CRLR / 95 / 2025 (MITHU SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/04/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by ld. Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Chittorgarh, dismissing the application u/s 197(2) Cr.P.C. HELD: Pet. was not acting in the course of his official duties at the time of the alleged incident. The petitioner cannot invoke the protections of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. solely by virtue of being a government employee, as the allegations made by the complainant are unrelated to the performance of his official duties. Petition dismissed.
2
SAW / 566 / 2024 (ECOSAFE INFRAPROJECTS LLP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/04/2025 The appellant seeks quashing of the e-auction notice, alleging that its terms and conditions, particularly regarding lease commencement and sale price fixation, are vague, ambiguous, uncertain, and non-transparent. HELD- The Court held that the appellant’s doubts were unfounded and imaginary, as the rules governing the mining lease process were clear. The conditions in the e-auction notice were consistent with the Rules, and no ambiguity existed. The appeal, being sans substratum, was dismissed.
3
CRLAS / 2507 / 2023 (DEEPAK LOHIYA VS NIRMALA DEVI JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2025 Appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondent u/s 138 NI ACT. HELD: The Mere act of sending a notice does not fulfill the statutory obligation, but the notice must reach the accused. Any legally enforceable debt or liability must also be proved. The complainant failed to prove a valid cause of action. Appeal dismissed.
4
CRLAS / 116 / 2024 (NIRMAL @ MOTA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2025 Appellant assailing the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sriganganagar, convicting under section 7/25 of the Arms Act. HELD: To convict an accused under Section 7, concrete scientific evidence – such as report from a ballistic expert or a certified laboratory – must be produced to meet the criteria of a prohibited arms defined under Section 2 (1) (i). Appeal partly allowed.
5
SAW / 1040 / 2023 (KAMLA BAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/03/2025 Appellant assailing the order passed by the ld. Single Judge, allowing the petition & setting aside the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue. HELD: The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue did not suffer from any apparent violation of law. Finding was essentially based on doc. evidence in the form of spot inspection report. Therefore, it was outside the scope of judicial review. Transaction is in violation of law. Appellant can approach the competent authority. Appeal disposed.
1
CMA / 5151 / 2019 (RAJASTHAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VS M/S NATIONAL BUILDERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/05/2025 The appellant RUIDP challenged the arbitral award, claiming deductions, penalties, and damages were not proper and should have been reversed. HELD- the Court held that arbitral awards can't be interfered with unless there is a serious illegality going to the root of the matter. It stated that an award should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible. The Court found no such flaw or patent illegality in the award and upheld the arbitrator's findings.
2
CR / 70 / 2020 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MAHARAJA SAWAI MANSINGH SECOND MUSEUM TRUST) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/04/2025 Petitioner through revision petition challenged the dismissal of application u/order 7 rule 11 of CPC. HELD- Under Article 363 of constitution dispute arising out of any specific treaty/covenant/agreement or other legal document executed prior to enforcement of Indian constitution can’t be resolved by any court/ tribunal/ and barred by law. Applications u/order 7 rule 11 CPC allowed and suit filed by respondent, rejected
3
CW / 16980 / 2017 (MANAGING COMMITTEE D A V UCHH VS NIRANJAN BAGRI AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2025 Whether the services of any contractual or fixed-term employee can be terminated without following the provisions contained u/s18 (iii) of the Act of 1989? &Whether appeal filed against such termination order is maintainable u/s19 of the Act of 1989?HELD- The termination of any employee, whether contractual or fixed-term, must comply with Sec 18(iii) of the Act, requiring 6 months' notice or 6 months' salary. Appeals against such termination are maintainable u/s 19. Dismissed
4
CW / 19485 / 2013 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANR VS INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/04/2025 Pet. assailing the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission only to the extent of granting immunity to the pvt. resp. from prosecution & penalty. HELD: 2 pre-conditions of S.245C(1) were complied is not in dispute. The Commission recorded a satisfaction that applicant cooperated during the settlement proceedings. In absence of challenge to fulfilment of 3 conditions required u/s 245H, the argument that there was no true & full disclosure of income does not arise. Petition dismissed.
5
ITA / 332 / 2018 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX-I VS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/04/2025 Appellant assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, HELD: Once there is immunity granted to the respondent against penalty proceedings, the fact as to whether the penalty should have been imposed u/s 271AAB or 271AB of the Income Tax, Act, would make no difference. The revision on the basis of the audit objection for passing a de novo order as the penalty should have been imposed u/s271AB cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed.
