HC / 249 / 2025 (RAHISUDDIN KHAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/09/2025 Peti. Seeks habeas corpus to free his minor grandson from respondent No.5’s illegal custody, restore custody to him, & initiate action for the alleged kidnapping by respondent No.5. HELD-Court held that custody can be decided in writ petition and respondent No.5 concealed material facts, relied on dubious documents, & abandoned the child, rendering her custody illegal. Given the petitioner’s stable, long-term care, custody was rightly restored with safeguards. Petition maintainable.
2
CRLA / 163 / 1997 (DEVI SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction under Section 302 IPC and its conversion to Section 304 Part II with sentence confined to the period undergone. HELD- Court held the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, with no premeditation, intention, or undue advantage; the blow was with the reverse side of an axe, negating murder. Conviction was rightly altered to Section 304 Part II and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
3
CRLA / 165 / 1995 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BRIJ LAL AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of the acquittal, contending that the Trial Court erred in discarding the first dying declaration and prays that the respondents be convicted and punished. HELD- Court held that the dying declarations were materially inconsistent, witness’s unreliable, and no clear causal link to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no perversity in the Trial Court’s view, the acquittal required no interference and the appeal was dismissed.
4
SAW / 1123 / 2024 (THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DR. ALI TAQI) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/09/2025 Appellants seek setting aside of the Single Judge’s order permitting cumulative age relaxation & pray that the writ petitions claiming combined relaxation u/Rule 9 Raj state and subordinate service rules 1973 be dismissed. HELD- that Rule 9 of the 1973 Rules allows only separate, independent age relaxations and contains no authority for cumulative benefit. The advertisement validly barred combining relaxations. The Single Judge’s order permitting cumulative age relaxation was set aside.
5
SAW / 1107 / 2025 (TARA CHAND KULDEEP VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/08/2025 Appellant seeks quashing of post-retirement notices, asserting they amount to initiation of departmental proceedings without the mandatory Governor’s sanction under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules. HELD- Court held the notices were purely preliminary, issued only to elicit clarification, and did not constitute institution of proceedings under Rule 7(6). As no charges or proposal were issued, the Rule 7 safeguard was not triggered. Appeal dismissed.
1
CW / 10712 / 2023 (SABUDDIN S/O LATE SH. ALLANOOR VS GIRIRAJ S/O KALU) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/09/2025 Petitioners seek quashing of the RAA and Board orders, contending the respondent’s 44-year-delayed appeal was entertained without condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. HELD- Court held that a time-barred appeal cannot be decided without first condoning delay under Section 5. RAA and Board erred in entertaining a 44-year-delayed appeal without addressing limitation. Their orders were quashed and matter remanded.
2
CW / 5829 / 2020 (KHANDELWAL VAISHYA SAMAJ CHARITABLE TRUST VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/09/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the order refusing condonation and prays that delay in uploading Form 10B be condoned, with a direction to grant exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. HELD-Court held the delay was bona fide and caused by circumstances beyond control, and the rejection was perfunctory. Applying a liberal, justice-oriented approach under Section 119(2)(b) and accepting the uncontroverted affidavit, the delay was condoned and exemption under Sections 11–12 directed.
3
CRLAD / 133 / 2018 (RAMAVTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/09/2025 Appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 394, and 302 IPC, contending that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD- the prosecution could not establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances; the recoveries were unreliable, the last-seen evidence weak and no forensic link connected the appellant to the offence. Granting benefit of doubt, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant acquitted.
4
CCP / 173 / 2024 (SHRI MATADIN JANGIR S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN JANGIR VS SHRI NAVEEN JAIN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2025 Petitioners invoked contempt jurisdiction seeking arrears and service benefits under Bhagwan Das Todi (2015), asserting the judgment was in rem and enforceable without filing independent claims. HELD- The Court held contempt cannot substitute adjudication of entitlement; “similarly situated” in Bhagwan Das Todi applied only to employees who had pursued claims before Court/Tribunal. As no willful disobedience was shown, contempt petitions were dismissed, leaving remedy before the Edu. Tribunal.
5
CMA / 1341 / 2018 (SUSHILA VS RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/08/2025 Petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased, seek compensation u/s 166 MV Act, alleging fatal accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Rajendra Singh on motorcycle RJ-01-13M-9868. HELD-Court held that under Sec.166 MV Act, claimants must prove rash and negligent driving. Mere vehicle involvement or owner’s reply u/s 133 is insufficient. As no eye-witness or cogent proof was led, negligence not proved. Tribunal’s dismissal was proper; appeals dismissed.
