Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : July 21 To July 27, 2025

NOMINAL INDEX Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of U.P. And 25 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 258 Prabhat Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Govt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 259 State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. Jai Singh and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 260 Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 261 Suez India Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 262 Ram Dular Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 263 Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 264 Jamiat Ulma E Hind (Arshad Madani) Public Trust And Another vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 265 Juvenile X vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266 Naina Gupta v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 267 Sachin Gupta vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 268 Bindra Prasad Patel v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 269 ORDERS/JUDGEMNTS OF THE WEEK Preliminary Decree In Partition Suit 'Interlocutory' Or Conclusively Decides Substantive Rights? Allahabad High Court Larger Bench To Decide Case Title: Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of U.P. And 25 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41837 of 2024] Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 258 A single judge of the Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit is an interlocutory order or an order finally deciding the substantial rights of the shareholder. It also referred the question whether such an order is appealable under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Separate Cut Off Marks Must Be Given For Physically Handicapped Category At Each Stage Of Recruitment: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Prabhat Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Govt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 4991 of 2023] Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 259 While granting relief to a person with optical atrophy in both eyes, the Allahabad High Court has held that separate cut off marks must be given for the physically handicapped category at each stage to ensure that physically handicapped candidates get adequate representation in service. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Rekha Sharma vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and another and Saurav Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others, Justice Abdul Moin held, “physically handicapped category is to be considered as a separate category and provided with reservations and it is indispensable on the part of the authorities to declare separate cut off marks for physically handicapped category for each stage to ensure that those similarly placed candidates are adequately represented in service fulfilling the very purpose of reservation.” Court Orders Are Cared For Only When Personal Appearance Of Officer Is Called: Allahabad High Court Raps State Case Title: State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. Jai Singh and others [ SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 276 of 2024] Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 260 On Monday, the Allahabad High Court rapped the officials of the State Government by observing that court orders were not being followed even after issuance of notice of contempt, unless personal appearance of officer concerned was ordered by the Court. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh observed, “The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the Court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/encouraged.” Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal Can't Adjudicate On Property Ownership Claims: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Case Title: Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others [ WRIT - C No. - 18408 of 2025] Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 261 The Allahabad High Court has held that the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 7 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not have the power to adjudicate property ownership claims especially in case of third party dispute, and the same must be adjudicated before the Civil Courts. Observing that the Senior Citizen Act is aimed at providing maintenance and for ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : July 21 To July 27, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags