CW / 18805 / 2024 (M/S SHREE VINAYAK HOTELS AND RESORTS VS DESERT TULIP HOTEL AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/08/2026 The petitioner challenged the return of its Section 18 petition to the Commercial Court. HELD- Sections 18(1) and 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Tribunal, attracting the bar under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Commercial use of leased premises does not, by itself, make the dispute commercial u/Sec 2(1) (c) (vii); the pith and substance of the real controversy is determinative. Petition allowed & case remitted back.
2
CW / 6974 / 2025 (LRS OF SUNNY VS THE UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/04/2026 Petitioner sought regularization of his long-serving part-time service. HELD-Long and continuous service performing perennial work cannot be denied regularization merely because the employee was treated as part-time or paid from the contingency fund. A sanctioned post could be inferred from the nature of the work and continuous service. Regularization as MTS (Group-C) from 25.07.2011 with consequential benefits was directed; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
3
CW / 9593 / 2022 (SAI TIRUPATI UNIVERSITY VS THE DISCOM THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/04/2026 The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of the seven-year electricity-duty exemption under the Rajasthan Solar Energy Policy, 2019. HELD- Though the State can alter or withdraw its policy in larger public interest or for fiscal requirements, it cannot take away accrued rights arising from a clear representation acted upon to the promisee’s detriment. The amendment dated 10.05.2022 operates prospectively; projects commissioned before it retain the seven-year exemption from their COD.
4
CW / 1358 / 2025 (GANGA KUMARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2026 The petitioner challenged the State’s notification placing transgender persons in the OBC category, contending it did not provide effective reservation. HELD- Mere inclusion in OBC does not fulfill NALSA’s mandate to extend “all kinds of reservation” where it confers no tangible benefit. The High Court cannot itself create or redesign reservation; the State must formulate an appropriate policy. Pending such decision, 3% additional weightage was directed.
5
CW / 15655 / 2024 (M/S UNITED COAL CARRIER VS RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERAL LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/03/2026 The petitioner challenged termination of its contract for delayed commencement and deficient performance. HELD- Where a force majeure clause extends to causes beyond the affected party’s reasonable control, persistent third-party obstruction materially preventing performance falls within the clause even if not expressly enumerated. Delay and shortfall caused thereby cannot be attributed to the contractor or justify termination. Petition allowed.
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 / 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.
4
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.
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.
