Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest : January To March 2025
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
4 May 2025 9:31 PM IST
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM] ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [January-March 2025] Husband Can't Claim Ownership Of Wife's Body, Privacy, Her Consent Paramount; Sharing Intimate Acts' Video A Breach Of Trust: Allahabad HC Case title – Brijesh Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB)...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE QUARTER [January-March 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The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is high time for husbands to shed the outdated mentality of the Victorian era and realise that a wife's body, privacy, and rights are her own and not subject to the control or ownership of her husband.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.”
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