| 1 |
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 / 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. |
| 3 |
SAW / 912 / 2025 (RAVINDRA GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/09/2025
App. challenged the Order dismissing the petition challenging the repatriation order passed by UDA after his transfer from Municipal Council u/s 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. HELD: Transfer u/s 336(2) is not deputation as it doesn’t require consent of lending employer, borrowing employer & the employee. Power to transfer/repatriate vests exclusively with State Government. UDA lacked authority to repatriate. Orders of Single Judge & UDA quashed; appeal allowed. |
| 4 |
CRLA / 134 / 2002 (STATE VS GIRDHARI LAL AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2025
State appealed against acquittal u/s 302 & 307 IPC in a case based on multiple dying declarations. HELD: Initial statement disclosed inability to identify assailant; subsequent statements were inconsistent & delayed, raising doubt of tutoring. Chain of circumstances was incomplete with contradictions, unreliable witnesses, lack of medical linkage & lapses. No reliable causal nexus proved. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. |
| 5 |
ARBAP / 12 / 2023 (SHALU JAIN VS MS SHIVCHARANDAS AND SONS) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2025
Applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking the arbitration clause in a partnership deed after death of her father, a partner. HELD: Arbitration agreement survives death of a party & is enforceable by legal representatives u/s 40. Disputes regarding induction of legal heir & rendition of accounts are arbitrable. Objections regarding dissolution of partnership rejected. Sole arbitrator appointed. Application allowed. |
| 6 |
CRLW / 2351 / 2025 (RAJMAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2025
Pet. sought premature release after undergoing more than 14 yrs. of imprisonment for an offence u/s 302 IPC. HELD: Under Rules 8, 11 & 12 of the Rajasthan Prison (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, Pet. was eligible for consideration, having earned requisite jail & State remission with good conduct. Rejection by Advisory Committee was not based on plausible reason but on presumptive apprehensions. No adverse jail report existed. Rejection was unsustainable. Petition allowed. |
| 7 |
ITA / 16 / 2025 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025
Revenue appealed against ITAT order deleting addition of ₹48,49,782/- treated as bogus long-term capital gain u/s 68. HELD: Assessment was u/s 153A and no incriminating material was found during search. Addition was based on mere suspicion and hypothetical presumption regarding share price manipulation, without cogent evidence linking assessee. ITAT rightly deleted the addition. No substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed. |
| 8 |
CW / 11716 / 2025 (MR. HEMANT PALIWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025
Pet. challenged show cause notices & orders treating him as Principal Officer & initiating prosecution for delayed deposit of TDS during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP). HELD After CIRP commencement, management vested in Interim Resolution Professional & Pet., being an employee, couldn’t be held responsible. Entire TDS was deposited with interest prior to notices. Delay constituted a venial breach, w/o dishonest conduct. Orders & notices quashed; writ allowed |
| 9 |
CW / 17992 / 2022 (MURLIWALA AGROTECH PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2025
Pet. challenged the transfer order passed u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring assessment proceedings from Udaipur to Delhi, despite an earlier identical order having been quashed by the High Court. HELD: Revenue acted arbitrarily & in disregard of the binding earlier judgment, w/o any material change in circumstances. Transfer is neither reasonable nor justifiable. Order quashed; proceedings directed to continue from the stage prior to transfer. Petition allowed. |
| 10 |
CTA / 251 / 2023 (DEVKINANDAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/09/2025
Pet. sought transfer of commercial suits from Bikaner to Jodhpur alleging bias of Presiding Officer based on remarks in earlier case & a pending vigilance complaint. HELD Pendency of an inconclusive complaint doesn’t warrant transfer; permitting would encourage forum shopping. Balance of convenience favoured Bikaner. No compelling ground has been given to for transfer u/s 24 CPC. Apprehension of bias was speculative, insubstantial & legally untenable. Transfer petitions dismissed. |
