| 1 |
SAW / 1121 / 2022 (ANTIMA JAIN D/O SHRI HUKUM CHAND JAIN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2026
The appellant challenged rejection of her candidature for failure to produce the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate. HELD- Failure to produce a reserved-category certificate, at the most, disentitles a candidate to the benefit of reservation; it does not disentitle her to compete in the open category. The open category is open to all, and merit is the criterion. The appeal was disposed of; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. |
| 2 |
CFA / 275 / 2022 (N.L. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/08/2026
The appellant challenged rejection of its recovery suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. HELD- Res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; however, where the bar of limitation is apparent from the plaint itself, rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is permissible, even suo motu. Liberty to approach the Civil Court does not create a fresh cause of action or limitation period. The appeal was dismissed; pending applications, if any, were disposed of. |
| 3 |
SAW / 850 / 2025 (RAJASTHAN LEATHER INDUSTRIES LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026
Petitioner sought removal of the restriction on alienation imposed through mutation. HELD- The State cannot unilaterally impose a restriction on alienation after transfer where none exists in the agreement or statute. Mutation cannot impose substantive restrictions on title. Such arbitrary State action affecting proprietary rights is amenable to Article 226; the restriction was illegal and the appeal was allowed. |
| 4 |
CMA / 2724 / 2025 (M/S SRASTI LIQUOR BOTTLING LLP VS MRS. SITA RAJESH VARMA W/O SHRI RAJESH SHAMLAL VARMA,) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2026
Can a Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 grant relief of a final nature or determine disputes reserved for arbitration? HELD- Section 9 permits only interim protection and cannot determine inter se disputes or grant status quo ante. The Court may protect the LLP’s property, but final relief must be left to the arbitrator. Directions exceeding Section 9 were set aside; appeal partially allowed. |
| 5 |
CW / 5442 / 2026 (M/S. SAHARA EX SERVICEMEN WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/04/2026
Whether a bidder can suppress a previous debarment, which had expired before the tender, when the tender required disclosure of previous transgressions during the preceding three years. HELD- Expiry of the previous debarment did not excuse its non-disclosure. Suppression of the material fact through a false affidavit to obtain a State contract amounted to fraud. The authority was justified in cancelling the work order and contract in accordance with the tender conditions. |
| 6 |
SAW / 39 / 2024 (RAMSAHAY SON OF SHRI SHRAWAN VS SMT. SHYOPYARI DEVI D/O SHRI NARAYANLAL, W/O LATE SHRI SANWALRAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2026
Can a revenue appeal be remanded merely because the Revenue Appellate Authority failed to formulate points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC? HELD-Revenue Courts need not strictly follow CPC procedure. Failure to formulate points for determination did not justify remand. The Board of Revenue could examine the evidence and all aspects under Sec 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and decide the appeal on merits. Remand set aside; appeal allowed. |
| 7 |
CW / 5616 / 2022 (DR. MAHIPAL SINGH SIHAG S/O SHRI RAMJAS SIHAG VS STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CUM COMMISSIONER) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/04/2026
Whether information about a third-party public servant can be denied under Sec 8(3) & 11 of the RTI Act merely because it concerns events more than twenty years old. HELD-Sec 8(3) is a “sunset clause” intended to lift exemptions, not a ground for blanket denial. Where third-party information is prima facie confidential, Section 11 procedure, including notice and balancing privacy against larger public interest, is mandatory. Impugned order quashed; information to be supplied within 60 days. |
| 8 |
SAW / 1364 / 2025 (DR. SANGEETA ARYA W/O NIRANJAN ARYA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/04/2026
The appellants challenged cancellation of the Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander Examination, 2021. HELD- Where examination irregularities occur at a systemic level, affect the integrity of the entire examination and make reliable segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible, cancellation of the entire examination is warranted. The appeals were dismissed; the connected PIL and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. |
| 9 |
CW / 2455 / 2022 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS VIJAY KUMAR YADAV) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2026
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order setting aside his compulsory retirement. HELD- Compulsory retirement is not a “service matter” under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Service Matters Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976; hence, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Its order was a nullity. The writ petition was allowed and the Tribunal’s order was quashed; the appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed. |
| 10 |
CRLMP / 3521 / 2019 (VIKRAM SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MUNNI LAL SHARMA B/C JANGIR BRAHMIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/03/2026
The petitioners challenged the order summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. HELD- At this stage, more than a prima facie case is required against an accused not charge-sheeted; the merits and defence cannot be appreciated. The plea of alibi would be considered at the appropriate stage of trial. The petition was rejected; the stay application and any other pending application, if any, were disposed of. |
