Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256NOMINAL INDEXKailash v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224Shivsingh Meena v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 225M/s My Own Eco Energy Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 226Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227Bhomaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 228M/S Soltown Infra Private Limited & Ors. v. Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 229Shakti Singh & Ors. v Smt. Raj & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 230Roshan Yadav v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 231Bhaya Lal Bhagriya vs Union Of India and others; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 232Dharmendra Kumar Bhardwaj v Ramesh Jain & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 233Anuj Kumar Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 234Suresh v Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 235Tulachhi wife of Dhanraj v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 236Jitendra Goyal v Registrar of Trade Marks; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 237Firm Jehtmal & Sons v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 238Sagar Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 239Munesh Gurjar v the State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 240Prakash Manda v The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 241Angel Soni v The National Testing Agency & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 242Purnamal Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 243Anand Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 244Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247Rasida Khatoon v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 248Harish Madhan v Kshema Power and Infrastructure co. pvt. ltd.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 249Ibra v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 250Ashok Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 251Sammaan Capital v District Magistrate & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 252Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v Tarachand Tholia; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 253Pushp Chand v Smt. Madhu Rathi; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 254Suresh Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 255Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256Orders/Judgments of the MonthJuvenile Justice Act Only Relevant For Quantum Of Sentence, Conviction Not Vitiated If Inquiry Is Not Conducted By JJB: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Kailash v State of RajasthanCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222The Rajasthan High Court held that a conviction which had been recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry into the juvenility of the accused was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 would be attractedThe bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that a recorded conviction could not be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 25 of the “Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot free… The object under the JJ Act, 2015 dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile, in conflict with law, during his/her stay in any of the institutions defined under the JJ Act, 2015,” the court said.'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand Dunes, Can't Be Unsettled Lightly': Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Parties Re-Opening Concluded JudgmentsTitle: Kiran Yadav v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 223Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly."Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked while dealing with a plea against cancellation of Petitioner's appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor.It was observed that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of a judgment was absolutely imperative and it was not permissible for the parties to re-open concluded judgments of the Court.Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation Of Paralysed Road-Accident Victim To ₹1.9 Cr, Says It's Not Charity But Moral NecessityTitle: Kumari Neelam v Jai Prakash Natani & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 224While hearing a challenge to the...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025

Nupur Agrawal

Tags