CW / 20117 / 2025 (RAJEEV BHANDARI VS JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the notice issued u/Sec 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act & restraint auction of his flat. HELD- Respondent is a private financial institution, not amenable to writ jurisdiction; the petitioner is an aggrieved person having an efficacious statutory remedy u/Sec 17 SARFAESI. In view of the alternative remedy, Art 226 cannot be invoked. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the competent forum.
2
CMA / 88 / 2024 (AMARBHAW POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The appellant sought recovery of the amount levied as pre-payment charges and declaration that the relevant clause in the loan agreement was illegal. HELD- that pre-payment charges were levied strictly in terms of the contractual stipulation. The Code of Bank’s Commitment for MSMEs is voluntary and cannot override express contractual terms, having accepted the agreement, the borrower is bound by it and estopped from disputing the charges, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
3
CRLR / 1100 / 2025 (RADHAKISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the order framing charge under Section 307 IPC. HELD- that to attract Section 307 IPC there must be prima facie intention or knowledge to cause death. Blunt injury without use of deadly weapon or conduct indicating homicidal intent is insufficient. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed, charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 IPC were maintained, the case was transferred to the Magistrate, and pending applications were disposed of.
4
CW / 94 / 2026 (PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting its application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and permission to place rejoinder on record. HELD- Order VIII Rule 9 does not prescribe any limitation and rejoinder can be permitted at any stage; rejection merely on the ground of delay is legally unsustainable. As new explanations were introduced in the written statement, the impugned order was quashed, rejoinder was allowed, and the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously.
5
CRLA / 547 / 1996 (BABU LAL AND ANS VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the judgment and acquittal from offences under Sections 324, 149, 147 and 452 IPC. HELD- the conviction was justified on the basis of prosecution and medical evidence. however, the trial court erred in denying probation without recording special reasons under Section 361 CrPC. Considering the age of the case, the substantive sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, default fine sentences were maintained, and the appeals were disposed of.
1
SOSA / 2204 / 2024 (RAJESH KUSHWAH S/O SHRI RAMSHAKAL KUSHWAH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2026 The applicant sought recall of the condition requiring deposit of fine amount imposed while suspending sentence. HELD- imposing a condition impossible for a convict to comply with defeats the right of appeal and violates Art 21. Continued detention despite suspension of sentence was unjustified. The condition was recalled, release was directed forthwith, the application was allowed, and all pending applications stood disposed of as per law duly.
2
CR / 12 / 2023 (M/S ANONDITA HEALTHCARE, VS FAIZ MOHAMMAD S/O ABDUL RAHIM) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2026 The petitioners sought setting aside of the order maintaining attachment of machines and rejection of objections under Section 47 CPC. HELD- executing court cannot travel beyond the decree or adjudicate matters not forming part of the decree, and doing so amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law and material irregularity. The objections were allowed, attachment set aside, machines directed to be released, and all pending applications stood disposed of in law duly.
3
CMA / 4843 / 2025 (M/S ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS SE (MM) AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the order rejecting objections u/S 34 of the Arbitration Act as barred by limitation. HELD- objections must be filed within 3 months, extendable by only 30 days & limitation cannot be extended beyond 120 days. The Facilitation Council had unequivocally and with a unanimous decision that proceedings before the Settlement Committee were independent and had no bearing on limitation. The appeals were dismissed and all pending applications stood disposed of.
4
CW / 3547 / 2025 (DR. BRIJMOHAN SAPOOT KALA SANSKRITI SEWA SANSTHAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of e-auctions of Bajri mining leases granted in violation of SC’s -approved CEC recommendations. HELD-recommendations approved by the SC are binding & require strict compliance. Report by committee of mining dept was stereotyped & reflected non-application of mind in examining compliance. The State was directed to ensure strict compliance with SC safeguards, & writ petition allowed & the entire auction conducted for the aforesaid 93 lease were quashed.
5
CW / 11845 / 2025 (UNION OF INDIA VS NO. JC-804009 N EX NB SUB - SURENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI BALA CHAND,) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 Peti. Sought setting aside of order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to the respondent. HELD-Tribunal, after examining the Court of Inquiry’s report & medical evidence concluded i.e. injury was attributable to military service. circular dated 31.01.2001 was strictly applicable; findings recorded by the Tribunal are facts based & suffer no perversity or illegality warranting interference. Writ petition dismissed & all pending applications stood disposed of.
