Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 To August 17, 2025

Vimla Kashyap and Ors v. Union of India and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 301

Sharda University Thru. Registrar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Dr Jitendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 304

Sultan Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 305

Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 306

Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg v. State of U.P. And 10 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 307

Axis Bank Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 308

Sattar Ahmad & 4 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 309

Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 310

Pheasant Infrastructure Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 311

ORDERS/JUDGEMNTS OF THE WEEK

[SARFAESI Act] Limitation To Be Calculated From Date Of Last Action Against Which Aggrieved Party Approached DRT U/S 17: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vimla Kashyap and Ors v. Union of India and Ors [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.3953 of 2025]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 301

The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing securitization application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has to be calculated from the date on which last action occurred against which the aggrieved approached the Debt recovery Tribunal under Section 17.

NCMEI Has Exclusive Power To Declare Minority Status Of Educational Institutions; 1999 GO Has Lost Relevance: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Sharda University Thru. Registrar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 302

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 302

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday quashed an order of the UP Government rejecting Greater Noida-based Sharda University's request to be included in the list of colleges participating in the ongoing NEET Counselling.

The rejection order, passed by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh (DGME), was based on the fact that the minority status granted to the University was not in accordance with the Government Order dated August 28, 1999.

Release Accused On 'Single' Surety; Don't Remand Them To Custody If Chargesheet Filed Sans Arrest: Allahabad HC Directs UP Courts

Case title - Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 303

The Allahabad High Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions for the trial courts across Uttar Pradesh to ensure uniform trial court practice, to give effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and to implement binding Supreme Court directions in this regard.

Exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS, a bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar on Tuesday directed that in all cases where the chargesheet has been filed without arrest, whether because custodial interrogation was not affected during investigation or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS and duly cooperated, certain practices should be adopted across the state.

Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To AMU Professor In FIR Over Alleged Reference To Rape In Hindu Mythology

Case title - Dr Jitendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 304

Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 304

The Allahabad High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an Aligarh Muslim University professor (Dr Jitendra Kumar) who is facing an FIR for allegedly referring to examples of 'rape' in Hindu mythology during a Forensic Medicine class in 2022.

A bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary granted him relief, taking into account the applicant's role and all the facts and circumstances of the case.

Litigation Can't Be A Sport For Mischievous: Allahabad High Court Penalises 'Busybody' Lawyer, Directs Pro Bono Work In 5 Cases

Case title - Sultan Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 305

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 305

In a sternly worded order, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an Advocate seeking a departmental enquiry against an Assistant Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, holding that the petition was 'actuated by malafides' and amounted to 'an abuse of the process of the Court'.

As a penalty, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed him to assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a pro bono basis.

Proceedings For Maintenance Pendente Lite Maintainable Even At Revisional/Appellate Stage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8704 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 306

The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses are maintainable even if the case under the Act is at revisional or appellate stage or if restoration application is pending in any such proceedings under the Act which have been dismissed in default.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held

“the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the liability to pay the amount will not come to an end merely because the proceedings are pending at the revisional stage, appellate stage or even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending.”

Failure To Commence Trial Violates Wife's Fundamental Rights: Allahabad High Court Orders Daily Hearing In Cruelty Case Pending For 21 Yrs

Case Title: Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg v. State of U.P. And 10 others [MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3880 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 307

While dealing with a wife's prayer to direct the Trial Court to commence hearing a cruelty case, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that after more than 2 decades of filing FIR & chargesheet, the trial had not commenced.

Stating that the Court was conscious of the Trial Court's workload, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed

“Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the FIR was registered, it is regrettable that the trial court has failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.”

Borrower Can't File Civil Suit Through Tenant To 'Wiggle Out' Of Liability Once Order U/S 14 Of SARFAESI Act Had Been Passed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21492 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 308

The Allahabad High Court has held that once an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been passed granting possession to the secured creditor, i.e., bank, the borrower cannot, through a tenant, obtain a stay from the Civil Court to escape liability.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held

“Tenancy that has been created during the pendency of the mortgage without permission of the secured creditor, that is, the bank would be subject to the condition of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and whether these conditions are satisfied will have to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') only. A tenant is required to move an application under Section 17 before the DRT for asserting his rights under such a registered document.”

Criminal Liability U/S 31 Domestic Violence Act Arises Only When Protection Order U/S 12 To 23 Violated: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sattar Ahmad & 4 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35994 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 309

While dealing with application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Allahabad High Court has held that criminal proceedings under the Act can only be initiated if there is a breach in any conditions of the order passed in civil proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act.

Justice Vinod Diwakar held that

“in the absence of a prior protection order duly passed by the Magistrate, the police is not empowered per se to register an FIR under Section 31 of the Act. The procedural mandate of the Act requires that the process be initiated through the civil mechanism envisaged under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act, and only upon breach of such an order does criminal liability under Section 31 of the Act, 2005 arise.”

[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 310

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held

“Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”

Development Authority Cannot Reject Sanction Of Map Once Commissioner's Order Has Attained Finality: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pheasant Infrastructure Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 33964 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 311

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that once order of the Commissioner in appeal has attained finality, the Development Authority cannot reject sanction of map based on subsequent master plan which might be in contradiction with the order of the Commissioner.

While dealing with a developers writ petition against Ghaziabad Development Authority, Justice Prakash Padia held

“in compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner in the appeal, the Development Authority was under obligation to consider that the formalities, as required by letter dated 28.11.2006 had been completed or not and in case, the formalities, as mentioned in the order are completed, the authority was required to release the map, but the Development Authority, wholly illegally, carved out a new case to reject the sanction of map, i.e. land use under Master Plan 2021, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Commissioner in the appeal.”