Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: July 2022

Nominal Index Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202 Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203 Vimlesh Bansal v. Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 204 Kamal Chand Bothra Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 205 Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 206 Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208 Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209 Judgments/ Orders of the Month High Court Not Bound To Invite Bar's Views While Deciding Criminal Reference U/S 395 CrPC: Rajasthan HC Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Section 395 of CrPC, which makes provision for criminal reference, does not obligate the court to invite the views of the members of the Bar before answering such reference and that notifying the members of the Bar regarding same is purely the discretion of the court to be exercised as a matter of prudence. The court clarified that such a course of action is adopted just in order to seek independent views from the members of the bar for the assistance of the court. As per Section 395 (1) CrPC, a reference involving validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained therein can be referred to the High Court by a court subordinate to it and the referral court would then be required to answer the reference. Also Read: Application Cast Serious Aspersions On Court, Riddled With Language Errors: Rajasthan High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Advocate [Order XVI Rule 1&2 CPC] Trial Court Required To Ascertain Only "Prima-Facie" Relevancy Of Proposed Witnesses: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that trial Court is required to prima-facie ascertain the relevancy and requirement of the proposed witnesses while deciding an application for summoning of witnesses in terms of Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court however made it clear that the applicant may be called upon only to show the relevance or need of such witness(es) but he/ she cannot be asked to establish or prove such requirement; The requirement has to be determined by the Court. Order XVI Rule (1) and (2) of the CPC in unequivocal terms provide that the court suo moto or on an application, can issue summons to a witness to appear in the court. Further, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Order XVI enjoins upon the party desirous of getting a summon issued to a witness to state in its application the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. When Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings For Non-Appearance Of Parties, Remain Unchallenged, Application Filed Again For Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Vimlesh Bansal v. Ashok Kumar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 204 Case No.: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 51 of 2022 The Rajasthan High Court has held that a second arbitration application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) was not challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari held that the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' which means that 'the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights' would squarely apply to a situation where the petitioner slept over its right to challenge the order of termination but filed a second application for appointment of arbitrator. Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of GST Evasion Case Title: Kamal Chand Bothra Versus Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 205 Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8954/2022 The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has granted bail to the person accused of GST evasion of Rs. 8.64 crore. The petitioner has filed a bail application. The petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 132 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He has been behind bars since May 26, 2002. The offence against the petitioner is compoundable and he had deposited the amount of Rs. 87 lakhs. The maximum punishment is 5 years, and the conclusion of the trial may take a long time. The department contended that the petitioner had evaded GST of Rs. 8.64 crores. The statements under Section 70 of the GST Act were recorded and are admissible in evidence. The petitioner is a habitual offender, so bail should ...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: July 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags