| 1 |
CW / 3804 / 2025 (YATENDRA KUMAR NAGORI VS THE SPECIAL SECRETARY CUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON(KVS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/11/2025
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order and termination, alleging false implication and violation of procedure. HELD-that allegations of immoral conduct with a Class VI student were proved in inquiry and corroborated by other students. The petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity and Article 81(B) of the Education Code was complied with. Holding the misconduct grave and the punishment proportionate, the Court declined interference and dismissed the writ petition. . |
| 2 |
CRLMP / 4839 / 2019 (NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI DEVENDRA SNGH CHOUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025
The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings u/Sec 276C (1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the penalty for alleged concealment, forming the sole basis of prosecution, had been set aside by the ITAT. HELD- that where the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, has negated concealment on merits, prosecution on identical facts cannot survive. The presumption under Section 278E cannot operate without foundational facts. The proceedings were accordingly quashed. |
| 3 |
CRLMP / 5786 / 2025 (ASHISH DAVE SON OF SHRI MOHAN CHANDRA NAGAR, VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR, contending that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence. HELD- that the FIR, read as a whole, contains specific allegations which prima facie disclose cognizable offences warranting investigation. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the correctness of allegations. Finding no abuse of process or mala fides, the Court declined interference and disposed of the petition. |
| 4 |
ARBAP / 64 / 2024 (SOHAN BAI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR NAGAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2025
Applicant seeks appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to inaction of the respondents. HELD-that on filing of a Section 11(6) application, the respondent forfeits its contractual right to appoint an arbitrator. Any subsequent appointment is void and without jurisdiction, warranting court intervention, and accordingly an independent arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The application was accordingly allowed. |
| 5 |
CRLMP / 89 / 2019 (ANUJ SHARMA S/O SHRI D.D. SHARMA B/C BRAHMIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/11/2025
Petitioner seeks quashing of cognizance for offence under Section 497 IPC. HELD- the Court held that once Section 497 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional, it became void from inception and the declaration operates retrospectively on pending case, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the cognizance order, revisional order and all proceedings arising from the FIR were quashed. |
| 6 |
CRLMB / 5094 / 2025 (HITANSHU SANKHLA S/O SH. DIVAKAR SANKHLA VS UNION OF INDIA (CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU)) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/10/2025
Applicant sought bail u/s 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of 0.31 grams LSD on blotter papers and 6.1 grams ganja from a hostel room. HELD: Blotter paper forms an integral part of LSD; combined weight determines quantity. Recovery constituted commercial quantity attracting Section 37 NDPS Act. Mandatory conditions for bail not satisfied. Bail application dismissed. |
| 7 |
CW / 15414 / 2025 (NARENDRA MAHALA S/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR MAHALA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2025
Petitioner, a NEET-UG qualified candidate, sought condonation of a few hours’ delay in depositing balance MBBS fees due to death of his guardian & intervening holidays. His seat was treated vacant. HELD: Delay was bona fide; forfeiture of security deposit amounted to unjust enrichment. Procedural lapse which can be condoned should not defeat merit. No third-party rights are created. Pet. permitted to participate in Round-III counselling with adjustment of deposited amount; Petition allowed. |
| 8 |
CW / 1564 / 2023 (ANAND PRAKASH AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JODHPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2025
Petitioners assail the final seniority list of Assistant Registrars under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, claiming earlier promotions entitled them to higher seniority. HELD- the Court held that under Clause 12 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, promotion to Assistant Registrar is solely merit-based. Rule 20 proviso and Premlata Joshi were inapplicable. The seniority list was upheld, with liberty to file representation for remaining grievances. |
