1 | 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 | 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. |
4 | EXCIA / 78 / 2018 (M/S MODERN WOLLENS VS THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/01/2025 Appellant challenged denial of excise duty remission for 62 stolen wool bales during transit. HELD: Theft during transit constitutes "loss" under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as goods were beyond manufacturer’s control. Theft is an unavoidable accident unless the respondent’s negligence caused it. Legislative intent protects bona fide manufacturers from undue tax burden in such exceptional circumstances. Impugned order set aside; remission granted. Appeal allowed. |
5 | SAW / 1178 / 2024 (BALRAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2025 Appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitions. HELD: Some complaints were made of not receiving water supply for which the size of the outlet of the canal was altered. There is no whisper that the report of the Asst. Engineer on certain grounds was not factually correct. Unless an appropriate case from facts is made out, order could not be held bad only on a technical ground. Petitions dismissed. |
6 | CRLMP / 7680 / 2024 (BHERA RAM CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/12/2024 Petitioner files the petition u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR for offence u/s 126(2),132,285&221 BNS, 2023, HELD: Offences alleged against the pet. are bailable in nature. The refusal to grant bail, coupled with the prolonged detention of the pet. for 10 days, represents a grave procedural oversight & a miscarriage of justice. Decisions should not be influenced solely by the seriousness of the offence but be guided by specific circumstances of each case. Petition allowed. |
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 / 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. |
4 | 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. |
5 | 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. |
6 | CW / 13177 / 2022 (PRATEEK BULLS AND BEARS PRIVATE LIMITED VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2025 Petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. HELD: Vague information was supplied in notice. Department miserably failed to put an iota of evidence to even prima-facie show that the bank account mentioned in the notice belonged to the petitioner. The objections were not decided in accordance with Section 148A and the procedural guidelines not complied with. Petition allowed. |
7 | 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. |
8 | 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. |
9 | 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. |
10 | 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. |
11 | 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. |
12 | 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. |
13 | 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. |
14 | CW / 13662 / 2024 (CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR VS RAM NIWAS SHARMA SON OF LATE SHRI RATI RAM SHARMA) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/02/2025 Petitioners challenged the order of Central Administrative Tribunal directing full pay for suspension period of respondent acquitted in Prevention of Corruption Act case. HELD: Suspension during criminal probe isn't punitive. In absence of departmental proceedings, acquitted employee cannot be denied full pay for suspension period. Tribunal rightly set aside order restricting payment to subsistence allowance. Petition dismissed. |
15 | CW / 5745 / 2022 (HARBANS LAL VERMA SON OF SHRI HAR GOVIND VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2025 Petitioner challenged CAT's dismissal of his plea against change in increment date due to 500 days of Leave Without Pay (LWP). HELD: LWP except availed on medical ground is to be excluded while computing service period for grant of increment. Petitioner failed to prove medical grounds. Stagnation Increment (SI) is to be granted after completion of 1 year from the grant of last increment which the petitioner was not fulfilling. Order of Tribunal is on merits & upheld. Petition dismissed. |
16 | CW / 713 / 2005 (ANANDI LAL AND ANR VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2025 Petitioners challenged dismissal of their suit claiming khatedari rights over land purchased from an SC member in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. HELD: Transfer of SC/ST land to non-SC/ST persons is void under Section 42(b). Khatedari rights cannot be acquired through adverse possession in such cases, as per settled law in Sita Ram v. Board of Revenue. Principle of res judicata inapplicable due to differing subject matters. Petition dismissed. |
17 | CW / 18870 / 2013 (DR V K JAIN AND ANR VS U O I AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/01/2025 Petitioners sought interest on delayed refund under Section 132-B(4) of the Income Tax Act and quashing of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. HELD: Petition of Petitioner No.1 withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. CIT failed to consider Petitioner No.2’s claim independently as both the claims are on different footing. Order qua petitioner No.2 set aside; matter remitted to CIT for reconsideration. Petition Allowed. |
18 | CW / 1102 / 2025 (SUNIL AGRAWAL SON OF GHANSHYAM AGARWAL VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Department. HELD: The satisfaction recorded by the ACIT cannot be equated with the satisfaction to be recorded in the reassessment proceedings by AO. DCIT had only recorded satisfaction for proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and no satisfaction was recorded for initiating the penalty proceedings under Sec. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petition Allowed. |
19 | CRLW / 2183 / 2024 (REENA WIFE OF BALWAN D/O SHRI NARENDRA, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/01/2025 Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages living in live-in-relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection order from the Court? HELD: Two conflicting views have been taken by the different Co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court; this Court has no other option but to refer the matter to the Special/Larger Bench. |
20 | CW / 768 / 2020 (SHRI SHRIVATS RATHI S/O SHRI ARUN RATHI VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2025 Petitioner challenged rejection of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme application due to conviction under Indirect Tax Enactment. He alleged that the conviction has not attained finality as appeal is pending. HELD The application under the scheme filed has been rejected as the Pet. is convicted & hence calls for no interreference. Pet. at liberty to avail remedies for reviving the issue as to whether the declaration under the scheme could have been rejected. Petition disposed |
21 | CW / 10804 / 2024 (SHREE CHATURBHUJ CONSTRUCTION BUILDCOM VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/01/2025 Petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns for 6 months. The revocation application was dismissed as time-barred. HELD: The application was filed within 30 days of service of the cancellation order. The dismissal of appeal was based upon a factual error. The date from which the cancellation of registration was effective was taken for computing limitation whereas the relevant date is of service of the cancellation order. Petition allowed. |
22 | CW / 3265 / 2008 (SIRAJUDDIN AND ORS VS B O R, AJMER) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/01/2025 Petitioners sought to quash the 1957 order recording land as forest land and orders dismissing the appeal as time-barred. HELD: Petitioners failed to produce the 1957 order and documents on record despite court directions. Apart from bald statements no proof was provided as to how petitioners gained knowledge in 1994. Court held that the delay was inordinate, and claims were contradictory. Petition dismissed. |
23 | CW / 14040 / 2024 (KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SHARMA VS MENTOR HOME LOANS INDIA LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/01/2025 Petitioners sought quashing of the DRAT’s order maintaining status quo alleging it to be a non-speaking order. HELD: Respondent was directed by DRT to revert back the possession of the mortgaged property. On notice of appeal petitioner sought time to file reply and since the time to revert back the possession was expiring, as an interim measure the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The challenge to interim order being non speaking lacks merit. No case made out. Petition disposed of. |
24 | CW / 4286 / 2001 (MUNNALAL (SINCE DECEASED) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/01/2025 Petitioner seeking quashing of order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. HELD: The Board allowed the reference holding that Khatedari of the Charagah land could not have been conferred as per the provisions of the 1955 Act. The Board before recording that no Patta was produced before it, should have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to produce a copy of the patta. impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Board to decide the reference afresh. Petition allowed. |
25 | CW / 12820 / 2012 (KANHAIYA LAL DHAKAR VS STATE MINES DEPARTMENT AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/12/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of order cancelling the sanction of mining lease and dismissing the revision petition. HELD: The order cancelling the sanction of mining lease has civil consequences. Cardinal principle is that even for the administrative actions having civil consequences, principles of natural justice are to be followed. Order dated 02.05.2006 being passed in violation of principle of natural justice is quashed. Petitions disposed of. |
26 | CW / 2755 / 2005 (PRAKASH CHAND VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/11/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of order passed by District Collector Sawai Madhopur imposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 89 (7) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. HELD: The Distt. Collector proceeded on the basis that pet. failed to establish a valid mining lease in his favour after 1993 thereby wrongly shifting the onus on petitioner. Without considering the effect of sub rule 6 of Rule 24A of 1960 Rules giving a deemed extension to lease period the penalty was imposed. Petition allowed. |
Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur
e-Services Helpline: 9414056204
hc-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0291-2888500-04
Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur
e-Services Helpline: 7023103127
hcjaipur-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0141-2227124