CRLMB / 11651 / 2024 (SATYA NARAYAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Petitioner seeks restoration of their liberty on bail-bond. HELD: It is the primary duty of the officer u/s 50 NDPS Act, to inform the person that he has the right to get searched in the presence of the magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. No official document is present which reflects that the Seizure Officer (Sub Inspector) was authorized to take charge as SHO. Hence, non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 50, 41 & 42 NDPS Act. Bail granted with personal bond to be furnished.
2
CRLMP / 2320 / 2024 (AVINASH KUMAR PANDAY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/07/2024 Grievance against order passed by JM, As Par dismissing application filed u/s 65 of Evidence Act for adducing secondary evidence in pending proceedings u/s 138 NI Act.Held: S.65 &66 to be read harmoniously & benefit u/s 65 cannot be given in isolation as these sections go hand in hand. Unless party who is in possession of primary evidence is given a prior notice of producing same, secondary evidence cannot be adduced as per S.66 of IEA which is mandatory in nature. Petition dismissed
3
CW / 15630 / 2021 (KAMAL KUMAR VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2024 Petitioners aggrieved of the result passed by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in Stenographer Grade-III exam, increasing the margin of error from 5% to 15%. HELD: In the public employment, it is necessary to select the meritorious candidates and also apply proper formula and select the candidates with higher marks. Due to technical error in the evaluation software, the action taken by the resp. is justified. The entire selection process is faultless. Petition dismissed.
4
CW / 463 / 2002 (MAGH RAJ SHARMA VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/02/2024 Petitioner assailing the order which was issued by an official not competent in law and further aggrieved of imposing stoppage of 2 annual increments. Held: The said order could have only been passed by the District Establishment Committee. The order of stoppage of 2 annual increments is not sustainable and the said order even if assumed to have been passed by Vikas Adhikari lacks the legal competency. Petition allowed.
5
CW / 9443 / 2015 (DINESH KUMAR RAI VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 Petitioner seeks mandamus for his appointment as Associate Professor in place of resp. No. 4 & also inquiring on him for concealing the fact of having more than 2 children HELD: Upon examination of inquiry report, it is evident that the entire allegation of petitioner is baseless and is founded on unsubstantiated information or simply hearsay. As the Petitioner did not challenge the inquiry report, court cannot assess its veracity. Petition dismissed.
1
ITA / 98 / 2024 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Pet. aggrieved by the order of ITAT Jaipur regarding issue of genuineness of loan transaction. HELD: The loan recvd. by resp. is proved based on the supporting evidences including cheque, paid interest, TDS deductions & affidavits. Merely receiving information from the ‘AO’ u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961, that lender company was indulged in accomodating entries was insufficient to disallow loan as legitimate transaction. The effect of tax amount being less than 2 crores, Appeal dismissed.
2
ITA / 329 / 2018 (PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-II VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the ITAT files appeal u/s 260A of IT Act 1961. HELD: The SQ 1 regarding share of the employee in PF has to be deposited as per due date fixed by EPF Act and ESI Act and not as per Sec. 43B of the Act, thus, cannot be a condition for deduction. For SQ 3, advance against depreciation is not considered as income for the accounting year therefore, cannot be carried forward. SQ. 3 answered against the Appellant-department. Appeal disposed of.
3
CW / 13968 / 2024 (M/S LAXMIPRAKASH GARMENTS PVT. LTD VS BAJRANG SINGH RATHORE S/O BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/09/2024 Petitioner assailing impugned order which allowed the impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10.
HELD: Respondent company after selling estate to Pet. approached NCLT to be declared insolvent. If declared insolvent & dispute decided in favour of workman, issue of compliance of award would arise though to be decided by labour Court. No error in impugned order. Petition dismissed.
4
CW / 1458 / 2022 (RAVI JOSHI S/O LATE SHRI OM PRAKASH JOSHI VS MAHARISHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Petitioner suspended on the grounds that he was under judicial custody for more than 48 hours & requests to set aside the impugned order of suspension. HELD: The prolonged suspension for 3 years not justified as no chargesheet submitted, and is thus, contradictory to the Rule of Law and violates Article 21. No suspension order is extendable beyond 3 months subject to chargesheet not served. Petition allowed.
5
CW / 12288 / 2022 (ANIL KUMAR PUROHIT S/O LATE SH. RADHA KISHAN PUROHIT VS ASHOK KUMAR PUROHIT S/O LATE SH. RADHA KISHAN PUROHIT) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by order of ADJ No. 4 Jaipur dismissing application U/O8R1(3) CPC HELD: Object of O8 R1 CPC is to prevent belated production of docs. Court has discretionary powers considering facts & circumstances of each case. Authenticity of Documents can’t be considered at this stage but can be considered after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. Petition allowed.