CMA / 1242 / 2022 (M/S R.P.S. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellant challenged the setting aside of the arbitral award as time-barred. HELD- The Commercial Court erred in treating 20.03.2008 as the final date of cause of action without considering the parties’ correspondence, which showed that efforts to resolve the dispute continued until 2010. The claim filed on 10.05.2012 was within three years. The appeal was allowed; the Section 34 application was remanded for decision on merits, treating the claim as within limitation.
2
SAW / 769 / 2023 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DALPAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The respondents challenged cancellation of their mining LOIs and Prospecting Licence. HELD- Neither an LOI nor a PL conferred an indefeasible right to a mining lease. The 2021 amendment applied to pending cases under Section 10A(2)(b), causing PL-based rights to lapse. LOI holders failed to secure lease execution by 11 January 2017. The State’s appeals were allowed, the Single Judge’s orders set aside, and the writ petitions dismissed. Eligible parties may seek statutory reimbursement.
3
SAW / 797 / 2023 (PUBLIC ROSE SHIKSHA SAMITI (BABA KAMALDAS LIVESTOCK ASSISTAINT DIPLOMA TRAINING COLLEGE) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 The appellants sought NOCs for Livestock Assistant Diploma Training Institutes, alleging discrimination and seeking consideration under the earlier policy. HELD- A pending application creates no vested right to the policy in force when filed. Applying Policy-2022 to pending applications was not retrospective. The State could apply a revised, uniform policy before an enforceable right crystalized; Article 14 does not permit “negative equality” based on conditional. Appeals were dismissed.
4
CW / 69 / 2026 (LRS. OF PRAKASH ALIAS PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI VS AMRESH KUMAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/05/2026 The petitioner challenged the eviction orders, disputing the landlord–tenant relationship and identity of the premises. HELD- Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence where concurrent findings are plausible and free from perversity or jurisdictional error. Changes in an old tenancy’s description or use do not, by themselves, extinguish it. The writ petition was dismissed; both tribunals’ orders were upheld, and the eviction certificate became executable.
5
CRLA / 16 / 1999 (STATE VS GAFFAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The State challenged Gaffar’s acquittal under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. HELD- An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; where the Trial Court’s view is plausible, it cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible. The prosecution failed to prove the driver’s identity and criminal rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was neither perverse nor illegal. The appeal was dismissed and acquittal affirmed.
6
CRLMP / 4122 / 2021 (MAHENDRA KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2026 The petitioner sought to set aside rejection of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. HELD- Prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for FIR registration or investigation; it is relevant at cognizance. The Magistrate’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. If the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences, the Magistrate must refer it to police for FIR and investigation.
7
CRLW / 2136 / 2026 (SUMANN MUNDHARA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The petitioner sought completion of the investigation and filing of a report pursuant to the Trial Court’s direction. HELD- A Criminal Court directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. remains duty-bound to supervise its progress and ensure timely conclusion. The Trial Court was directed to ensure filing of the charge-sheet/Final Report within six weeks; on failure, it may pass appropriate orders against the erring officer. The writ petition was disposed of.
8
CRLA / 313 / 1993 (PURAN SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2026 The appellant challenged his conviction u/Sec 307 IPC. HELD- The sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation and medical evidence failed to establish the intention or knowledge required for attempt to murder. As voluntarily causing hurt with a sharp-edged weapon was proved, conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC. Imprisonment was reduced to time already undergone; fine of ₹200 and default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment remained. Appeal partly allowed; warrant recalled
9
CRLA / 484 / 1998 (STATE VS RAM SWAROOP) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/04/2026 The State challenged the respondents’ acquittal under Sections 3(1) and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- The prosecution failed to prove the alleged contravention beyond reasonable doubt; evidentiary inconsistencies and procedural deficiencies supported the trial court’s plausible view. As no perversity, illegality or material irregularity justified interference, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal affirmed.
1
SAW / 1208 / 2015 (JHUTHARAM S/O RAMPRATAP VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/05/2026 Pet. sought title and possession of Khasra No. 194 and refund of his deposit. HELD- Proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, had lapsed. Acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as possession was not taken and compensation unpaid. The 2002 settlement did not vest title in JDA. Appeal allowed; JDA’s appeal dismissed.
2
CW / 5717 / 2025 (POORANMAL PHOOLA DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The petitioner sought quashing of the refund and cancellation orders and restoration of its allotment. HELD- JDA’s acceptance of delayed payments and continued processing of plans, without a strict forfeiture clause, showed time was not of the essence. Cancellation without hearing was arbitrary and violated natural justice. The orders were quashed and allotment restored, subject to deposit of ₹20, 98, 78, 593 with 6% annual interest.
3
CW / 16979 / 2024 (JASMIN KAUR WIFE OF RAVNEET SINGH CHADDA DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH CHHADDA VS SMT. HARJEET KAUR WIFE OF LATE HARBHAN SINGH CHADDA) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The plaintiff sought a partial decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. HELD- A decree on admission requires a clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission. Admission of the plaintiff’s legal-heir status did not establish her claimed share, as the release deed and objections to limitation and jurisdiction required evidence. The Trial Court’s refusal disclosed no perversity or jurisdictional error under Article 227. The petition was dismissed.
4
CMA / 1388 / 2018 (SHRI KESHAV SAGAR DHARMSHALA PAVTA VS BANSIDHAR SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 Appellant sought to set aside the remand order and have the First Appellate Court decide the appeal on merits. HELD- The blanket remand was illegal because no ground under Order XLI Rules 23 or 23-A CPC was established. The First Appellate Court had to decide the appeal on the evidence under Rule 24, or seek a finding on Issue No. 3 alone under Rule 25. Remand set aside; appeal allowed and restored for decision on merits, preferably within six months.
5
CW / 6900 / 2024 (SMT. HARJEET KAUR WIFE OF LATE SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH CHADDHA VS JASMIN KAUR WIFE OF SHRI RAVNEET SINGH CHADDHA) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2026 The petitioners challenged rejection of their written-statement amendment. HELD- Once trial has commenced, Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the applicant to show that, despite due diligence, the plea could not have been raised earlier. The proposed vague and inconsistent pleas lacked this explanation and sought to withdraw the admission of the respondent’s right in the property. No patent illegality or perversity warranted Article 227 interference. The petition was dismissed.
6
CMA / 2007 / 2023 (PARSA KENTE COLLIERIES LIMITED VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/05/2026 The appellant sought setting aside of the Commercial Court’s order annulling the arbitral and additional awards for alleged patent illegality. HELD- Section 34 review is not an appeal: courts cannot reappreciate evidence or replace a plausible contractual interpretation with their own; patent illegality must go to the root. The Commercial Court exceeded this limited jurisdiction. Its order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
‘
7
CRLMP / 975 / 2025 (SONU RAM PACHAURI S/O LATE SHRI SHIBBO, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/05/2026 The petitioner sought setting aside of the accused’s release under Section 329 Cr.P.C. HELD- Where a Medical Board finds the accused incapable of understanding and participating in trial, postponing the issue until framing of charges is an empty formality. The Trial Court’s decision to release him into his son’s custody was upheld, subject to annual medical review and resumption under Section 331 Cr.P.C. if he regains fitness.
