NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
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.