| 1 |
CMA / 4796 / 2024 (DIMPLE W/O RAVINDRA MEENA D/O PRITAM SINGH MEENA VS RAVINDRA MEENA S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2025
Appellant challenged the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, claiming physical abuse and dowry harassment. Claims that she was willing to return. HELD: Allegations were unproven, no police complaint or medical certificate was produced. No evidence showed that the respondent obstructed reconciliation. If the appellant is ready to join company of her husband, there is no occasion to challenge the judgment. No legal error in the decree. Appeal Dismissed. |
| 2 |
ITA / 8 / 2025 (THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX VS PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2025
Appellant challenged the tribunal's order favoring the respondent in a reassessment under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. HELD: There is a distinction between ‘tax not quantifiable’ and ‘tax not quantified’. The demand might not have been quantified but remand was with regard to deduction claimed u/s 10AA & the maximum tax effect can be quantified at this stage, which would be less than 2 crores. Appeal dismissed. |
| 3 |
CW / 14730 / 2022 (BLM COLLEGE OF NURSING VS INCOME TAX OFFICER) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2025
Petitioner sought quashing of a reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, citing a lack of reasoning in the order. HELD: The order was non-speaking and failed to consider objections. Principles of natural justice require a reasoned decision. Order set aside; case remanded for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing. Petition Allowed. |
| 4 |
CW / 2449 / 2025 (RAMESH CHAND MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAIN MAHESHWARI VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/02/2025
Petitioner sought quashing of a reassessment notice under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, citing non-compliance with guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. HELD: Assessing Officer must decide objections before proceeding further. Directed to act per Supreme Court ruling. If objections are already decided, the order must be communicated within a week. Petition Disposed Of. |
| 5 |
CW / 1065 / 2018 (OMAXE LTD CORPORATE OFFICE VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2025
Petitioner challenged stamp duty demand, citing non-service of notice and excessive valuation. HELD: The dispute raised is with regard to service of notice, a question of fact. No violation of Principles of Natural Justice; petitioner failed to object before the Collector regarding non-service of notice u/s 54 of the Act. Writ not maintainable as statutory remedy is available. Petition Dismissed. |
| 6 |
CRLMB / 164 / 2025 (DHEERAJ SINGH PARMAR S/O BASANT SINGH PARMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2025
Petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case, arguing wrongful implication and procedural lapses. HELD: Seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act. FSL report confirmed methamphetamine (24.75g), below commercial quantity (50g). FSL report is the most important thing in an NDPS case. Investigation should be completed within 60 days; further custody is unlawful. Bail granted with conditions. Petition Allowed. |
| 7 |
CW / 17565 / 2022 (ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL VS ARVIND BHANDARI S/O SH. ROOP SINGH BHANDARI) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/02/2025
Petitioner challenged the tribunal order by which the termination order was set aside. HELD: The termination of any employee of a recognized institution can be passed only after holding departmental enquiry & with prior permission of Director of Education as per Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993.Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order of the respondent. Petitioner directed to reinstate the respondent. Tribunal order upheld. |
| 8 |
CW / 11054 / 2008 (SURESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2025
Petitioner challenged the order terminating his services for concealing past conviction as a juvenile. HELD: Petitioner faced trial before JJB when he was a minor, was convicted & released on Probation. Once benefit of Sec. 19 JJ Act, 2000 was extended, non-furnishing of information of conviction does not amount to concealment. Conviction of Petitioner would not attach any disqualification in pursuance of Sec 19(1) & 19(2) JJ Act 2000. Petition allowed. |
| 9 |
CW / 2003 / 2024 (SUNIL DATTATREY S/O SHRI G.P. DATTATREY RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2025
Petitioner challenged non-payment of salary despite Tribunal orders. HELD: Right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Non-payment amounts to 'Begar,' prohibited under Article 23. Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. Withholding salary violates Articles 21, 23, and 300-A. Respondents directed to release salary within one month, failing which contempt proceedings would follow. Compliance to be monitored. |
| 10 |
CRLA / 38 / 2016 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2025
Appellant assailing the judgment passed by the Special Court of ACD Cases, Alwar, convicting him u/s 7 & 13(2) rw S. 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. HELD: Accused convicted merely on the basis of alleged recovery of certain currency notes, without there being any cogent evidence as regards the demands and acceptance. In absence of such evidence, conviction and sentence cannot be said to be justified. Appeal allowed. |
