant To Criminalise Consensual Romantic Relations: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Raj Sonkar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the POCSO Act, which was enacted to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation, has now become a tool for their exploitation.
Stressing that the Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said that the fact of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be considered while granting bail.
Case Title: Brahmdutt Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 166
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 not maintainable against illegal encroachment on Gram Sabha land.
While quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another where it was held that “as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court.”
Case Title: Anil Kumar Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India And Another [WRIT C No. 13012 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court has held that the bank reinitiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is not an “exception circumstance” to forgo the forfeiture of deposit prescribed under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides that if the purchaser of the immovable property under Rule 9 defaults on payment within the stipulated time, then any amount deposited by him pursuant to the sale agreement will be forfeited in favour of the secured creditor and the property shall be resold. It further provides that the defaulting purchaser will have no claims over the immovable property or to the amount recovered on the resale of the property.
Case title – Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court dismissed YouTuber Elvish Yadav's plea against the chargesheet filed in the FIR against him for alleged misuse of snakes and snake venoms for making YouTube videos. Allegations against him also include organising rave parties and calling foreigners who make people consume snake venom and other intoxicating drugs.
Case title - Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court refused to grant short-term bail to a man convicted under Section 304 IPC who sought to travel abroad for over a month to perform Hajj.
A bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed that the right to do a Pilgrimage tour to the Hajj is not absolute, and the same could be curtailed as granting bail at this point may increase the chances of him fleeing outside the clutches of the law of this country.
Case Title: Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2997 of 2022]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has held that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails over the Insurance Act, 1938 as the rights guaranteed to the successor under the former cannot be defeated by the rights guaranteed to the nominee under the latter enactment.
While dealing with the claim of the mother-nominee over the insurance money of her deceased daughter against the rights of the daughter of the deceased, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,
“On harmonious interpretation of the two provisions i.e. Insurance Act and Hindu Succession Act, the rights conferred by Hindu Succession Act will prevail over the rights claimed by the nominee under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, the succession act being specific to succession in contradiction to the Insurance Act which is general.”
Case Title: Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that an under trail must obtain permission for travelling abroad from the Court concerned prior to applying for issue, re-issue or renewal of passport before the passport authority.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held
“A plain reading of the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and the beneficial Notification issued in terms of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 leads to the sole logical conclusion that in all cases wherein criminal proceedings are pending and have been denied the issuance of passport by the operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the under-trial, as a condition precedent has to first seek permission or NOC from the Court concerned, wherein the trial is pending, to travel abroad or depart, for which essentially a passport is required and then only as a condition subsequent apply to the passport authority for issuance of the passport for a particular period as mentioned in the permission order itself or for the period as mentioned in GSR 570(E) dated 25th of August, 1993.”
Case title – S. Vignesh Shishir vs UOI and others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 172
The Allahabad High Court dismissed as withdrawn a fresh PIL plea moved by a BJP Member seeking the cancellation of Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha, Rahul Gandhi's citizenship. The plea also sought a ban on him travelling abroad during the pendency of his citizenship issue.
During the course of the hearing, a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I pointed out that the instant petition was 'another round of litigation' and that the petitioner had nothing new or relevant material to seek indulgence of the Court.
Case Title: Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41221 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 173
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been empowered to grant a declaration of bhumidhar rights on administraive side.
While dealing with a case where petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for grant of declaration of absolute bhumidhar rights and decision on representation filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that all the three provisions; Sections 131A, 131B of Act, 1950 and 76 of Code, 2006 speak of conferment of status upon the concerned tenure holder as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, however, the provisions do not provide for a forum for making conferment or such declaration. Certainly, the Sub-Divisional Officer or any other officer has not been held to be empowered, on administrative side, to grant such a declaration in favour of concerned tenure holder under the aforesaid provisions.”
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 174
The Allahabad High Court observed that while Islam permits more than one marriage under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, this permission is 'widely misused' even against the mandate of Muslim law.
The Court underscored that Polygamy was conditionally permitted under the Quran during early Islamic times to protect widows and orphans after heavy wartime casualties, however, the said provision is now being misused by men for 'selfish purposes'
Case title - Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has observed that neither a person can be denied bail nor his bail plea be opposed mainly on the ground that extracts of the case diary had been annexed with his bail plea.
“It is a basic principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing, which would include providing copies of the material against him”, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed while allowing bail to a murder-accused on the grounds of parity.
Case Title: M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13451 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 176
The Allahabad High Court has held that pendency of arbitral proceedings does not bar the of jurisdiction of Stamp Authorities from initiating proceedings under Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
In Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Supreme Court while dealing with an unstamped agreement, held that insufficiency of stamp duty would not result in stopping arbitration proceedings. It was held that the Arbitrator was competent to decide on sufficiency of stamp duty, and if he concluded that there was insufficiency in stamp duty paid, then the same could be impounded and referred to competent authority.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 177
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to 'freely' profess, practise, and propagate religion, and it doesn't endorse forced or fraudulent conversions.
Stressing that the use of the word 'freely' in Article 25 of the Constitution of India underscores the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said:
“Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. However, this right is expressly subject to public order, morality, and health, which provides a constitutional foundation for regulating religious conversions that are procured through coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence. These limitations are essential in ensuring that the exercise of religious freedom does not disrupt the societal fabric or endanger individual and communal well-being” (emphasis supplied)
Case title - Lakhan And Others vs. State 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that when injuries occur to both the accused and the complainant in the same incident, and the injuries to the accused are not explained by the prosecution, it raises doubts about whether the true origin and nature of the incident have been fully and honestly presented.
Such omissions can impact the credibility of the prosecution's case and warrant a more cautious scrutiny of the evidence by the court, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed while setting aside the conviction of two in a 48-year-old murder case.
Case title - Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg vs. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 179
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University from the panel of names recommended by the University to a Visitor.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that
“We are informed that in the history of the University for well over a century no women has ever been appointed as Vice-chancellor. Appointment of woman as Vice-Chancellor of a premier institution of higher learning sends a message that the constitutional objective of advancement of cause of women is being promoted.”
Case title - Committee Of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal vs. Hari Shankar Jain And 12 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 180
The Allahabad High Court today rejected Mosque Committee's plea against the trial court's order passed on November 19 directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the mosque was built after destroying a temple.
With this, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has upheld the trial court's survey order. It also added that the Hindu Plaintiffs is prima facie not barred
Case title - Saurabh Singh Chauhan vs. Bank Of Baroda, Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 181
The Allahabad High Court recalled its direction to Bank of Baroda to compensate the successful bidder (the auction purchaser) for its alleged 'arbitrary' action to return the auctioned property to the defaulting borrower (the original borrower), despite accepting the earnest money from the bidder.
For context, on April 9, the court passed this order while dealing with a writ plea moved by Saurabh Singh Chauhan, who claimed that he had successfully bid for the property in question under the SARFAESI Act.
Case title - Poonam Sharma And Another vs State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 182
In the abetment of the suicide case of 25-year-old TCS Manager, Manav Sharma, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to his mother-in-law as well as his sister-in-law.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain noted that only general allegations have been levelled against them and that there was merit in the argument of the applicants that there is no cogent evidence of abetment against them on record.
Case title - Shanidev And Another vs. State Of Up And 7 Others and connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 183
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 183
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court, in its suo moto writ jurisdiction, directed the State Government to amend Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, within 6 months so that a robust and verifiable marriage registration mechanism comes into existence, ensuring the validity and sanctity of marriages.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this direction months after raising concerns regarding the emergence of an organised racket of touts who are involved in getting fake marriages registered through forged documents.
Case title - Arjun @ Golu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184
The Allahabad High Court expressed its concern over a 16-year-old minor languishing in a regular jail alongside undertrial accused persons and convicts, due to the trial court's failure to decide his application claiming juvenility.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that if the trial court ultimately concludes that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law, the loss caused to him, having spent over a year in regular jail with undertrial prisoners and convicts, cannot be remedied by any means.
Case title - M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Thru. Auth.Signatory Mr.Sunil Kumar Magoo vs. State Of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Labor Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 185
The Allahabad High Court has, as an interim measure, directed that the charge of Rs. 500/- towards photo identification by the Bar Associations is not to be realized from the litigants.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia in his order said that it is high time that in the era where efforts are being made to "promote digital India, continuing with a regressive practice of the litigants traveling from far off places solely for photo identification is on the face of it retrogressive".
Case title – Mohammed Zubair vs State of UP and others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 186
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair over his tweets ('X' Posts) on Yati Narsinghanand's 'derogatory' speech.
The Court, however, extended the interim protection against arrest to him during the course of the investigation.
Case Title: Rani Pandey And Another v. State Of Up And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 12032 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has recently directed investigation in a case where the woman, who was petitioner no.1, denied filing the writ petition and suspected that her husband could have filed the writ petition alleging her marriage with someone else to aid their divorce proceedings.
Since the lawyer whose name was mentioned on the petition as counsel for the petitioner also denied filing the said writ petition, Justice Vinod Diwakar directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to conduct preliminary inquiry.
Case Title: Vimla Kashyap And 2 Others v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Financial Services New Delhi And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2946 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Noting similar orders being passed in cases by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow without any application of mind, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Ministry of Finance must consider imparting training to the officers so that DRT can function smoothly.
Petitioners approached the High Court against the order of the DRT rejecting their application for interim relief. Though an appeal was maintainable against the order, it was argued that though reasons were given in support of grant of interim relief, they were recorded incorrectly and an abrupt order was passed rejecting petitioners' application.
Case Title: Shivam Pandey And 5 Others v. State Of U.P., Through Secretary Department Of Basic Education, Government Of U.P. And 2 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 259 of 2024]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 189
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of a Single Judge, denying the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section category for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers held in 2020.
The Single Judge had refused to extend the benefit to the candidates of the recruitment held in 2020 as the process was initiated before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for EWS) Act, 2020.
Case title - - Ram Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And 4 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 190
A single judge bench of Justice Prakash Singh dismissed an application seeking interest on delayed gratuity, filed by a retired office assistant. The court held that once a writ petition is finally decided, a miscellaneous application seeking substantive reliefs like interest, is not maintainable. The court explained that gratuity and pension are statutory rights and not govt largesse. However, it held that post-judgement modifications are not possible unless permitted by law.
Case Title: Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 49 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 191
The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application in divorce proceedings cannot be allowed after a delay of 10 years when the party was aware of the facts at the time of institution of suit. It held that such amendment application is only to prolong litigation and cannot be entertained at the stage of final hearing.
While dealing with wife's plea against allowing husband's amendment application seeking restitution of conjugal rights after 10 years of institution of divorce proceedings, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“the respondent has recently filed an application for amendment just to delay the proceedings and to harass his deserted wife, who is running from pillar to post for the last 10 years. The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is to be seen in the perspective of the given facts that unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court. In the present case, for the last 10 years the respondent was silent over the matter and when the proceedings were at final stage, he moved the amendment application, which is against the spirit of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.”
Case title - Azahar Ali vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 192
Stating that the minority educational institution Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is "distributing degrees" without proper classes, the Allahabad High Court denied to such degree holders any right to appointment as Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in Primary Schools run by Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board.
Petitioners (in connected cases) pleaded that they had all obtained degrees in Adib-E-Kamil from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and were eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board. All petitioners appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test - 2013 and cleared the same.
Case title - Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Allahabad High Court: A single judge bench of justice Brijraj Singh dismissed a writ petition, holding that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) properly followed their Standing Orders by striking off the employee's name following his unauthorised absence. The court found that the employee was given adequate opportunity through show cause notices, and that the petition suffered from inexcusable delay.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The Allahabad High Court refused to recall its April order sentencing Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey to six months' simple imprisonment for using abusive language against HC judges and calling them 'goondas' in open court in 2021.
Pandey was found guilty of committing criminal contempt of court by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, as it concluded that Pandey's conduct showed that he treats the judicial process with “utter disdain” and continued to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity.
Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18956 of 2022]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The Allahabad High Court has held that Village Policemen are not equal to Policemen working in regular establishment and Home Guards and are thus not entitled to basic pay disbursed to policemen working in regular police force. It held that the duties of the Village Policemen, who were first appointed during British Raj era, have now become rudimentary and have been taken over by technological advancements.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To BJP Leader Accused Of Beheading Friend In Agra
Case title - Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra, who was arrested in 2022 on the allegations of murdering his friend, Naveen Verma, a jeweller.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot granted him bail, noting that he is not a flight risk, has always cooperated with the investigation, and he undertook to cooperate with the court proceedings.
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 197
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court referred to a nine-judge bench two key questions concerning the High Court's power to quash an FIR and the ensuing investigation using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS).
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench, given the HC's 7-Judge Bench ruling in the case of Ramlal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1989), wherein it was held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC wouldn't be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited And Others [WRIT-C NO. 12360 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Indian Telegraph Act the District Magistrate is only required to decide matters which have been referred to it by the Telegraph Authority.
It held that District Magistrate is not required to pass orders on representations in every case where persons are affected by a transmission line.
Case Title: Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2495 of 2016]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on the actions of the Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom encroaching the land belonging to National Highways Authority of India, creating construction on the same, sub-letting it and charging rent on the property.
Noting that the petitioner Waqf had encroached upon the land owned by NHAI, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that
“This Court is surprised to note that the plaintiff has made construction over the land of National Highways and had let out the structure to different persons and is realizing the rent treating it to be property of waqf Madarsa. It cannot be said to be a case of 'waqf by user' as the owner of the property in dispute is the National Highway Authority of India, which is under the control of Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.”
Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) today DISMISSED a plea filed by LoP Rahul Gandhi against a Lucknow Court's order summoning him in a Defamation case filed over his alleged remark on the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on Gandhi's plea, who had moved the HC challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP MLA court in Lucknow.
Case title - Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018 - which imposed restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail in the State (effective from June 6, 2019), in cases under specific laws including the UP Gangsters Act - stands 'impliedly repealed'.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that when a State amends a law on a subject in the Concurrent List, and the Parliament later makes a change to that same law, the State law must give way to the Parliament's law, even if the said law adds to, changes, or repeals the law made by the legislature of the State.
Case Title: Zaitek Polyblends Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizer Ltd. [COMPANY PETITION No. - 6 of 2012]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The Allahabad High Court has held that for winding up of a company under Section 433(f) of the the Companies Act, the Court must opine that the company is a threat to the commercial world if it remains in existence.
Rejecting the application for winding up of a company, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held
“To appreciate a case for winding up of a company on the ground that it is just and equitable, it is essential for the Court to form a view that in view of the status of the company, if the company is not wound up, the same would amount to a threat to the commercial world and the existence of the company is not desirable for the commercial world.”
Case Title: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The Allahabad High Court has held that distribution of properties of the parties, including return of “stree dhan”, must be determined in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and not upon separate application being made under Section 27 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held, “return of 'stree dhan' has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27.”
Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.
Allahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali's Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Case Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and Others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of proceedings under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited's 3 plants even though proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have been dropped against them.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held
“Under the present GST regime, persons who are not liable to pay tax under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act may very well be liable for penalties as described in the twenty-one sub-sections of Section 122(1) and under sub-sections 122(2) and 122(3).”
Case title - Anwar Dhebar vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 206 and a connected matter
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The Allahabad High Court declared the arrests of Anwar Dhebar, a businessman and brother of the former Raipur Mayor, and former IAS officer Anil Tuteja, both accused in a money laundering case linked to the alleged ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, as illegal.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh granted them bail in the FIR lodged agains them in Meerut (UP), noting that the arrest memos did not contain any column for the ground of the arrest of the petitioners and they were neither informed about the grounds of arrest, nor reasons for arrest.
Case Title: Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav [First Appeal Defective No.115 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The Allahabad High Court has held that if after filing of criminal case by one spouse against other, the parties have approached the court for divorce by the mutual consent, the same must be granted by invoking the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for divorce by mutual consent. Section 14 of the Act mandates that no divorce petition can be presented before any court within 1 year of marriage. Proviso to Section 14(1) provides that such application can be entertained if the Court before which it is filed if there is exception hardship faced by the party presenting it or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.
Case title - Sachin Sirohi And Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to two men, including a leader of Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Suraksha Samiti, who were held in March this year for forcibly reciting 'Hanuman Chalisa' near a mosque in UP's Meerut.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh granted bail to Sachin Sirohi and Sanjay Samarval who have been booked by the Meerut police under Sections 191(2) [Rioting], 196 [Promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 197 [Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration] BNS.
Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 6131 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 209
The Allahabad High Court has held that suspension of head of department accused of sexual harassment builds confidence in women employees of his department and prevents abuse of power by the accused.
Justice Ajit Kumar held, “Naturally if the employee is regularly discharging duties on a position that he holds as ahead of the department, in matters of complaint of sexual harassment where a decision is yet to be taken finally by the authority, the authority may place the said employee under suspension firstly as a confidence building measure amongst the working women in the department and secondly to ensure that such an officer may not abuse his position to pressurize other working women or otherwise also to the aggrieved women even while the final action is still pending consideration.”
Case Title: Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya v. Jitendra Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 530 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court has held that the fact whether the second marriage was void due to subsisting first marriage of a spouse is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held
“What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the party seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses, requires it, as to be paid by the other party in a matrimonial dispute pending adjudication.”
Case Title: Saurabh Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 211 [WRIT - C No. - 10898 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is a statuary vacuum in the Mental Health Act, in so far as it does not lay down the standards and mechanism to determine the “wills and preferences” of a mentally ill person while appointing their representative and the Courts step in as parens patriae to nominate the representative considering the best interests of the mentally ill person.
While dealing with nephew's plea to be nominated as his mentally disabled aunt's representative, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held
“the MH Act had laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the "best interest" of the mentally ill person. However, no guidance exists as to what would constitute the "wills and preferences" of the person. Even in the proviso to Section 14 (1), the factors to be considered for providing total support are conspicuously absent.”
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a quashing plea moved by a 24-year-old man against an FIR lodged against him over his alleged social media posts on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following the India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement on May 10, 2025, after four days of intense military confrontation.
Though the petitioner's counsel argued that the alleged posts had been made after being carried away by emotions, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Anil Kumar-X, rejecting this submission, remarked thus:
"A post written by the petitioner against the Prime Minister regarding his decision to desist from war etc. carries scurrilous language against the Head of the Government...Emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that Constitutional Authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute by employment of disrespectful words".
Case title - Syed Mohammad Seraj Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 213
In a relief to Mohammad Seraj Ali, a journalist associated with the BBC, who is facing an FIR over his 2021 report on the demolition of Ramsanehighat mosque in Barabanki, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday set aside two orders of the courts in Barabanki denying him a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the renewal/issuance of his passport.
Ali, who, along with journalist Mukul Chauhan, published a video report in June 2021 while working for The Wire, was booked by the Uttar Pradesh Police in an FIR under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 153, 153A, 120-B, and 501(1)(b).
Case Title: Devendra Singh v. State Of Up And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 167 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 214
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the appellants-employees were absorbed against vacancies in regular posts, any irregularity which would have existed at the time of their initial appointment would be deemed to have been cured.
While dealing with subseqeunt termination of employees due appointments being made on unsanctioned posts, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held the appellants were not at fault even though there was irregularity in their initial appointments.
Case Title: Shiv Narayan Gupta vs. Garib Chandra 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4107 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The Allahabad High Court has held that trial courts are empowered to amend preliminary decree to do justice between the parties.
Referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baliram Atmaram Kelapure vs. Indirabai and S.Satnam Singh & Ors. vs. Surender Kaur & Anr. relied upon the parties, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held
“The provision of Section 97 C.P.C. or interpretation of the said provision by Hon'ble Apex Court does not restrict the power of the trial Court to amend the preliminary decree in case it necessitates to do justice between the parties.”
Case title - Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home And 3 Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 216
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has held that with the enforcement of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, anticipatory bail plea would now be maintainable in NDPS Act cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh, as the previous bar under the state's CrPC amendment has effectively been repealed by the BNSS.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur ruled that with the enactment of the BNSS, the restriction imposed by the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018, specifically Section 438(6), which barred anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases, no longer holds effect.
Case title - Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Thru. Chairman Shafiullah Vs. Union Of India Thru.Its Secretary,Ministry Of Education Central Secretariat, New Delhi And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 217
A vacation bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking to stay the to-be-announced results of NEET-UG 2025 and to quash the physics section of the paper and order re-conduct of the same.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi dismissed the PIL plea filed by Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Election Of BJP MLA From Tundla
Case title - Prem Pal Singh vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar And 12 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 218
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Prem Pal Singh Dhangar from the Tundla assembly seat of the state's Firozabad district.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed the plea filed by Prem Pal Singh on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts while filing the election petition.
Case title - Sushila Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 2 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The Allahabad High Court last week granted transit anticipatory bail to a woman from Sitapur who was summoned by the Delhi Police to appear at the Mayapuri Police Station (District West Delhi) at 9:00 PM for questioning in connection with an FIR.
Case title - Shakeel Ahmad vs. State of U.P.
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 220
The Allahabad High Court objected to the conduct of a UP police officer who appeared before it in casual civil attire, rather than the prescribed police uniform.
A bench Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, who was hearing the matter, stressed that police personnel must maintain the decorum of court proceedings by appearing in proper uniform when attending in their official capacity.
“Police officers are expected to wear prescribed uniform while appearing before Courts. The appearance of any police officer wearing casual civil clothes in Court proceeding amounts to violation of decorum of the Court and undermining the Court proceedings,” the Court remarked.
While granting bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the false promise of marriage, the Allahabad High Court recently remarked that the concept of live-in relationships is against the “settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society”.
A bench of Justice Siddharth also expressed displeasure at the growing number of such cases reaching the courts. The bench observed:
“After live-in-relationship has been legalized by the Apex Court, the Court had fed up [sic] such cases. These cases are coming to the Court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society…”
Case title - Bhagwandeen vs. State of U.P
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 222
While upholding the conviction of the accused in a 1996 rape case, the Allahabad High Court recently made poignant observations regarding the systemic hardships faced by rape survivors from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, which obstruct their access to justice.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the sufferings of such victims often begin much before the trial, that is, at the very first step of trying to get their voice heard by lodging an FIR regarding the incident.
Case Title: State Of Up And 3 Others v. Mahaveer Singh And 5 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 846 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 223
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee must work for a long, continuous period to be eligible for regularization and the only exception to this requirement is 'artificial breaks' or where the employe is prohibited from working by the employer.
The division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed,
“Unless the requirement of continuous working is read into the rules, the Regularization rule itself would be open for challenge on the ground of it being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The only exception which can be continenced is the artificial break or period in which the employee is prevented from work by the employer.”
Case title - Ansar Ahmad Siddique vs. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 224
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant bail to a 62-year-old man accused of sharing a pro-Pakistan post on Facebook, observing that such anti-national acts are becoming a routine affair due to a liberal and tolerant judicial approach towards them.
A bench of Justice Siddharth passed the order while hearing the bail plea of one Ansar Ahmad Siddique, booked under Sections 197 and 152 BNS for allegedly sharing a post on Facebook wherein an appeal was made for propagating Zihad, saying Pakistan Zindabad and appealing to support Pakistani brothers.
NOMINAL INDEX
Brijesh Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Salman vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Ashok Pandey vs. Chairman Of Rajya Sabha Thru. Secy. General And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 3
Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 4
Arvind vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Manish Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Ram Bali Ram v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 7
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Gandharv Kumar @ Gaurav vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 10
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Arun Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Amit Dhama v. Smt Pooja And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Atul Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Zulfikar Ahmad And 7 Others vs. Jahangir Alam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Rachit Verma v. Smt. Anuradha Dey 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Sachin Sonkar vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Jaimangal Yadav vs. The State Of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Neeraj Kumar v. Smt. Shradha Goel 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Rekha And 3 Ors. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Alka Singh Chauhan v. Shakti Singh 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 22
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Chandrakant Tripathi vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Nishant Roy vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Mukhtiyar Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 27
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 28
In Re- Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing Of Criminal Appeals vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 29
M/S Annapurna Construction Co. vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Dilip Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Pramod vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Faraheem Qureshi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Jagriti And 2 Others vs. State Of Up And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Shubhra Rai vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Raj Pal Singh Dishwar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41
M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Manorma Tiwari vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Rakesh Rathor vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Thr Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Ashish Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Tranning New Delhi And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Sushil Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Rekha v. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49
Hari Shankar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Udhaw Singh vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Brahmachari Dayanand Indian Inhabitant and another vs. Union of India and 4 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Shiv Shankar v. Ravindra Kumar Mandar, District Collector And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 58
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Smt. Arti Devi and 8 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Piyush Gupta And Anothers v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Rajbhar Ekta Kalyan Samiti Thru. It Chairman Shri Pawan Kumar Rajbhar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 61
State of U.P. vs. Ram Naresh And 5 Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Kavita Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 63
U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) And Another vs. Spml Infra Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Rajneeta vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Gyanendra Kumar vs. Union Of India And 7 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 66
State of U.P. and 2 others v. Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Suresh Chandra Pandey vs State and UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 68
M/s Mukesh and Associates v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT), Allahabad 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 69
V-MARC INDIA LIMITED vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Dr Shahnawaj vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Gazal Srivastava And 2 Others v. Dhajaram Charitable Trust,New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman Captain Dilavar Singh Sanghwan(Rtd.)And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 72
M/S Gaursons Sportswood Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 73
M/s Xanadu Estates Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 74
M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Adarsh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Ashok Pandey vs Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. To President New Delhi and 2 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Priyanka Bharti vs State of UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 78
M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Sunita vs. Smt Parmjeet Kaur 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Kanyawati vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Shiv Datt Joshi And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Secretariat Administration Dept. Lko And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 82
M/S MANOJ PETROLEUM AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Shivakar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 84
M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Proview Constructions Limited v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Nipendra Kumar Sharma And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Amna Khatoon And 2 Others Vs. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Vice Chancellor And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 88
R.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shafique Ahmad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 90
M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Keshar Singh and 2 others vs. State Of U.P. and 13 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Satya Sanatan Dharm Dharmatma Kalyan Samiti vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Seema Padalia And Another V. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Akash And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Saurabh Lal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Uzma Abid vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Vipul Kohli v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 98
M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd v. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 99
M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd v. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Suman Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7574 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Aslam vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 103
State of U.P. vs. Devendra Kumar Dixit 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Smt. Maimuna Begum v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Vijay Kumar Dixit v. Union Of India And 7 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Chandani Pandey v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 108
M/S Durga Travels Thru. Proprietor Pankaj Sharma And 3 Others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Taufik Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Whorra Brothers v. Smt. Kastoori Devi And Another
Veer Bahadur Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 Others
Rahul Gandhi vs. State of UP Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Poonia (As Per F.I.R.) vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Sunita Nishad And Anr. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal through Registrar And Ors.
Ramji and Others v. State of U.P. and others
Ibrahim vs. State of U.P along with connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Rajendra Prasad And Others vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 119
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 120
X v. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. High Court Judicature of Allahabad, Bench at lucknow 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Sunil Kumar Yadav And 2041 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Usman Ali vs. State of U.P. and 12 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 124
M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank Of India And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Raj Kishore Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reforms Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Amit Kumar Sethia (Deceased) v. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Shreya Kesarwani And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 130
M/s LR Print Solutions v. M/s Exflo Sanitation Pvt Ltd. and 2 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Merino Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 134
X & Others v. State Of U.P. And Another2025 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Ishan Chaudhary And Another vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 136
M/S Rajan Construction Company vs.State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Imran Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Amarjeet Pandey vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Shailendra Kumar vs. The State Of U.P. And 5 Others and connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Smt. Minakshi Gupta v. Kailash Chandra 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Khushbu Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) U.P. Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Animesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Vikash Chaturvedi vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. For Law And Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Uttar Pradesh State Rd. Transport Corp. Faizabad v. Smt. Meena Srivastava And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 145
M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 146
M/S K.C. International Situate And 2 Others vs. Indian Bank Kanpur Main Branch 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 147
M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Waseem Riaz v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 150
M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Rida Fatima Khan And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education, New Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 153
M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrance Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Smt. Santosh Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila Jain 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Santosh Kumar v. Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Lucknow and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 157
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Aditya Murti vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Anti Corruption Bureau Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 159
State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Alias Gabbar S/O Brahamdutt 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Prashant Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 161
S. Vignesh Shishir vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Ahswani Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Raj Sonkar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Brahmdutt Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Anil Kumar Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Elvish Yadav vs State of UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168
Jahid vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Mohd. Talha v. Uoi Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 171
S. Vignesh Shishir vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 172
Jayraj Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 173
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 174
Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
M/S Dlf Home Developers Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 176
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 177
Lakhan And Others vs. State 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 178
Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 179
Committee Of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal vs. Hari Shankar Jain And 12 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 180
Saurabh Singh Chauhan vs. Bank Of Baroda, Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 181
Poonam Sharma And Another vs State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 182
Shanidev And Another vs. State Of Up And 7 Others and connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 183
Arjun @ Golu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184
M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Thru. Auth.Signatory Mr.Sunil Kumar Magoo vs. State Of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Labor Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 185
Mohammed Zubair vs State of UP and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Rani Pandey And Another v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 187
Vimla Kashyap And 2 Others v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Financial Services New Delhi And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 188
Shivam Pandey And 5 Others v. State Of U.P., Through Secretary Department Of Basic Education, Government Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 189
Ram Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 190
Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 191
Azahar Ali vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 192
Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 193
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 194
Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 195
Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 197
Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 198
Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 199
Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200
Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Zaitek Polyblends Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizer Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 202
Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 203
M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 204
M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Anwar Dhebar vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Sachin Sirohi And Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya v. Jitendra Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Saurabh Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 211
2025 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Syed Mohammad Seraj Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Devendra Singh v. State Of Up And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Shiv Narayan Gupta vs. Garib Chandra 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Sudhir @ Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 216
Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Thru. Chairman Shafiullah Vs. Union Of India Thru.Its Secretary,Ministry Of Education Central Secretariat, New Delhi And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Prem Pal Singh vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar And 12 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Sushila Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Shakeel Ahmad vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 220
Bhagwandeen vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 222
State Of Up And 3 Others v. Mahaveer Singh And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 223
Ansar Ahmad Siddique vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 224