CW / 1268 / 2003 (DALAM CHAND AND ORS VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 Petitioners seek revised pay scales, GPF, increments, and service benefits under 1998 Rules, challenging denial based on contractual status and unfair undertakings. HELD-The Court held that calling the petitioners contractual cannot deny them rightful benefits when they worked like regular staff for years. The undertakings were held unfair. Petitioners are entitled to revised pay, GPF, and increments. Petition stands allowed.
2
CW / 12233 / 2025 (SUCHITRA BETIJI VS VAGISH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2025 Petitioners seek an interim injunction to stop respondents from using Dwarkadhish Haveli as a temple or interfering with their property rights until the trial is decided. HELD- Looking inter-se right b/w the parties, the Court permitted both parties to use the suit property during trial without conferring any legal or equitable rights. Public access limited to ground floor only. Property’s character not to be altered. Title to be decided in trial. Petition stands disposed of.
3
CW / 11932 / 2025 (MS. TEEJA DEVI VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/06/2025 Pet. seeks direction to terminate the pregnancy of minor daughter victim of rape, u/s 3 & 5 of MTP Act, 1971. HELD: The pregnant woman has the autonomy over her body & it is only she who has right to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. So, this Court is of the opinion that since the daughter of the present pet. is unwilling to abort the child, therefore, the consent of the pregnant women prevails over the consent given by her guardian. Petition disposed.
4
CRLA / 248 / 1995 (TRILOK SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2025 Appellants assailing the order passed by ld. ASJ, Bikaner, convicting u/s 498-A/34 and 304/34 IPC and to undergo 3 yrs as SI and 7 yrs as RI both concurrently. HELD: In the absence of any credible & cogent evidence regarding cruelty qua dowry demand inflicted upon the deceased soon before her unnatural death, the mandatory legal requirements to attract S. 304-B IPC remain unfulfilled. The presumption u/s 113-B IEA cannot be pressed into service in the prosecution’s favour. Appeal allowed.
5
CRLR / 26 / 2007 (MADAN SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2025 Pet. assailing the order passed by the ld JM, City North No.2, Udaipur, taking cognizance against pet. 1 & 2 u/s 494 rw S. 109 - 114 IPC, & against pet 3 & 4 u/s 494 rw S. 109 IPC. HELD: In the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence in the purported 2nd marriage, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is axiomatic that criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment when no offence is disclosed against the pet. Petition allowed.
1
CW / 16312 / 2024 (KOMAL KUMAWAT D/O SHRI PREM CHAND VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2025 Pet. assailing the notification issued by the DOP, Govt. of Raj. & Advt. issued by the RSSB, Jaipur, inviting applications for recruitment for vacancies of Jnr. Ins. HELD: Validity of Rule cannot be examined by keeping into account any peculiar conditions of particular persons. Rules are framed in generality by keeping in mind interest of entire class as a whole. Advt. has also been issued strictly in accordance with the Rules & there is no apparent illegality. Petitions dismissed.
2
CMA / 5302 / 2024 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SANWARIYA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2025 Petitioner assailing the order passed by the commercial courts, dismissing the objections filed u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. HELD: Court u/s 34 and in appeal u/s 37 has power to sever part of award in cases meeting out the parameters set out in the judgment. In the case in hand the claims can be divided into two heads. Both claims are severable and are not inter connected. The severability of both claims is legally and practically possible. Appeal partly allowed.
3
CW / 840 / 2025 (UMAKANT SHARMA SON OF LATE SHRI HARBAKSH LAL VS OM PRAKASH SHARMA SON OF SHRI HARBAKSH LAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and requested the matter be sent back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after properly framing issues and recording evidence as per CPC. HELD- the Court held that non-framing of issues u/O 14 CPC is a grave procedural error. Such failure violates mandatory legal duties of the court. It quashed all lower court decisions and remanded for a fresh trial after proper framing of issues, recording of evidence & training of revenue officer.
4
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.
5
CW / 5051 / 2025 (ABHA JAIN W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/04/2025 Petitioner challenged the penalty orders and closing of mining activity alleging violation of principles natural justice. HELD: Site inspection report dated 16.01.2024 was not supplied with show cause notice; impugned orders lacked reasoning & are silent on the applicability of conversion factor post 2017 Rules which have removed the conversion factor in royalty Schedule. Matter remitted for fresh decision. No coercive action for six weeks. Petition disposed of.
