CW / 2747 / 2020 (MAHESH JOSHI VS RAMESH PAREKH) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2020 Argument-Power of Attorney based on which proceedings were instituted, neither registered nor bears requisite stamp duty and same is inadmissible in evidence. Held- For Power of Attorney to be compulsorily registrable, it must be irrevocable. Also, any instrument executed out of State relating to any property situated in the State is chargeable to stamp duty when the same is received in the State. Deficient stamp duty and penalty determined by High Court and respondent directed to pay the same.
2
ARBAP / 10 / 2020 (BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP VS HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/07/2020 What is an International Commercial Arbitration? Held- An arbitration agreement can result in foreign award covered by Part-II, yet the arbitration can be arbitration other than International Commercial Arbitration. The definition given in Section 2(1) of Act of 1996 applies to whole of the Act and is not confined to Part-I. If arbitration is not an International Commercial Arbitration, the expression ‘Court’ would mean Principal Civil Court or the High Court having original civil jurisdiction.
3
CRLR / 355 / 2020 (PANKAJ VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2020 Juvenile tried for offence u/s. 392/34 of IPC- praying for release on bail- As per JJ Act, Section 12-Held, Board is not required to mechanically release a juvenile or grant him bail as a matter of course-Further, failure in filing chargesheet on time-default bail an indefeasible right of an accused-Held, In Supreme Court’s order regarding extension of period of limitation during lockdown no advantage has been provided to any investigating or prosecuting agency- Revision Petition allowed.
4
CRLW / 15 / 2020 (RAKESH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/05/2020 Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules,1958-Held,the petitioner while availing the first parole indulged in commission of offence and thus, was not entitled to be released on second and third parole or to be considered for release on permanent parole in terms of Rule 9-As per Rule 13, parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right-It cannot be inferred from Rule 9 that a prisoner who has served substantive sentence of 14 years without remission, is entitled for permanent parole.
5
CW / 6082 / 2019 (LYCON MICRONS LLP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/04/2020 Mines, Minerals and Mining leases-Challenge to legality of a notification dated 10.03.19 issued by the Government of Rajasthan-Vires of Rule 82 of Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 questioned- Further, challenge to restriction on interstate movement of certain minerals-Impugned notification declared unconstitutional and quashed-Rule 82 of 2017 Rules upheld with declaration that State Government is not empowered to put restrictions on transportation of minerals outside the state.
1
CW / 4330 / 2017 (GUDSINGH VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H E D ANDANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2020 Termination of services of petitioner without compliance of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon’ble High Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 12 SCC 754 reiterated the principle that nonproduction of relevant record will result into drawing adverse inference against the employer in terms of Section 114 Illustration (g) of Evidence Act, 1872. Writ Petition allowed and lump sum compensation paid to petitioner.
2
CW / 5435 / 2020 (DR. VIDUSHI SAHARAN D/O SH. SATYA PRAKASH SARAN W/O SH. DR. MAHENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/07/2020 Writ petition challenging order by the State requiring three years of regular service from RPSC selected Senior Demonstrators for allotment of PG Medical seats-Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 120 which stated that, if minimum standards are laid down by a Central legislation, the State Governments are competent to prescribe any further qualifications; the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the order of the State.
3
CW / 3225 / 2020 (NAVRATAN S/O SHRI SATYA PRAKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/06/2020 Writ petition-Order by government for reconstitution of Gram Panchayats and reservation in Panchayat Elections challenged-Held-Power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution an essential feature-Also, the action of variation in Gram Panchayats and reservation of seats was a necessary and logical action, in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 which provide for procedure for reservation-Petition dismissed.
4
CRLMP / 1834 / 2020 (SMT. MADHU W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR PANCHOLI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/05/2020 Prayer to direct the police to carry out fair and prompt investigation as no arrests made- Court held that once FIR has been registered presumption is drawn that police shall be conducting proper investigation- No arrest, does not imply investigation not being done properly- filing of Criminal Misc. Petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C., an attempt to browbeat the investigation agency and interfere in fair investigation- Court would not exercise its inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for such purposes.
5
CW / 21332 / 2019 (RAJARAM GURJAR SON OF SHRI BHAYRAM GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2020 Section 39(6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009- Challenge to order of suspension- The power of suspension can be invoked by State Government if the “proceedings have been commenced” for removal of a member, as provided under subsection (1) of Section 39 of the Act, 2009. Provision under sub-section (6) of Section 39 of the Act, 2009 nowhere contemplates that any show cause notice is required to be given or an explanation is required to be called from the member of municipality.
