CMA / 1242 / 2022 (M/S R.P.S. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellant challenged the setting aside of the arbitral award as time-barred. HELD- The Commercial Court erred in treating 20.03.2008 as the final date of cause of action without considering the parties’ correspondence, which showed that efforts to resolve the dispute continued until 2010. The claim filed on 10.05.2012 was within three years. The appeal was allowed; the Section 34 application was remanded for decision on merits, treating the claim as within limitation.
2
SAW / 797 / 2023 (PUBLIC ROSE SHIKSHA SAMITI (BABA KAMALDAS LIVESTOCK ASSISTAINT DIPLOMA TRAINING COLLEGE) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellants sought NOCs for Livestock Assistant Diploma Training Institutes, alleging discrimination and seeking consideration under the earlier policy. HELD- A pending application creates no vested right to the policy in force when filed. Applying Policy-2022 to pending applications was not retrospective. The State could apply a revised, uniform policy before an enforceable right crystalized; Article 14 does not permit “negative equality” based on conditional. Appeals were dismissed.
3
SAW / 769 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DALPAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The respondents challenged cancellation of their mining LOIs and Prospecting Licence. HELD- Neither an LOI nor a PL conferred an indefeasible right to a mining lease. The 2021 amendment applied to pending cases under Section 10A(2)(b), causing PL-based rights to lapse. LOI holders failed to secure lease execution by 11 January 2017. The State’s appeals were allowed, the Single Judge’s orders set aside, and the writ petitions dismissed. Eligible parties may seek statutory reimbursement.
4
CW / 69 / 2026 (LRS. OF PRAKASH ALIAS PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI VS AMRESH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2026 The petitioner challenged the eviction orders, disputing the landlord–tenant relationship and identity of the premises. HELD- Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence where concurrent findings are plausible and free from perversity or jurisdictional error. Changes in an old tenancy’s description or use do not, by themselves, extinguish it. The writ petition was dismissed; both tribunals’ orders were upheld, and the eviction certificate became executable.
5
CRLA / 16 / 1999 (STATE VS GAFFAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The State challenged Gaffar’s acquittal under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. HELD- An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; where the Trial Court’s view is plausible, it cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible. The prosecution failed to prove the driver’s identity and criminal rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was neither perverse nor illegal. The appeal was dismissed and acquittal affirmed.
6
CRLW / 2136 / 2026 (SUMANN MUNDHARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought completion of the investigation and filing of a report pursuant to the Trial Court’s direction. HELD- A Criminal Court directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. remains duty-bound to supervise its progress and ensure timely conclusion. The Trial Court was directed to ensure filing of the charge-sheet/Final Report within six weeks; on failure, it may pass appropriate orders against the erring officer. The writ petition was disposed of.
1
CFA / 369 / 2019 (SMT GOMA DEVI W/O SHRI MANNA LAL D/O SHRI KANA VS LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA S/O SHRI GAINDI LAL SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/09/2026 The appellant sought cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 16.04.2009 for non-payment of the full sale consideration. HELD- under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, non-payment of the entire consideration does not invalidate a completed registered sale where title was intended to pass; the seller’s remedy is recovery of unpaid consideration. Sale deed, possession and mutation supported transfer. Appeal dismissed
2
CRLMP / 4993 / 2023 (PRAMOD KUMAR SON OF SHRI MAHESH CHAND, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The Court addressed deficiencies in scanning and uploading case records that obstructed paperless hearings. HELD- Complete and timely digitization is essential for effective paperless justice; accountability must be fixed for scanning, bookmarking, indexing and uploading every document. The 02.11.2020 Standing Order, confined to criminal matters, required amendment to cover all jurisdictions. Registrar (Judicial) directed to place amended Standing Order before the Chief Justice.
3
CW / 11020 / 2026 (RAMLAXMAN MEENA S/O SHRI TEJA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The petitioner sought issuance of a No Dues/No Objection Certificate to contest the Panchayati Raj election despite dues recoverable from his wife. HELD- A spouse is not liable for the other’s dues without statutory authority or personal involvement. As the petitioner was neither surety nor guarantor and no law authorised recovery from family members, the certificate could not be withheld. Petition allowed; certificate to be issued forthwith. Pending applications disposed of.
4
CW / 17249 / 2026 (DWARKA PRASAD SON OF LATE SHRI SITARAM VS DURGALAL SON OF LATE SHRI SITARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/09/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the order condoning delay in filing defendant No.3’s written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. HELD- In non-commercial suits, the timeline is directory and delay may be condoned on sufficient explanation assessed flexibly. Here, no ex parte order or forfeiture existed, proceedings were pending, and no substantial prejudice was caused. Trial Court’s order was lawful; writ petition dismissed.
5
CW / 16193 / 2026 (MANNI DEVI WIFE OF RAMPRASAD VS BHULI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI GANGARAM) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the interim stay passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the consequential Board of Revenue order, contending that delay in the time-barred appeal had to be condoned first. HELD- Limitation goes to appellate jurisdiction; until delay is condoned, the appeal remains defective. Interim stay is permissible only in extreme and exceptional circumstances, absent here. Both orders quashed; the Authority directed to decide the Section 5 application first.
