CMA / 1595 / 2026 (M/S ALISHAN COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE INITIATING OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/08/2026 The appellant challenged the finding of benami ownership based on a retracted third-party statement, without cross-examination, despite subsequent Income-tax assessment. HELD-The Initiating Officer must establish the twin ingredients of a benami transaction by cogent evidence. A retracted foundational statement cannot sustain an adverse finding without cross-examination at the adjudicatory stage; denial violates natural justice. Orders set aside; matter remanded; appeal disposed of.
2
CRLMP / 532 / 2017 (JAI RAJ AND ORS VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings and charge orders, contending that prosecution could not rest on designation without material showing direct responsibility, consent, connivance or neglect. HELD- Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely by designation. Without material showing responsibility or culpable conduct, contradictory scientific evidence and no fresh material connecting him, continuation of prosecution was an abuse of process. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
3
CW / 6603 / 2026 (RAJENDRA SAHU VS THE HIGH COURT OF JUCICATURE) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/07/2026 Petitioner sought Quashing of suspension, contending that High Court lacked competence and Rule 13 could not apply merely on preliminary inquiries. HELD- Article 235 vests disciplinary control in the High Court; “contemplated” proceedings are distinct from “pending” proceedings, and a formal charge-sheet is not necessary. Six preliminary inquiries into serious allegations sufficed to contemplate disciplinary proceedings. Petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
4
CRLMP / 5300 / 2022 (MANOJ MACHARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2026 Whether an inadvertent official lapse, absent willful disobedience or mala fide intent, attracts criminal liability under Section 173 IPC. HELD- Criminal liability cannot rest on mere negligence or inadvertence; the conduct must transcend such lapse and show deliberate defiance or conscious disobedience. The petitioner’s omission arose from official exigencies and disclosed no requisite mens rea. Cognizance quashed; proceedings terminated; pending applications disposed of.
5
SAW / 205 / 2026 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MANOHAR SINGH NARAWAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2026 Petitioner sought Challenge to appointment of recommended candidates, contending that Selection Committee’s recommendation was advisory. HELD- Once candidates are recommended in order of merit under Rule 6(10), the State’s role under Rule 6(11) is limited to verification of credentials and antecedents; absent a valid impediment, it cannot withhold appointment. Such withholding defeats the statutory scheme and legislative intent. Appeals dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
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
CMA / 5190 / 2024 (SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (MM), VS M/S ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2026 Petitioner sought Setting aside of the Commercial Court’s order and restoration of the Section 34 petition, seeking reasonable time for the 75% pre-deposit. HELD- Section 19 mandates 75% pre-deposit before a Section 34 challenge is entertained on merits, but it need not accompany filing; the Court may grant reasonable time or permit installments in cases of hardship. The order was set aside and the petition restored. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
4
CRLMP / 3023 / 2025 (ANIKET S/O SUDHIR JAIN, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2026 Petitioner sought Quashing of the charge and revisional orders, contending that mere registered ownership could not attract Section 8/25 NDPS Act. HELD- Section 25 requires “knowingly permits”; mere registration is insufficient. Prosecution must establish foundational facts showing the owner’s conscious knowledge, consent, complicity or participation before Section 35’s presumption can operate. Petitioner discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
5
CW / 3504 / 2026 (SANJAY CHOUDHARY SON OF SHRI HARI SINGH CHOUDHARY VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2026 Petitioner sought Quashing of the termination order and protection u/Section 20 of the RPwD Act. HELD- A government employee who acquires disability during service cannot be terminated merely for being rendered unsuitable for his existing post. Sec 20 protection extends to a probationer; the employer must shift him to another post with the same benefits or, if not possible, accommodate him on a supernumerary post. Petitioner deemed in service. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
