Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : May 26 - June 1, 2025

Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 191

Azhar Ali v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 192

Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 193

In re Ashok Pandey 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 194

Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 195

Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196

2025 LiveLaw (AB) 197

Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 198

Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 199

Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200

Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201

Zaitek Polyblends Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizer Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 202

Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 203

M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 204

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Spouse Can't Amend Pleadings To Seek Restitution Of Conjugal Rights After 10 Years Into Divorce Case, Dilatory Tactics: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 49 of 2025]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 191

The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application in divorce proceedings cannot be allowed after a delay of 10 years when the party was aware of the facts at the time of institution of suit. It held that such amendment application is only to prolong litigation and cannot be entertained at the stage of final hearing.

Jamia Urdu "Distributing Degrees" Without Proper Classes: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief Of Appointment To Such Degree Holders

Case Title: Azhar Ali v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 192

Stating that the minority educational institution Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is "distributing degrees" without proper classes, the Allahabad High Court denied to such degree holders any right to appointment as Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in Primary Schools run by Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board.

Petitioners (in connected cases) pleaded that they had all obtained degrees in Adib-E-Kamil from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and were eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board. All petitioners appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test - 2013 and cleared the same.

When Two Procedures Exist Under Standing Orders, Management May Select Either Unless Mala Fide Proven: Allahabad HC

Case title - Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 193

A single judge bench of justice Brijraj Singh dismissed a writ petition, holding that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) properly followed their Standing Orders by striking off the employee's name following his unauthorised absence. The court found that the employee was given adequate opportunity through show cause notices, and that the petition suffered from inexcusable delay.

Allahabad HC Rejects Advocate's Plea To Recall Order Sentencing Him To 6 Months In Jail For Calling Judges 'Goondas'

Case title – In re Ashok Pandey

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 194

The Allahabad High Court on Monday refused to recall its April order sentencing Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey to six months' simple imprisonment for using abusive language against HC judges and calling them 'goondas' in open court in 2021.

Pandey was found guilty of committing criminal contempt of court by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, as it concluded that Pandey's conduct showed that he treats the judicial process with “utter disdain” and continued to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity.

Village Policemen Not Equal To Home Guards: Allahabad High Court Refuse To Interfere With Their Remuneration

Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari And 1486 Others v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 18956 of 2022]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 195

The Allahabad High Court has held that Village Policemen are not equal to Policemen working in regular establishment and Home Guards and are thus not entitled to basic pay disbursed to policemen working in regular police force. It held that the duties of the Village Policemen, who were first appointed during British Raj era, have now become rudimentary and have been taken over by technological advancements.

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To BJP Leader Accused Of Beheading Friend In Agra

Case title - Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 196

The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted bail to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Tinku Bhargav @ Yatendra, who was arrested in 2022 on the allegations of murdering his friend, Naveen Verma, a jeweller.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot granted him bail, noting that he is not a flight risk, has always cooperated with the investigation, and he undertook to cooperate with the court proceedings.

Allahabad High Court Refers Questions On High Court's Power To Quash FIR U/S 528 BNSS To Nine-Judge Bench

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 197

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday referred to a nine-judge bench two key questions concerning the High Court's power to quash an FIR and the ensuing investigation using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS).

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench, given the HC's 7-Judge Bench ruling in the case of Ramlal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1989), wherein it was held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC wouldn't be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

DM Not Required To Decide Representations Of Persons Affected By Transmission Line Unless Telegraph Authority Refers It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited And Others [WRIT-C NO. 12360 of 2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 198

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Indian Telegraph Act the District Magistrate is only required to decide matters which have been referred to it by the Telegraph Authority.

It held that District Magistrate is not required to pass orders on representations in every case where persons are affected by a transmission line.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava in its order said,

“we hold that the District Magistrate is not required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Act in every case where a person, on whose property the transmission line is being laid, raises an objection or files a representation before the District Magistrate. We are of the view that the District Magistrate is only required to pass an order under Section 16(1) when the Telegraph Authority refers a particular matter to the District Magistrate for passing an order therein.”

Classic Case Of Encroachment Being Claimed As A Waqf : Allahabad HC 'Surprised' At 'Illegal' Constructions On NHAI's Property

Case Title: Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2495 of 2016]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 199

The Allahabad High Court has expressed surprise on the actions of the Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom encroaching the land belonging to National Highways Authority of India, creating construction on the same, sub-letting it and charging rent on the property.

Noting that the petitioner Waqf had encroached upon the land owned by NHAI, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that

“This Court is surprised to note that the plaintiff has made construction over the land of National Highways and had let out the structure to different persons and is realizing the rent treating it to be property of waqf Madarsa. It cannot be said to be a case of 'waqf by user' as the owner of the property in dispute is the National Highway Authority of India, which is under the control of Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.”

Allahabad HC Rejects Rahul Gandhi's Plea Against Summoning Order In Defamation Case Over 'Remarks' On Indian Army

Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) DISMISSED a plea filed by LoP Rahul Gandhi against a Lucknow Court's order summoning him in a Defamation case filed over his alleged remark on the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on Gandhi's plea, who had moved the HC challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP MLA court in Lucknow.

'CrPC (UP Amendment) Act 2018' Containing Restrictions On Grant Of Anticipatory Bail Stands Impliedly Repealed By BNSS: Allahabad HC

Case title - Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201

The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018 - which imposed restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail in the State (effective from June 6, 2019), in cases under specific laws including the UP Gangsters Act - stands 'impliedly repealed'.

A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that when a State amends a law on a subject in the Concurrent List, and the Parliament later makes a change to that same law, the State law must give way to the Parliament's law, even if the said law adds to, changes, or repeals the law made by the legislature of the State.

Court Must See If Company Is A Threat To Commercial World For Winding Up U/S 433(f) Of Companies Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Zaitek Polyblends Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizer Ltd. [COMPANY PETITION No. - 6 of 2012]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 202

The Allahabad High Court has held that for winding up of a company under Section 433(f) of the the Companies Act, the Court must opine that the company is a threat to the commercial world if it remains in existence.

Rejecting the application for winding up of a company, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held

“To appreciate a case for winding up of a company on the ground that it is just and equitable, it is essential for the Court to form a view that in view of the status of the company, if the company is not wound up, the same would amount to a threat to the commercial world and the existence of the company is not desirable for the commercial world.”

Return Of 'Stridhan' Must Be Determined In Proceedings Under Hindu Marriage Act, Not On Separate Application U/S 27: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 203

The Allahabad High Court has held that distribution of properties of the parties, including return of “stree dhan”, must be determined in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and not upon separate application being made under Section 27 of the Act.

The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held, “return of 'stree dhan' has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27.”

[Employees Provident Fund Act] No Appeal Lies Against Rejection Of Review Plea, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 204

Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.