CW / 15695 / 2025 (ARVIND KUMAR VS LRS. OF LATE SHRI SHIVNATH) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/01/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 29.07.2025 rejecting application u/O.1 R.10 CPC seeking impleadment of a party as defendant in suit proceedings. HELD- a person against whom no relief is claimed and no averment exists in plaint is a “stranger” and neither a “necessary nor proper party”; dominus litis is not absolute, rejection of impleadment is justified, no jurisdictional error found. Writ petition dismissed.
2
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.
3
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.
4
CW / 24708 / 2025 (RAJESH KUMAR VS SHRI ANAND KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/01/2026 Peti. sought quashing of orders rejecting his applications u/Sec 138 & 145 of the IEA & closing his cross-examination. HELD- the “pigeon hole theory” is not contemplated under the IEA & can be invoked only when a witness deposes in the nature of a handwriting expert, confronting a witness by concealing the document contents is deceptive and impermissible. No perversity or jurisdictional error was found. Writ petition was dismissed and stay, pending applications stood disposed of.
5
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.
1
CRLMB / 16064 / 2025 (VIVEK YADAV S/O MUKESH YADAV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/01/2026 Peti. sought grant of second bail after completion of investigation & filing of charge-sheet. HELD- at the stage of bail, detailed analysis of evidence is wholly impermissible and Court only examines “prima facie case”. Considering gravity, huge unauthorized transactions and multiple cyber complaints, grounds for bail not found, no change in circumstances; applications dismissed. Court also noted rising cybercrimes & need for strict measures, awareness & safeguards to protect public.
2
CW / 17462 / 2025 (SMT. SHABBO W/O SHRI ABDUL RAHIM VS M/S. SAJNI MEHNDI PRODUCT) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/01/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of orders passed Commercial Court rejecting application and deciding preliminary issue regarding effect of non-adherence of Sec.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. HELD- while deciding application u/O.7 R.11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered and no amount of evidence can be looked into; issue is of law. Where suit contemplates urgent interim relief, Sec.12A is not attracted hence no interference called for. Writ petitions dismissed.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
