CW / 3470 / 2025 (MOOLA RAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the notification creating a new revenue village "Gogaji Ki Jaal," alleging violation of Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.08.2009. HELD: Naming villages after a person, caste, sub-caste or religion is impermissible. These restrictions, have been imposed keeping in mind the ethos of democracy and larger public interest. Notification dated 20.01.25 is in violation of clause 4 of circular dated 20.08.09; hence quashed. Petition allowed.
2
CRLMP / 7213 / 2022 (ABDUL SATTAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 06/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, alleging illegal medical practice. HELD: Offences are non-cognizable and bailable; FIR registered without prior approval from Magistrate violates Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Violation of principles of natural justice as FIR was lodged without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Petition allowed.
3
CW / 2899 / 2024 (M/S GRAIN ENERGY PVT. LTD. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the rejection of a refund claim for interest paid due to technical glitches in the Customs ECL system. HELD: Refund denial was inconsistent with Section 27 and Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. Technical issues persisted until 27.07.2023, as certified by D.G. Systems. Impugned order dated 21.11.2023 quashed; respondents directed to refund the interest amount within three months. Petition allowed.
4
CRLMP / 8867 / 2024 (HARI SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2025 Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. HELD: Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is irretrievably violated. Delay, lack of evidence and absence of witnesses made trial meaningless. High Court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. Proceedings quashed for all accused, including those who had not approached the Court.
5
CRLMP / 5484 / 2024 (IRFAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the order rejecting his request for a fresh forensic sample from the seized contraband in an NDPS case. HELD: The trial court's refusal violated principles of fair trial. In ensuring a fresh forensic examination, the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond doubt is more effectively discharged. A fresh 10g sample to be drawn under judicial supervision and sent to FSL. The FSL directed to submit the report within 30 days. Impugned order quashed. Petition allowed.
1
CW / 14701 / 2015 (M/S RAMPABHU HOTELS INDIA PVT VS STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENTORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of order demanding increased stamp duty. HELD: Respondents erred in initiating proceedings u/s 47A of the Raj. Stamp Law Act, 1952. The lease deed was in favour of the company not the directors. Transfer of shareholdings does not impact the ownership of the property of the company. No transfer for which stamp duty was payable. In spite of the availability of alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction can be invoked as a safeguard against arbitrariness. Petition Allowed.
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
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.
4
CW / 11523 / 2022 (M/S RICHARDSON CRUDDAS (1972) LIMITED VS STATE GOODS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2025 Petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting the request for grant of interest on a delayed refund. HELD: The order was beyond statutory provisions; withholding provisions such as Sec. 57 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 are not applicable in absence of withholding order. Matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the application for grant of interest. Petition Allowed.
5
CW / 7702 / 2023 (SHREE CEMENT LIMITED VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the order passed u/s 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that reassessment proceedings were initiated based on suspicion without proper material evidence. HELD: Notice u/s 148 is issued on the basis of material available on record & after considering the reply filed by assessee. The objections raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with. The request for supplying the material was not considered. The matter was remitted for reconsideration. Petition Allowed.
