LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 08 to June 14, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX [Citations: 224 - 243]State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227Pramila v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 228In Re: Protection and Conservation of Lakes and Water Bodies in Udaipur.Lal Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 229Shri Shanti Lal Dholi v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 230Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 231Nitin Kumar Jhalani & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 232Satyapal Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 233Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234Sandeep Kumar Arora v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 235Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236Asharam v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 237Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238Smt. Santosh Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 239Chhatrapal Singh Gour v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 240Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v the Union of India & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 241Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242Smt. Shimla Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 243Order/Judgments of the WeekRajasthan High Court Restores Appeal Dismissed For Non-Removal Of Defects, Says Party Can't Suffer For 'Procedural Abdication' By LawyerTitle: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224Rajasthan High Court restored an appeal which was earlier dismissed on account of non-curing of defects observing that administration of justice cannot be permitted to founder upon hyper-technicalities, nor can a party be made to suffer irreversible prejudice for the inadvertent default or procedural abdication of his legal representative.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali said:"An appeal assailing such findings cannot be dismissed in limine merely because the advocate could not remove the defect within stipulated time. Such a procedural irregularity, attributable to counsel, does not ipso facto efface or annihilate the substantive and statutory right of appeal vested in the accused. Furthermore, any order resulting in dismissal under such circumstances must be a reasoned and speaking order, evincing conscious and judicious application of mind to the factual and legal substratum of the case. It must delineate the rationale which impelled the Court to adopt such a course and withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness, proportionality, and judicial propriety. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to undertake a further appraisal of the judgment under challenge".Cheque Bouncing | Complainant Can't Question Nexus Of Document To Transaction After Denying His Signature, Handwriting On It: Rajasthan HCTitle: Vikram Singh v State of RajasthanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225While adjudicating a cheque dishonour case, Rajasthan High Court held that once the complainant disputed his/her handwriting and signatures on a particular exhibit, such denial disentitled him/her from contending that the document had no nexus with the transaction involved.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had rejected petitioner's application seeking referral of disputed documents to the FSL for examination.“This Court is of the view that had the complainant admitted the execution of the receipt while simultaneously explaining that the same was unrelated to the transaction in question, the matter might have stood on a different footing altogether. However, once the complainant has taken a complete stand of denial regarding both handwriting and signatures appearing on Exhibit D01A, such denial, prima facie, disentitles him from subsequently raising a plea that the document bears no nexus with the transaction involved in the complaint. The appropriate course for the complainant was to clarify in his testimony itself that the receipt in question had no concern with the transaction forming subject matter of the complaint".33 Years On Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Of Attempt To Murder; Says Grievous Injuries, Dangerous Weapon Insufficient Without IntentionTitle: Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitionCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226While setting aside a 1993 order convicting a man for attempt to murder, Rajasthan High Court held that the fact of grievous or repeated injuries using a dangerous weapon, would not by itself attract such conviction without the ingredient of intention or knowledge to commit the offence.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the courts had to carefully segregate whether the...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 08 to June 14, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 08 to June 14, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers