Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 360 NOMINAL INDEX Lrs of Purakh Singh & Anr. v Narendra Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331 Surendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 332 Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 333 X v Y 2025 LiveLaw (Raj)...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
NOMINAL INDEX
Lrs of Purakh Singh & Anr. v Narendra Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331
Surendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 332
Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 333
X v Y 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 334
Ravindra Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 335
Jyoti Bhati v Amazon India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 336
Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 337
Durga Lal Verma v District Collector, Tonk 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 338
Megha Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 339
Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 340
Nathdwara Temple Board & Anr. v Dhirendra Manaharbhai Tharanariwala & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 341
Laxman Das v State 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 342
Kapuraram v Bhuri Devi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 343
State of Rajasthan v Arjun Singh and Arjun Singh v State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 344
Shekharchand Sachet and Anr. v. S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 345
Narendra Mahal v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 346
Harishankar Acharya & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 347
Narendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 348
Smt. Babita v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 349
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Kamal Singh Chaudhary & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 350
Deevan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 351
Ratiram Yadav v Gopal Sharma and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 352
Global Pharmacy College v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
Atar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 354
Kritesh Oswal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 355
Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 356
Sh. Harendra Singh Rathore Versus State Bank Of India 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
Kingsroad Handelsges Versus Raj Grow Impex LLP. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
Ved Prakash Yadav v/s Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
Victim v/s State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
Sujeet Swami v Union of India & Ors.
Maharaj Prithviraj v State and Ors. and Maharaj Jagat Singh through his legal representatives v State
Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Mohanlal v State of Rajasthan
Suman Kumari v/s Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan and Others
Asharam@ Ashumal v/s State of Rajasthan
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: Lrs of Purakh Singh & Anr. v Narendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in relation to death of a homemaker, taking into account the “significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers”.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that, “The Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments has consistently recognized the significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers and has time and again, held that services of homemakers must be given pecuniary value while awarding compensation in motor accident and similar claims”.
Title: Surendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 332
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed plea by candidates seeking appointment as Nurse Grade II who claimed such entitlement to the post based on their work experience as a Vaccinator, clarifying that the two posts are different having different job responsibilities and nature of work.
The court said that although, there was provision for granting bonus marks for having work experience in any project/scheme of State Government, yet such criteria for granting bonus marks is not unlimited and is confined to work "which is of 'similar nature' to the work required to be conducted for the advertised post".
Title: Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 333
Taking serious note of the practice of “forum shopping” and terming it highly disreputable, the Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh each, on a number of petitioners for the same.
Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a bunch of petitions with an identical issue of forum shopping, in which, even though the territorial jurisdiction lay before the Jaipur Bench of the Court, these were filed before the principal seat at Jodhpur.
The Court further highlighted that to its “shock and surprise”, even the Registry did not mark this as a defect or raise any objections regarding their maintainability.
“…the jurisdictional guidelines qua the Rajasthan High Court are byepassed and misused. There is rampant Bench hunting, forum shopping which is ignored by the Registry. Nevertheless, the concerned Court also on account of heavy workload, is not able to consider the said aspect at the initial stance…”
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 334
Rajasthan High Court held that refusal of service of notice by any person other than the noticee themselves or their agent cannot be considered refusal in the eye of law.
The court held thus while quashing an ex-parte divorce decree granted by family court in the wife's favour after noting that the court notice was refused by the husband's mother in his absence.
The high court said:
"A refusal for the purpose of service of notice should be taken to be a sufficient service, if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself/herself. A denial by any other person other than the noticee or his agent, including the mother to receive or accept the notice on someone else's behalf cannot be said to be a refusal in the eye of law".
Title: Ravindra Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 335
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that transfer order under Section 336(2) State Municipalities Act 2009, cannot be construed as a transfer by way of deputation since the provision does not provide for officer's consent which is essential for deputation.
The court said that once an order under Section 336(2) is issued, the officer/employee has no option but to join the duty at the transferred place.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of the respondent that since Section 366 did not prohibit repatriation of an employee, it could not done. It was held that since the power to transfer an officer or service under Section 336 was conferred exclusively on the State, power to retransfer/recall/repatriate was also vested in the State Government.
Title: Jyoti Bhati v Amazon India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 336
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur , has directed Amazon India, Apple India, and the seller to jointly refund ₹61,999 to a consumer for a defective iPhone, holding them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission, comprising Dr. Yatish Kumar Sharma, President, and Dr. Anuradha Vyas, Member, imposed a joint liability of Rs. 10,000 on Amazon, Apple, and the third-party private seller towards the complainant, for causing her mental harassment, when she was delivered a power bank worth Rs. 1,000 instead of her pre-paid order of an iPhone 12 amounting to Rs. 61,900
Title: Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 337
The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily on the Revenue Department for being “rigid and adamant” to transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the coordinate bench's earlier decision that quashed the same order.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Ravi Chirania stated that when the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were pending for more than 6 years, the department must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue as per law, instead of making the assessee a “shuttlecock”.
While making the above-mentioned observations, it opined that, “The proceedings initiated by respondent against petitioner are pending for more than 6 years because of respondent's unreasonable and unjustified act of ordering transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi”.
Title: Durga Lal Verma v District Collector, Tonk
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 338
Rajasthan High Court set aside a charge sheet issued against a retired employee for same charges in relation to which disciplinary proceedings were already dropped against him in 1991, followed by his acquittal from the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act”) in 2000.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that in absence of any specific power to review, revise or re-initiate the matter in second enquiry, once a disciplinary enquiry was closed or dropped against the delinquent employee, the matter came to an end, and the disciplinary authority could not restore the same.
Title: Megha Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 339
Rajasthan High Court expressed its pain with the State government for not paying salary to a government employee in coma for over two years after suffering brain hemorrhage, calling it inhumane, unreasonable and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the “inhumane and arbitrary approach” and fairly settled law around the situation, Justice Ravi Chirania, instead of awaiting reply from the State, directed it to examine the employee's case regarding his dues and medical bills within 7 days. The court said:
“The financial condition of a government servant who has not been paid salary from the last more than one year and is in coma from the last two years can easily be imagined by the respondents…A sudden medical problem has declared the employee as a deadwood for the respondent- State Department and they are least bothered about his condition...This Court is in pain noticing the inhumane and arbitrary approach and act of the respondents. Though in the usual circumstances, as already mentioned above, the respondents would have been permitted to file the usual reply however, they would have taken further time in resolving the grievance of the petitioner which, as already mentioned above, hardly require any adjudication by this Court in terms of the law as laid down”.
Title: Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 340
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the order of the Board of Revenue that rejected the application by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, on the ground that the original application was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but was submitted subsequently.
While restoring the order of the Assistant Collector that had allowed the application, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the primary function of the Court was to adjudicate the dispute, and that rules of limitation were not meant to destroy people's rights.
"Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressed of the legal injury so suffered," the court said.
Title: Nathdwara Temple Board & Anr. v Dhirendra Manaharbhai Tharanariwala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 341
Rajashtan High Court modified its order dated October 3, 2017, to the extent of shifting the responsibility of developing a Trauma Centre and National Level Institution to promote Indian Art, at Nathdwara, Rajasthan, from the Nathdwara Temple Board to State Government/functionaries, clarifying that the Board shall provide all assistance for the purpose.
The matter related to a writ petition filed by certain residents of Surat and Ahmedabad, in 2004, seeking adequate facilities for pilgrims in Nathdwara Temple Town and Nathdwara Temple.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, these two establishments are required to be developed by the State Government/State functionaries and since the Nathdwara Temple Board is having a major role to play, therefore, it will also be the bounden duty of the Nathdwara Temple Board to provide all the assistance including financial assistance for establishment of those two centres.”
Title: Laxman Das v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 342
Rajasthan High Court converted a father's murder conviction for fatally hitting his son's neck with a sharp edged tool, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced sentence from life imprisonment to 7 years.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi took into consideration the testimonies of prosecution witnesses including appellant's wife and daughter, claiming him to be a short-tempered person, lacking mental balance. It was claimed that the appellant often lost control and used to beat his children for their mistakes.
The Court observed that ordinarily, no parent would injure their children fatally, irrespective of how much frustrated they were, such that the child losses his/her life.
Title: Kapuraram v Bhuri Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 343
The Rajasthan High Court held that once a civil court has already passed a decree restraining a party from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit property, the same could not be interfered with by initiating proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“the Act”).
“The delay in approaching the revision court without any justifiable reasons and after expiry of a reasonable time cannot be held to be bonafide or unintentional. Further, the delay also cannot be said to be bonafide for the reason that the civil suit was filed by the respondents i.e. legal representatives of Vachnaram seeking permanent injunction in the year 2010 which is prior to the filing of the revision petition.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Arjun Singh and
Arjun Singh v State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 344
While answering the death reference in negative, Rajasthan High Court acquitted a man convicted for murder of two siblings and raping the sister.
In doing so, a division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi expressed its "astonishment" over trial court's decision of awarding death penalty to the appellant in a case wherein they struggled to find any trace of evidence supporting prosecution's case.
"It is a bit astonishing to note that a case wherein this Court is facing difficulty to find any trace of evidence supporting the case of the prosecution, the accused/appellant has been convicted with death sentence by the learned Trial Court. Not a whisper is found in the impugned judgment so as to make the present case fall within the category of “rarest of the rare” case"
It was also highlighted that no blood stains were found on the alleged weapon based on which it could be said that the same was used for committing the crime. In this light, it was opined that when the weapon was devoid of any blood stain, mere recovery of shirt having victim's blood stains could not be the sole basis to prove charge of murder.
Title: Shekharchand Sachet and Anr. v. S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 345
The Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench has held that a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act without issuing the notice invoking arbitration (“NIA”) u/s 21 of the A&C Act would be maintainable if the Respondents were aware of the dispute being referred to arbitration. The bench noted that the Respondents were well-versed in the dispute raised by the Petitioner. They could not have been surprised after the Petitioner's plaint was returned by the trial court under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC after the Respondent filed a section 8 application r/w section 5 of the A&C Act.
Title: Narendra Mahal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 346
Granting relief to a successful NEET candidate whose candidature was considered ineligible as he was late by 1 day in depositing fee, Rajasthan High Court slammed the forfeiture of Rs 5 Lakh security deposit by the Counselling Board terming it "unjust enrichment".
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that merely due to procedural irregularities or delays which could be condoned, the dreams of the petitioner need not be halted. It thus allowed the petitioner to participate in the third round of counselling.
Title: Harishankar Acharya & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 347
In a landmark ruling, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the home guard personnel of the State of Rajasthan, in their long drawn battle against the rotational system of engagement that restricted their maximum deployment period to 6-8 months, and no employment benefits.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that being a welfare State, it should work towards the betterment of the society, and not to make the poor poorer and rich richer.
It said:
"The ostensible claim that they serve as “volunteers” is, in truth, a camouflage. The State not only deploys them on specific dates and occasions but also directs, instructs, and supervises their functions. Their role is not left to their volition; rather, they perform duties determined by the State. In return, they are paid remuneration for the work performed. Such an arrangement unmistakably bears the incidents and character of an employer–employee relationship. The plight of these so-called “volunteers” is both helpless and hapless...this Court is of the view that all Home Guards be deployed on a continuous basis, and it directs the State to take all necessary steps to implement this system forthwith, so as to safeguard both the interests of the Home Guards and the effective functioning of the State machinery."
In this background, the directions were issued to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary; Finance Department; and Information Technology and Home Guards Department
Title: Narendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 348
Dismissing challenge to an order rejecting plea under Section 319 CrPC for summoning three men in an assault case, Rajasthan High Court held that when the injured person was themselves silent about the involvement and role of these men, then statements of other witnesses hardly made any difference.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against only two accused persons who were named in the statement of the injured. When the injured is silent about the involvement and role of the accused-respondents, then under these circumstances, the statements of other witnesses hardly makes any difference".
Title: Smt. Babita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 349
While dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition, Rajasthan High Court held that the writ jurisdiction in the case of a missing person could not be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of investigation or being dissatisfied with the manner of such investigation.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that the scope of Habeas Corpus had been enlarged with time, but there could not be a straitjacket formula for interference in writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
It was held that since there was alternative remedy available under criminal procedure laws for supervision of investigation or issuance of directions for effective investigation, competent court must deal with such matters.
Rajasthan High Court Imposes Cost On State For Re-Litigating Settled Issue Despite 2013 Order
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Kamal Singh Chaudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 350
Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the State to be given to the respondents, for repeatedly challenging an issue already settled in 2013, instead of giving effect to the decision of the court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the fact that the 2013 order had attained finality, and it cannot be allowed to be challenged in this intra court appeal against the 2023 order. Since the 2013 order was unsuccessfully appealed, and thereafter no SLP was filed, the State accepted that order, and it attained finality.
Despite this, the order was not complied with by the State. The Court said, “the issue is being raked up again to challenge the order which had attained finality.”
Title: Deevan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 351
Rajasthan High Court held that service of summons to a person who was posted as a soldier, sailor or airman in the Armed Forces, upon WhatsApp number could not be treated as sufficient, in light of the mandate under Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018 (“the Rules”) and Order V Rule 28, CPC.
“The Army, the Air Force and the Navy is collectively known as the Armed Forces which are highly organized and disciplined forces and are specially designed for carrying out battles, protecting the State from the threat of external forces and to conduct other special operations…Special procedures/processes have been made by the Legislature for service of summons upon the members of the Armed Forces…when a case is filed against them in their personal capacity.”
It was observed that the petitioner was prevented of sufficient opportunity to make personal appearance before the court, and the Family court's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Title: Ratiram Yadav v Gopal Sharma and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 352
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt gets dishonoured, the liability under Section 138 NI Act can be invoked in view of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contracts Act, as per which even a time-barred debt forms a valid consideration if there was a written promise signed by the debtor.
The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur held that a cheque constituted such a promise as contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian Contracts Act.
“The contention that the debt was time-barred by 2012 does not ipso facto exonerate the accused, the very issuance of cheques constitute a promise within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reviving the enforceability of the debt. Accordingly, the requirement of “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 of the “N.I. Act” is satisfied.”
Title: Global Pharmacy College v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order passed by the State imposing a ban on granting of NOCs to the private colleges intending to start B.Pharmacy Course as well as for establishment of new colleges seeking to impart the B-Pharmacy Course.
Justice Sunil Beniwal held that the act of the State imposing the ban was without any legislative backing or competence, and hence, unlawful. It was further held that the since the ban was only imposed on private colleges, it was arbitrary and discriminatory.
“True it is that the State Government has authority to take policy decision, however, such decision has to be rational and cannot be taken without having jurisdiction to do so. The State Government can, in no manner, without deriving authority through proper legislation impose a blanket ban on grant of NOC, that too, taking only the private colleges under the umbrella of such ban.”
Title: Atar Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 354
Rajasthan High Court held that the petitions filed by the liquor contractors, challenging non-refund of the security deposit by the Excise Department, even beyond the expiry of their license period, was premature since no order of demand, recovery or forfeiture was yet passed.
At the same time, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that administrative inaction leading to an indefinite retention of lawful dues could not be accepted. Accordingly, the State was directed to decide every representation filed after this order within 30 days.
The Court further directed that in case the order was not passed within the stipulated timeline, the claim for refund shall be deemed to be valid, and the retention of money beyond 30 days of filing the representation shall attract an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till payment.
Title: Kritesh Oswal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 355
Rajasthan High Court has restrained the Food Safety Standards Authority of India and Environment Ministry's Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee from granting permission for sale, manufacture, distribution or import of Genetically Modified (GM) Food till regulations are framed governing such items.
The court also directed the FSSAI and the Centre to frame the requisite regulations governing GM foods/edible items under Section 22 of the Food Safety Act within 6 months. Section 22 of the Act provides that except for in accordance with the regulations made under the Act, no one shall manufacture, distribute, sell or import any GM food.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit issued directions.
Title: Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 356
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that classification between Allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors performing the same functions is unreasonable and that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 62 years along with all consequential benefits.
Bank Can Assign Debt Even If NPA Classification Is Later Declared Invalid: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Sh. Harendra Singh Rathore Versus State Bank Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against SBI's assignment of debt in favor of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (AARC) holding that even if NPA classification is later declared invalid, it does not affect the validity of assignment of debt.
Justice Rekha Borana held that “the assignment cannot be invalidated merely because the NPA classification was later declared invalid. The writ petition being totally misconceived does not deserve any interference and is hence dismissed.”
On NPA classification, the court held that “the act of assigning a loan is a legal transaction distinct from the internal classification of that loan as an NPA. Even if the NPA classification is later declared invalid, the bank's right to transfer or assign the debt remains unaffected.” In light of the above discussion, the court held that therefore invalidity of NPA classification did not affect the validity of the assignment of debt.
Title: Kingsroad Handelsges Versus Raj Grow Impex LLP.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed objections against the enforcement of a foreign award raised by Raj Grow Impex LLP stating that the scope of interference is extremely narrow at the enforcement stage and that an award holder having won before both the tribunal and appellate tribunals should not be left to feel that he has won the battle but lost the war.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that “since this Court in the scope of Section 48 is not entitled to examine merits of the foreign award, therefore, arguments on merits advanced by the respondent need not be entered into in greater details. In proceedings seeking enforcement of the foreign award and making the foreign award a decree of this Court, this Court cannot sit in appeal on the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Title: Ved Prakash Yadav v/s Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a public servant's plea booked in a corruption case who had challenged an order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA on the ground that no prior sanction was taken as per Section 218 BNSS.
In doing so the court observed that there were over Rs 2 crore cash and a gold bar worth over Rs 60 Lakh seized from the petitioner's residence and the same cannot relate to any act allegedly committed in discharge of the public servant's duty; thus prior sanction for prosecution is not needed.
Title: Victim v/s State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which had rejected a minor rape victim's plea for compensation under State Victim Compensation Scheme on the technical ground that she did not furnish details of her source of income for making payment of her school fee, etc.
In doing so the court observed that such cases are to be dealt with sensitivity by courts and the crime being a dehumanizing one, compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:
"The crime of rape can be regarded as the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood. It not only inflicts physical torture upon the body of the woman, but also adversely affects her mental, psychological and emotional well-being. Therefore, rape is treated as the most heinous crime against the very basic human right conferred upon the woman i.e., 'the right of life and dignity'. It is not merely a sexual offence, but an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating the woman. Such cases are required to be handled by the Courts with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. Crime of rape committed with the minor victim is a dehumanizing one and an affront to human dignity. Hence, compensation should be awarded as a form of solace to the victim".
Other Developments
Title: Sujeet Swami v Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Centre, State, University Grants Commission, and CBSE to inform on steps taken to provide psychological counsellors and to incorporate psychological maintenance and mental health in the subject curriculum at all levels.
Title: Maharaj Prithviraj v State and Ors. and Maharaj Jagat Singh through his legal representatives v State
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the descendants of the erstwhile royal family of Jaipur to remove prefix “Maharaj” and “Princess” from the names of the petitioners as well as the respondents as mentioned in the case title of the petition, failing which the plea would be dismissed.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal said:
"Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted a week's time to file correct amended cause title deleting the prefix “Maharaj” & “Princess” from the names of the petitioners and respondent(s) failing which this civil writ petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court".
Title: Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rajasthan government's Department of Social Justice and Empowerment has defended before the High Court its circular classifying transgender persons as Other Backward Classes (“OBCs”), instead of providing horizontal reservation to them.
The government in its response to a plea challenging the January 12, 2023 circular has said that the domain of policy making, includes the reservation policy, and that its extent and structure are matters of the executive and legislative competence, and no new class of reservation could be created by the Court in violation of the statutory framework.
Title: Mohanlal v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has invited members of the Bar to submit their views on whether revision petition and plea for suspension of sentence moved by a convict, following dismissal of his appeal, is maintainable without surrendering first.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand framed the following question, in a criminal revision petition filed before it:
“Whether the criminal revision petition and the application seeking suspension of sentence filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS against the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court is maintainable in terms of Rule 311(3) of the Rajathan High Court Rules, 1952 without surrender of the convicted accused before the jail authorities?”
Bar Council of Rajasthan (“BCR”) opened its extension counter in Jaipur which was inaugurated by the High Court's Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Chairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) Manan Kumar Mishra on Friday (October 10) 2025, in the premises of the High Court.
Title: Suman Kumari v/s Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan and Others
The Rajasthan Government assured the High Court that it shall ensure that Video Conferencing facilities are provided to lawyers and litigants appearing before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and that at least one bench shall be functional on every working day.
Title: Asharam@ Ashumal v/s State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court suspended sentence of Asaram–was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 rape case, for six months in view of his medical condition noting that he was in a "vegetative condition" and facilities required were not available in jail.
Taking note of Asaram's medical condition the court said:
"The petitioner, who is 86 years of age, in our opinion, deserves to be given an appropriate medical treatment. It is a right available to the convict who is suffering sentence. Although, the respondent-State has asserted that medical facilities are available in Jail, we notice that the jail authorities themselves said that the required facilities for further treatment of the accused are not available in jail. It can be seen that the accused petitioner is in a vegetative condition and while we find that the appeal has to be heard, we consider it appropriate to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Jodhpur...for a period of six months and, accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail on medical ground for a period of six months...."