CFA / 215 / 2023 (SUNIL VS OSTWAL PHOSCHEM (INDIA) LTD) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2025 Appeal preferred against order passed by the ADJ No.3, Bhilwara, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. HELD: The main relief as prayed for in the suit in question is for declaration of Khatedari rights and the relief for cancellation of sale deed is an ancillary relief. The finding as recorded by learned Trial Court is totally in consonance with law and does not deserve any interference. The order impugned does not deserve any interference. Appeal dismissed.
2
WCP / 732 / 2017 (M/S.ALOK CHITRA MANDIR, CHURU VS HEMANT JAIN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/01/2025 Contempt Petition preferred alleging disobedience of the judgment passed by this court allowing the writ petition. HELD: Despite the recorded findings, the Dep. Comm. proceeded on to affirm the same order which is contemptuous. Purpose of contempt juris. is to uphold dignity of the Courts of law. However, the disobedience might be because of lack of understanding, taking a liberal view, and deems it appropriate to grant a chance to the resp. to rectify the order.
3
CW / 16307 / 2024 (SHAMBOO SINGH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/12/2024 Petitioner assailing the order issued by Distt. Education Officer placing the petitioner under suspension. HELD: Petitioner’s unruly behaviour cannot be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression. Petitioner’s engagement in political activities and his behaviour definitely falls within the scope of misconduct. The petitioner cannot use freedom to garner his fiefdom. To keep the society in order, self-restraint is necessary while respecting self-esteem of others. Petition dismissed
4
SAW / 1057 / 2024 (UNION OF INDIA VS JIET MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/12/2024 Appellant appealed against the order passed by the ld. Single Judge allowing the increase of the seats in medical college. HELD:Interim order ought not to have been granted, not inclined to set aside the interim order, since students have paid their fee, admitted, joined & competed about a month of study, but direct the parties to complete their pleadings within 10 days & request the ld Judge to hear the petition within 1 month from the date of completion of pleadings. Appeal disposed
5
CRLA / 720 / 2002 (STATE VS RAMDIN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2024 Appellant preferred appeal u/s 378 CrPC laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal. HELD: Ld. Trial Court had misread the material evidence on record and has adopted a hyper-technical approach in interpreting the testimonies of the witnesses and the docs. The respondents have failed to provide any explanation for the circumstances under which the incident took place. Acquittal of accused - respondents u/s 498-A, 304-B, & 201 IPC is not sustainable. Appeal allowed.
1
CW / 14984 / 2013 (R MAGADAIAH EX CONSTABLE VS I G CRPF RAJ AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the dismissal from service for unauthorized entry into a fellow constable’s residence. HELD: There must be fairness in all the administrative decisions. Punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct. Judicial review allows interference if penalty shocks conscience. Impugned dismissal order quashed; matter remitted to authority for reconsideration on punishment. Orders to be passed within three months. Petition partly allowed.
2
CW / 7675 / 2002 (KAMAL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2025 Petitioner challenged compulsory retirement on account of negligence owing to which the accused in his custody had absconded. HELD: Appellate and Reviewing Authorities failed to provide reasoned orders rather decided in cursory manner leading to violation of principles of natural justice. Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to Appellate Authority for fresh decision with due consideration and speaking order within three months. Petition disposed of. Not commented on the merits of the case.
3
CW / 390 / 2008 (GOPAL RAM VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the penalty order imposing stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. HELD: The penalty was imposed without conducting an enquiry, violating principles of natural justice. The order was passed in a casual manner without application of mind. Impugned penalty order quashed. Respondents at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry as per CCA Rules, 1958. Petition allowed.
4
CW / 21135 / 2018 (BASANT RAM MAURYA SON OF LATE SH. JAI RAM MAURYA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2025 Petitioner sought release of gratuity post-acquittal in a corruption case which the authorities withheld only because the State has submitted an appeal against the acquittal. HELD: Mere filing of a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal cannot be treated as continuation of criminal trial. It does not justify withholding retiral benefits. Impugned action quashed; respondents directed to release gratuity with 9% interest within three months. Petition allowed.
5
CRLW / 358 / 2024 (BHAJAN MEENA @ BAHADUR S/O SHRI HARPHOOL MEENA VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2025 Petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for transferring him from Central Jail to Open Air Camp. Held: His conduct during the stay in jail is found to be satisfactory & after availing the parole he returned to the jail peacefully. In identical situation other convict prisoner was also shifted to Open Air Camp. Committing murder of a Pakistani National, while undergoing life sentence, cannot be sole ground to deny prayer. Order quashed
6
CMA / 2270 / 2010 (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS SMT GAYATRI S INGH AND OTHERS) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/01/2025 Appellants challenge MACT award. Insurance Co. of the truck argued for exoneration, claiming sole negligence of the car driver. HELD: The accident was a result of composite negligence. Both insurance companies are liable to indemnify the claim, with insurer of the Indica car, earlier exonerated by tribunal, being specifically held liable under a package policy. Compensation enhanced from ₹1.48 Cr to ₹2.05 Cr with 6% interest. Appeal of truck’s insurer dismissed; claimants appeal allowed
