CMA / 88 / 2024 (AMARBHAW POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The appellant sought recovery of the amount levied as pre-payment charges and declaration that the relevant clause in the loan agreement was illegal. HELD- that pre-payment charges were levied strictly in terms of the contractual stipulation. The Code of Bank’s Commitment for MSMEs is voluntary and cannot override express contractual terms, having accepted the agreement, the borrower is bound by it and estopped from disputing the charges, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
2
CRLR / 1100 / 2025 (RADHAKISHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioners sought quashing of the order framing charge under Section 307 IPC. HELD- that to attract Section 307 IPC there must be prima facie intention or knowledge to cause death. Blunt injury without use of deadly weapon or conduct indicating homicidal intent is insufficient. The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed, charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 IPC were maintained, the case was transferred to the Magistrate, and pending applications were disposed of.
3
CRLA / 547 / 1996 (BABU LAL AND ANS VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the judgment and acquittal from offences under Sections 324, 149, 147 and 452 IPC. HELD- the conviction was justified on the basis of prosecution and medical evidence. however, the trial court erred in denying probation without recording special reasons under Section 361 CrPC. Considering the age of the case, the substantive sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, default fine sentences were maintained, and the appeals were disposed of.
4
CRLW / 1292 / 2025 (RAJU RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The petitioner sought expunction of adverse and stigmatic remarks recorded against him in the orders. HELD- that remarks affecting reputation or service cannot be made without granting opportunity of hearing, such observations were unnecessary, exceeded the limited jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the adverse remarks were expunged, while the operative directions and criminal proceedings were left unaffected, and the writ petition was allowed.
5
CRLA / 12 / 1995 (RUPA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment convicting him under Section 306 IPC and prayed for acquittal. HELD- that to prove abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC. Mere allegations, suspicion, or family discord cannot constitute abetment. As the prosecution failed to prove these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
1
CW / 17332 / 2023 (M/S SHANKER STEEL SUPPLIER VS M/S RAMPUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting its application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and permission to amend the plaint. HELD- Pleadings on jurisdiction, valuation, limitation and cause of action are foundational and necessary; rejection merely on the ground of delay is unsustainable when evidence is incomplete. The impugned order was set aside, amendment was allowed with costs, the suit was directed to proceed, and all pending applications stood disposed of.
2
CMA / 5868 / 2019 (DEVKRISHNA S/O LATE PRABHA DEVI W/O GHISARAM VS KALURAM S/O TRILOKCHAND) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/01/2026 The appellants sought setting aside of the order rejecting their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and quashing of the ex-parte decree. HELD- that service based on refusal is not a mere formality, under Order V Rules 17 and 19 CPC the Process Server must be examined, failing which service becomes doubtful and proceeding ex-parte is unsafe. As mandatory procedure was not followed, the impugned order and ex-parte decree were quashed and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.
3
CRLMB / 12106 / 2025 (SANJAY SAXENA S/O SHRI UMA SHANKAR SAXENA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2026 The petitioner sought grant of bail after rejection by the State Consumer Commission under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. HELD- that no statutory appeal lays against rejection of bail and the bar under Section 73 applies only to appeals, not to bail. If bail application is rejected by commissioner the concerned session court can decide the bail application u/s 483 BNSS. Considering custody and maximum punishment of three years, bail was granted.
4
CW / 11417 / 2008 (PEOPLES WATCH RAJASTHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2026 The petitioner sought directions to the State to provide adequate washing material, drinking water and water for washing clothes to prisoners in Rajasthan jails. HELD- that hygiene, sanitation and access to water are part of the right to live with dignity; existing facilities were inadequate. The State was directed to ensure proper water and hygiene facilities, conduct jail inspections, constitute grievance redressal committees, and secure humane prison conditions.
5
SAW / 59 / 2023 (SMT. PREM DEVI D/O LATE RADHESHYAM SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the judgment dismissing her writ petition and declaration of khatedari rights over the land. HELD- that the appeal was filed without locus, the alleged power of attorney was invalid, and the land stood recorded as forest land; the special appeal was an abuse of process and was dismissed with costs, while the connected writ petitions relating to mining lease and industrial allotment were allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
