Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024

Nupur Agrawal

14 Jan 2025 3:30 AM

  • Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024

    Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426NOMINAL INDEXOil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw...

    Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426

    NOMINAL INDEX

    Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378

    Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379

    Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380

    Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 381

    Satya Narayan Tak v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 382

    Smt. Jaswant Kaur v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 383

    X v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384

    Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 385

    Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 386

    State v Ramdin and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

    Devendra Prajapat v Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 388

    Sada Ram v the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 389

    M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 390

    Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391

    Dr. Pankaj Yadav v Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 392

    Gangaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 393

    Sunny Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 394

    Dharnia Motors v. UoI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 395

    M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396

    M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397

    2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 398

    Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399

    Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 400

    Laxita Kumari Patidar v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 401

    Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 402

    Aditya Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 403

    Union of India & Ors. v JIET Medical College and Hospital & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 404

    Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405

    Shaitan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 406

    Banwari Lal Swami v The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 407

    Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 408

    Mohd. Soyab Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 409

    Canara Bank v M/s Gopal Industries & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 410

    Rajmal Kala v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 411

    Sailendra v Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 412

    Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 413

    Naseem Ahmad Khan v ICICI Home Finance & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 414

    Ambalal Dhakad v Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 415

    Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj v Rajasthan Financial Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 416

    State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Leeladhar Devkinandan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 417

    Giriraj v Regional Forest Officer & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 418

    Managing Committee, KD Jain Shikshan Parishad & Anr. v Smt. Santosh Pareek & Anr. and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 419

    Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420

    Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and batch 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 421

    Umesh Chandra Prakash v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 422

    Adnan Ali & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 423

    State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Jagdish Prasad Chodhary & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 424

    Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 425

    Moolchand v Bhairulal 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426

    Orders/Judgments of the Month

    Percentage Of Disability Less Than The Benchmark Level Would Not Render Meritorious Disabled Candidate Unfit For Job: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. v Ranjan Tak & anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 378

    The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for rejecting the candidature of a person with disability, who was otherwise declared meritorious in the selection process, certifying him as medically unfit for suffering 30% visual impairment.

    In doing so the court observed that candidate's rejection merely because he suffered disability lower than minimum degree of disability of 40% i.e. benchmark disability was an illegal action by ONGC.

    The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that once a post was declared to be suitable for a particular kind of disability, a candidate suffering from such disability could not be declared medically unfit, if otherwise, s/he was meritorious, just because s/he was disentitled for claiming reservation since their percentage of disability was lesser than the benchmarked percentage for claiming reservation.

    Collecting Voice Samples Against Wish Of Accused Not Violative Of Right To Privacy, Right Against Self-Incrimination: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379

    Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India only states that accused could not be compelled to be a witness against himself and not that the accused could not be compelled to be a witness at all.

    Consequently, asking the accused to furnish his/her voice samples did not amount to self-incrimination when the incrimination was contingent on comparing that voice sample with the recordings available.

    The bench of Justice Sameer Jain further observed that under Section 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Magistrate to direct individuals, including the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.

    Rajasthan High Court Reprieve To Anganwadi Worker Not Granted Appointment Letter Since 2016 Due To Lapse By Gram Panchayat

    Title: Bhawna Bohra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 380

    Rajasthan High Court provided relief to a successful candidate for the post of Anganwari worker, who although was declared as meritorious in the selection list in 2016, owing to inaction on part of the Gram Panchayat, did not receive any appointment letter till date.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the petitioner could not be made to face adverse consequences for inaction or ministerial lapse on part of the Gram Panchayat and she could not be denied of her merit merely for a procedural aid.

    The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner who was declared meritorious in the selection process of the Anganwari Workers in 2016. However, the Gram Panchayat failed to follow the prescribed procedure as per which it had to convey the selection list to the Vikas Adhikari as well as the Project Officers, Integrated Child Development Scheme, and complete the process of filling the Post within the prescribed time limit of 3 months.

    Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointments Of AAGs, Law Officers; Says Executive's Domain To Decided Their Suitability

    Title: Shri Ishwar Prasad v the State of Rajasthan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 381

    The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL filed by the national President of “Lashkar-E-Hind”, challenging the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals (“AAGs”) and Law Officers (“LOs”) by the State Government, for lacking any merits and being filed solely on the basis of vague allegations.

    “The suitability of a lawyer who is engaged by the Government is a matter exclusively within the domain of the executive decision and such a decision cannot be challenged on the ground that other suitable and more competent lawyers have been left out and by doing so the larger public interest has been overlooked.”

    The division bench of Justice Rekha Borana and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar opined that there could not be any restrictions on this power of the State Government in the form of criteria of eligibility for such Appointments like age, length of practice, place of practice etc. and the same could be modified at any time by the State Government. Such a choice exercised by the State Government could be challenged only if shown to be arbitrary.

    Refusing Mutation Due To Pending Property Suit Despite Rejection Of Temporary Injunction Against Bonafide Purchaser 'Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC

    Title: Satya Narayan Tak v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 382

    Rajasthan High Court expressed shock on the order of Municipal Commissioner of Udaipur, rejecting a bonafide purchaser's application for entering his name in Revenue Records on the grounds that a dispute was pending in the trial court regarding the property, despite the fact that the trial court had already rejected plaintiff's application of temporary injunction in that case.

    The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that rejection of the petitioner's application by the authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable and without application of mind. It opined that it was a settled law that pendency of a suit could not be used as a ground by the government officials to not discharge their official duties.

    Temporary Service During COVID-19 Pandemic No Grounds To Ask For Bonus Marks Or Reservation For Post Of Nurse: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Smt. Jaswant Kaur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 383

    Rajasthan High Court rejected petition by a disabled candidate for the post of Female Nurse suffering from 61% polio in both her legs, on the grounds that the guidelines specifying the disabilities eligible for reservation of the post reflected only single-leg disability and held that merely because she temporarily served on the post during Covid, she could not be conferred with any equity.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga also highlighted that other similarly situated candidates as the petitioner were also disqualified under the same criteria. Hence, allowing petitioner's claim would lead to reverse discrimination against those who were not before the Court.

    Minor Son Brought To India By Mother In 2018 Is US Citizen, Illegal Migrant In India: Rajasthan HC Allows Father's Habeas Corpus Plea

    Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the father of a minor child was born and earlier residing in the US, was brought to India by his mother in 2018 and had not returned even after expiration of his visa, ruling that the child shall be considered an illegal migrant in India.

    A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta further observed that in light of a prior final custody order passed by the US Court in favour of the petitioner, based on the Doctrine of Comity of Courts, the Family court in India had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the mother of the child.

    On the question of the welfare of the minor child, the Court said:

    “As an illegal migrant child...is not entitled to many of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and would always be treated as an illegal migrant and would not even be treated as second class citizen as he is not even holding an Overseas Citizenship of India Card. Thus, the welfare of the child is in returning to the place of his birth i.e. United States of America, where all the rights would be available to him.”

    No Obligation On State To Inform Sexual Assault Victim Of Right To Terminate Pregnancy: Rajasthan HC Flags MTP Rules, Initiates Suo Moto Case

    Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 385

    Upholding an order dismissing a father's plea seeking termination of his daughter's over 24-week pregnancy who was allegedly trafficked and raped, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue noting that there was no obligation in law on the State to apprise a sexual assault survivor of her right to termination.

    In doing so the court observed that delay in taking steps resulted in various complications that compelled such women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shankar Vyas observed that it had been noticed that numerous petitions were filed seeking Court's intervention for termination of pregnancy mainly because proper steps were not being taken by the victim within the stipulated time period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

    Department Failed To Prove Non-Existence Of Firms: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Assessee Charged For Issuing Fake Invoices

    Title: Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union Of India

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 386

    The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the assessee charged for issuing fake invoices to the firms on the ground that the department failed to prove that these firms are not in existence and their GST registration have been cancelled.

    The Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that “……there is nothing on record that who claimed how much input tax credit on the basis of alleged fake invoices said to have been issued by the accused”.

    The bench looked into the complaint and observed that the addresses as mentioned in the GST registration of such firms is non-traceable and the proprietor of the firms could not be traced.

    “The Department has only stated that the proprietors of these firms are non-traceable but there is no conclusion by them that these firms are not in existence after making a proper verification and also, they have not come out with a fact that the GST registration of these firms have been cancelled,” added the bench.

    Woman Died Within 4 Walls Of In-Laws' Home And Was Cremated Hurriedly: Rajasthan HC Overturns 22-Yr-Old Acquittal In Dowry Death Case

    Title: State v Ramdin and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

    Overturning a 22-year old acquittal in a dowry death case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused father-in-law and the mother-in-law, noting that they failed to explain the circumstances leading to the woman's death since the alleged crime took place within the four walls of their home.

    The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said that the duo failed to discharge their obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.

    "This Court also observes that in the instant case, the crime in question took place within the four-walls of the victim's matrimonial house and therefore, in such a circumstance the burden is upon the in-laws who were present in the house to explain the facts and the circumstances under which the incident in question has taken place, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act...This Court observes that in the present case the accused respondents upon the death of the victim, performed her cremation in a hurried manner without informing her family members or police and thereby also preventing the post-mortem of her dead body being conducted which speaks volume of their conduct and manifests intention on their part to concoct the story and to destruct the evidence to shield themselves"

    Rajasthan High Court Permits Admission In Navodaya Vidyalaya To Student Who Couldn't Attend 'Full Academic Session' Due To Pandemic

    Title: Devendra Prajapat v Union of India and Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 388

    Rajasthan High Court directed granting of admission to a student in the Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (“the School”) who did not attend 3rd standard for full one academic session on account of the classes commencing with a few months delay due to Covid, as against the selection guidelines that required the candidate to pass standards 3rd, 4th and 5th after spending one full academic session.

    The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the clause specifying this condition in the guidelines had to be given a liberal reading in a way that- the situation which was beyond the student's control does not come in the way of his admission.

    In Era Of Cut-Throat Competition, Candidate Obtaining Employment Through Fake Marksheets Can't Claim Equity: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Sada Ram v the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 389

    Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition filed against order of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (“Respondent”) wherein petitioner's appointment was cancelled, on the grounds that the MBA degree based on which the appointment was obtained was fraudulent and false.

    The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta further rejected the prayer of the petitioner to regularize his appointment based on subsequent degree, opining that the degree of MBA was a prerequisite for the recruitment, thus the appointment based on mark-sheets issued by a fake/unrecognized and fraudulent institution was illegal.

    The Court further ruled that in an era of cut-throat competition, no equity could be claimed by a candidate who produced fake mark-sheets for his degree.

    Interpretation Of Contractual Stipulations Must Be Done To Give Full Effect To Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 390

    The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.

    Additionally, the court observed that from bare perusal of Clause 22(2) reflects the intention of parties to refer the dispute to the arbitration for its decision and further the clause does not exclude the attributes of an arbitration agreement that the decision of Arbitrator shall not be final and would not be binding on the parties. Therefore, the court held that it is appropriate to refer the dispute to the arbitration for decision, instead of rejecting the arbitration application on the ground that all essential elements of the arbitration agreement are absent in Clause 22(2).

    Daughter Who Became Widowed/ Divorced After Death Of Govt Employee Parent Falls Outside “Family” Under Pension Rules: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391

    Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions filed by daughters claiming family pension pursuant to their respective parents' death who were government employees, on the basis of them attaining status of a widow or a divorcee, subsequent to their parents' demise.

    The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining family's right to receive family pension was the date of retirement or the date of death of the government servant, and accordingly, for a daughter to be eligible for father's pension, she must have a status of a widow or a divorcee on such a date. Her status subsequent to the father's death would not render her the right to claim family pension.

    Rajasthan HC Rejects Pleas Challenging Answer Key For Dental Medical Officers' Exam Due To Lack Of Palpable And Demonstrable Error

    Title: Dr. Pankaj Yadav v Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) & Ors. and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 392

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions challenging the final answer key issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Science for Dental Medical Officer's exam ruling that the only situation in which disputed answer key can be interfered with if it appears to be “palpably and demonstrably erroneous”.

    In doing so the court found that the RUHS duly noted the objections raised by the concerned candidates against the model answer key, which was also analyzed by experts after which necessary changes were made, adding that no procedural lapses had occurred.

    Referring to various Supreme Court decisions on the issue Justice Sameer Jain said:

    "Therefore, it is abundantly made clear that a disputed question-answer shall only be treated as palpably and demonstrably wrong, if it is shown that in order to catch hold of the said error and/or notice the fallaciousness crept therein, one ought not to apply a process of reasoning. Rather, the error should be so apparent, that the same may discernible by a mere glimpse, as opposed to a thoughtful analysis. Similarly, even when two equally valiant interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that the answer is demonstrably erroneous".

    Can Rape, POCSO Act Convicts Be Shifted From Jails To Open Air Camps? Rajasthan High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

    Title: Gangaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 393

    Taking note of the conflicting views, Rajasthan High Court has referred the issue of Whether a prisoner, convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC/POCSO Act, undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in Jail, can be shifted to Open Air Camp, to a Larger bench.

    “There is no exact decision on the legal issue involved in this petition, rather there are conflicting opinions and views of different Division Benches of this Court, but in the case of Asharam @ Ashu (supra), the question of law has been kept open by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence, the same is required to be decided for all times to come, so that there should be uniformity in the orders on the legal issue involved in these petitions,” Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by individuals seeking to be shifted from jail to open air camps.

    If Police Investigation Reveals No Involvement Of Accused In Alleged Offence, Continuing LOC Would Violate Fundamental Rights: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Sunny Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 394

    Rajasthan High Court has directed the quashing of Look Out Circular and standing arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, who was not found to be involved in the alleged offence by the police, ruling that when the police itself was not interested in prosecuting her, continuation of the LOC would amount to violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held,

    “It is the settled proposition of law that the LOC can be opened against the accused person who is deliberately evading arrest and not appearing in the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. Coupled with either of these conditions, should be a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade the trial/arrest. None of these conditions exist in the instant case qua the petitioner No.2…Neither any investigation is pending against her nor any charge-sheet has been submitted against her and the Investigating Officer himself has submitted an application for recalling of her standing arrest warrant”

    CGST Rules Prescribing Time-Bound Submission Of Declaration Under TRAN-1 To Claim Transitional Credit Not Directory But Mandatory: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Dharnia Motors v. UoI & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 395

    The Rajasthan High Court held that Rules prescribing the 'time and manner' for claiming transitional credit, in addition to the statutory procedure provided under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, are mandatory in nature.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman thus held that prescriptions under Section 117 of CGST Rules are mandatory in nature, and non-compliance thereof would lead to rejection of a trader/dealer's claim of transitional credit.

    Substantive provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, clearly mandates that entitlement to take credit of eligible duties would be available within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed, subject to conditions as laid down,” it observed.

    Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Enter Into Merits Of Subject Matter Of Disputes: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396

    The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot enter into merits of subject matter of the disputes. It has to see only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

    The court after perusing the arbitration clause observed that “since the arbitration clause to settle the disputes/ differences between the parties through arbitration was also entered into as one of the terms and conditions of the agreements and words every kind of disputes/ differences is referred therein, same may not be allowed to be construed in such a narrow sense to construe the arbitration agreement, confines it to the dispute of construction work only.”

    Whether Arbitration Agreement Has All Essential Elements Can Better Be Decided By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397

    The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the issue of validity of arbitration agreement more particularly in respect of having essential elements of the arbitration agreement, can better be considered and decided on merits by the arbitration tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

    It further observed that “It is well established principle of law that if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of arbitration clause, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.”

    Rajasthan High Court Allows Asaram Bapu To Avail Medical Treatment In Maharashtra For 17 Days Under Police Custody

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 398

    The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday allowed self-styled godman, Asaram Bapu, serving a life sentence for raping a minor girl, to get medical treatment at a Maharashtra-based Multidisciplinary Cardiac Care Hospital for 17 days in police custody.

    Concededly, the applicant is behind the bars for last 12 years and he is 88 years of age and suffering from multiple ailments including heart ailment. Hence, in order to ensure his right to get proper treatment, we are inclined to accept the application filed by the applicant for his treatment and send him to Madhavbaug Hospital in police custody,” a bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed in its order.

    S.175 BNSS | Magistrate Can't Order Registration Of FIR Like 'Rubber Stamp' Especially In Complaints Arising From Family Disputes: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399

    Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that in cases of family disputes, magistrates must aim at strengthening familial bonds and fostering harmony, and utmost caution must be exercised by both the law enforcement as well as the magistrates before directing registration of FIRs by meticulous ascertainment of truth and credibility of allegations.

    When Deceased Govt Employee Married Second Wife Without Divorcing First Wife, Only The Latter Will Get Family Pension: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 400

    Rajasthan High Court accepted the petition by the first wife of a deceased government employee for family pension on the grounds that no valid divorce took place between them since “social divorce” was not recognized by our legal system. In this light, since the marriage with the second wife was not valid as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), she could not be seen as “widow” of the deceased employee for being entitled to the family pension.

    “Thus, the second marriage of anyone, without dissolution of first marriage cannot be treated as a valid marriage and such second wife cannot be treated as a 'widow' of the deceased Government Servant in terms of Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 1996…In cases where the deceased employee had a second wife without legally divorcing the first wife, only the first wife would be entitled to the pension benefits”

    Furthermore, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that authorities could not ask for succession certificate for claiming family pension since the certificate was granted for recovery of debt or security and family pension did not fall within that purview.

    Candidate Not Responsible For State's Mistake In Issuing Experience Certificate, Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Laxita Kumari Patidar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 401

    Rajasthan High Court observed that the State could not take advantage of its own wrong of issuing an incorrect experience certificate to the petitioner and then making her run from pillar to post, and rejecting her candidature for the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwives based on such mistake.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted that the mistake of mentioning wrong date was committed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur, while issuing the experience certificate, for which the petitioner could not be made responsible.

    Fully Developed Foetus Has Right To Enter This World, Live A Healthy Life: Rajasthan High Court Declines Termination Of 30 Weeks Pregnancy

    Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 402

    While rejecting the application for termination of 30 weeks pregnancy by an alleged rape victim, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a fully developed foetus also has the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    “The medical report indicates that fetus is gaining weight and fat and is closure to its natural birth. Vital organs, like brain and lungs are almost fully developed, preparing for life outside the womb. The fetus has, in fact life with heart beats, hence termination of pregnancy, at this stage, is not adviseable and possible. The fully developed fetus also has right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to enter in this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities.”

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the report by the Medical Board indicated that at such an advanced stage termination was not safe as it presented the risk of premature delivery which was likely to affect the neurotic development of the unborn child apart from exposing the petitioner's life to danger.

    Candidate Turns 100% Blind After Submitting Application: Rajasthan HC Permits Him To Change Category, Avail PwD Quota; Calls It 'Act Of God'

    Title: Aditya Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 403

    Rajasthan High Court allowed writ petition filed by a candidate for the post of a teacher for changing his category from “unreserved” to “physically handicapped” when his blindness transformed from 40% to 100% in between submission of application and publication of result.

    Opining it to be an instance of Vis Major (Act of God), the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the principle of reasonable accommodation as defined under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“the Act”) should not be understood narrowly to mean only providing assisting devices but be given a broad interpretation to further the Act's objective of ensuring full and effective participation of people with disabilities.

    Rajasthan HC Disapproves Of Interim Order Increasing Seats In Medical College, Refuses To Interfere Since Admission Process Was Already Over

    Title: Union of India & Ors. v JIET Medical College and Hospital & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 404

    While hearing an appeal against a single judge's interim order allowing increase in seats in a medical college, the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the same since the admission process was already over.

    In doing so the high court, while observing that an interim order increasing the seats should not have been granted, directed the single judge to decide the matter expeditiously.

    The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing an appeal filed by the Union of India, National Medical Commission and the Medical Assessment And Rating Board, against the interim order of the single judge who had allowed increase of seats in JIET Medical College from 50-100.

    Govt Teacher Burning Education Minister's Effigy Is Guilty Of Official Misconduct, Cannot Be Tolerated Under Freedom Of Expression: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405

    While terming it one of the most glaring cases of insubordination, the Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed against the suspension of a Government teacher for hurling slogans and using unparliamentary language against the Education Minister, burning his effigies and also raising hoarding belittling him, ruling that such unruly behaviour could not be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression.

    The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that such behaviour amounted to misconduct, calling for a disciplinary inquiry against him. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Government Teacher (“petitioner”) against the order of the District Education Officer vide which he was suspended.

    Rajasthan HC Directs Civic Body To Decide Pending Construction Applications Under Revised Zonal Master Plan 2030 For Mt Abu Within 4 Weeks

    Title: Shaitan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 406

    In light of the revised Zonal Master Plan 2030 for Mount Abu being published by a notification dated December 11, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court directed resubmission of pending applications for constructions in Mount Abu under the revised Master Plan within a week and asked the Municipal Board, Mount Abu, to decide such applications within 4 weeks thereafter. The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held,

    “In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking permission of construction on the subject pieces of their land in accordance with the provisions of the Zonal Master Plan-2030 Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone and the building bylaws prevailing in the Mount Abu within a period of one week and the respondent – Municipal Board Mount Abu shall decide such applications within a period of four weeks thereafter…”

    Rajasthan HC Junks Man's Plea Seeking Dismissal Of Daughter-In-Law From Service Over FIR For Allegedly Abetting Son's Suicide, Imposes 50K Costs

    Title: Banwari Lal Swami v The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 407

    Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a father-in-law for filing a “baseless” writ petition seeking removal of his daughter-in-law from the post of patwari on the grounds of a pending FIR against her filed by him alleging her of abetting his son's suicide.

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that it was a settled position of law that process of law should not be used to settle personal grudges and oblique considerations, and such an act by the petitioner was sheer abuse of the process of law.

    Rajasthan High Court Allows Couple To Cure Defects In Application For 'Inter-Caste Marriage Help Scheme' With Almost 7 Yrs Delay

    Title: Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 408

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an inter-caste married couple whose claim under the Dr. Savita Ben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Help Scheme (“the Scheme”) was rejected for not curing the defect in the application within a period of one month.

    The Scheme was started by the Government of Rajasthan to promote marriages between Hindu and Scheduled Caste girls and boys. As per the Scheme such an inter-caste couple, upto the age of 35 years, was entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs. Half of the amount was to be given within one year of registration of marriage for purchasing household goods, and the remaining amount was to be kept as fixed deposit in a joint account of the couple that could be claimed only after 8 years of marriage.

    Political Vendetta Argument Can't Be Used To Curb Legal Proceeding: Rajasthan HC Nixes Municipal Head's Plea Claiming To Be Target Of Political Rivals

    Title: Mohd. Soyab Khatri v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 409

    Dismissing a plea by the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, Nawalgarh alleging political vendetta behind show cause notices issued to him, the Jaipur bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan at the Rajasthan High Court said that political vendetta cannot be used as a shield to curb the initiation of proceedings under the law.

    The grievance raised by the petitioner was that he belongs to a particular political party and with the formation of Government by rival political party in Legislative Assembly, he has been targeted. The court however said that if show cause notices are quashed based on "bald statement" of a political vendetta that even in lawful cases the proceedings will be curbed at the threshold.

    Bank Has Right Of General Lien Over All Securities Of Customer In Ordinary Course, Unless Agreement Says Otherwise: Rajasthan HC Reiterates

    Title: Canara Bank v M/s Gopal Industries & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 410

    A division bench of Justice Pushpenda Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that a bank has the valuable right of general lien over all securities deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business, unless the agreement is contrary to such right.

    In doing so the court set aside an order of the single judge directing Canara Bank to return the balance amount to a guarantor which was left after adjusting the loan amount from the money received after auctioning the guarantor's property, instead of allowing the Bank to adjust the balance amount in relation to another loan that had become Non Performing Asset with the same guarantor.

    “Not Been Convicted Twice”: Rajasthan HC Orders Removal Of Man's Name From Police Surveillance Register After Being Booked In 7 Cases

    Title: Rajmal Kala v State of Rajasthan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 411

    The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court directed the State to delete the name of a man–booked in seven cases–from the police's Surveillance Register on the ground that he had not been convicted twice in the cases pending against him.

    Perusing through the record, judgments cited by the parties and Rajasthan Police Rules, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg in his order said, Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted twice in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.”

    Rajasthan HC Directs Re-Examination Of Candidate Declared Unfit For Post Of Constable Without Prescribed Medical Test, Orders Post To Be Kept Vacant

    Title: Sailendra v Union of India & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 412

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court allowed petition by a candidate for the post of constable who was declared medically unfit on account of hypertension without conducting a 24-hours Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Test and directed the State to re-examine the candidate and till then keeping a post vacant for him.

    [S.152 BNS] Sedition Law Is A Shield For National Security, Not A Sword Against Political Dissent: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 413

    Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 152, BNS had its roots in Section 124A of the IPC and was similarly worded to the offence of sedition. The Court ruled that the provision should not be used to cripple legitimate dissent and that only deliberate actions with malicious intent fell under its ambit.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga explained that Section 197, BNS, was aimed at protecting the harmony amongst diverse society of India by criminalizing such acts that fostered disharmony, enmity and hatred among these diverse groups. However, mere possibility of the offending act resulting in disharmony if in actuality it did not, was not sufficient to establish intent in the absence of any other material.

    [SARFAESI Act] Courts Must Not Interfere Under Writ Jurisdiction When Alternative Statutory Remedies Are Available: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Naseem Ahmad Khan v ICICI Home Finance & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 414

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by the purchaser of a property–in relation to which proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, on the ground that the purchaser had already availed the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

    Justice Avneesh Jhingan, while referring to a Supreme Court decision on this issue, observed that the "self-imposed restriction of non-interference in writ petitions where statutory remedies were available" has to be rigorously applied in cases covered under the SARFAESI Act.

    Rajasthan Public Trust Act | If Registration Of Public Trust Is Challenged In Appeal, It Becomes Necessary And Proper Party To Proceedings: HC

    Title: Ambalal Dhakad v Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 415

    Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur (“Commissioner”) that rejected the application for impleadment of a public trust in an appeal filed for quashing the order vide which the registration of the trust was allowed, ruling that the trust was a necessary and property party for adjudication of the appeal.

    Furthermore, the bench of Justice Nupur Bhati rejected the argument to the effect that since the Assistance Commissioner had merely allowed the application vide a finding under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950 (“the Act”) for registration of the Public Trust without actually making the entries as per Section 21 of the Act, the Public Trust could not be considered to be registered and thus could not be impleaded as a party.

    Employee Entitled To Annual Grade Increments, Arrears Of Last Drawn Salary During Suspension Period: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj v Rajasthan Financial Corporation

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 416

    A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the employee is entitled to the payment of annual grade increments as well as arrears of last drawn salary during the suspension period. It was found by the court that the provision of Rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules and Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1958 deals with the issue of suspension but do not suggest withholding of annual grade increments of the employee during his suspension period.

    Court In Exercise Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Shall Not Interfere With Arbitral Award, Limited Scope Of Interference: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Leeladhar Devkinandan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 417

    The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that it is a well settled law that the interpretation of the clause of Agreement by the Arbitrator shall not be open to judicial interference unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the interpretation put by the Arbitral Tribunal was perverse.

    Additionally, the court held that if the view taken by the Arbitrator is logical and acceptable merely because two views are possible the Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction shall not interfere with the Arbitral award.

    Working For 240 days, Workmen Should Prove And Not Employer; Rajasthan HC Upholds Workman's Termination

    Title: Giriraj v Regional Forest Officer & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 418

    A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that an adverse inference can't be drawn against employer for non-production of record against workman's service period, it is upon the workman to prove their service period of 240 days preceding termination of service.

    It was observed by the court that since the workman has only produced his self-serving affidavit in support of his claim which too has been countered from the side of respondents. No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register etc. from the respondents.

    Employee Of Aided Schools Can Directly Recover Grant In Aid From The State Government : Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Managing Committee, KD Jain Shikshan Parishad & Anr. v Smt. Santosh Pareek & Anr. and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 419

    A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions.

    The case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College was relied upon by the court wherein the Division Bench held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions in the light of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989.

    It was held by the court that the Employee was entitled to recover their dues directly from the State Government in a ratio of 80%. It was further held by the Court that for the 20% of dues, interest on the delayed payment was to be borne by the Institution only.

    'Limited Power Of Judicial Review In Suspension Cases': Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea By Govt Employee Suspended For Allegedly Fabricating Documents

    Title: Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420

    Dismissing a petition against suspension of a government employee in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference in matters of suspension was very limited.

    Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, “In matters of suspension, the exercise of extraordinary power of judicial review vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/ technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual back ground of given case.”

    Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Rule Imposing Rs. 50 Fee For Each Day's Delay In Applying For Vehicle Fitness Certificate Renewal

    Title: Shyam Prakash Meena & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and batch

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 421

    The Rajasthan High Court set aside a provision in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules as ultra vires which sought to levy additional fee of Rs. 50 for each day of delay in making an application for renewal of the certificate of fitness required by the transport operators for their vehicles to operate on roads.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that under the garb of additional fee, the State had introduced a legislative policy of fine without there being any such scheme of fine under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, on failure of applying for the renewal of the fitness certificate.

    Filing Of Repeated, Identical Petitions Is A Serious Menace To Administration Of Justice: Rajasthan HC Imposes Costs On Petitioners

    Title: Umesh Chandra Prakash v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 422

    Rajasthan High Court imposed symbolic cost of Rs. 1000/- on numerous petitioners for approaching the Court with the same cause of action that had already been decided by the Court on two occasions with specific directions to everyone with same cause of action to directly approach the concerned Government Department by filing representations and also directing the Department to decide the representations in light of the Court's judgment.

    “Imposition of cost is necessary… to ensure that access to justice by Courts is available to the citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors of justice would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system… Every litigation has to come to an end at some point of time and similar and identical litigation cannot be allowed to flourish again and again for the luxury of the litigants, who are burdening this Court unnecessarily seeking similar order again and again.”

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that such repeated petitions amounted to abuse of the process of law that consumed Court's time and clogged the infrastructure.

    Urdu Language Not Widely Known, 'Nikahnama' Should Also Contain Hindi/ English To Make It Comprehensible: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Adnan Ali & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 423

    In relation to Muslim marriages, Rajasthan High Court ruled that a sacred relationship like marriage had to be recognized by a document which was unambiguous, vividly clear, explicit and transparent, and should not be issued in a language like Urdu which was not widely known to a society, especially to public servants and officers of the Court.

    The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that it would help in resolving complexities if the printed proforma of a Nikah Nama contained Hindi or English.

    Furthermore, the Court also observed that the District Magistrate/ Collector of every city should keep a register with a record of individuals who could perform Nikah-Nama and only such people shall be eligible to perform the ceremony of Nikah.

    Pension Calculation Is Governed By Rules In Force When Employee Joined Service; Can't Retrospectively Apply New Rules: Rajasthan HC

    Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Jagdish Prasad Chodhary & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 424

    A Division Bench of Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Ashutosh Kumar at the Rajasthan High Court upheld a single-judge decision that allowed a government employee to include his territorial army service in pension calculations. The Court ruled that pension rules introduced in 1996 could not retrospectively be applied to those who joined under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

    Rajasthan HC Cancels Air Force Personnel's Anticipatory Bail Due To Misrepresentation, Hiding True Facts Like Grievous Injury Caused To Victim

    Title: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 425

    The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an Air Force personnel on the grounds that he allegedly misrepresented and hid material true facts when he argued his anticipatory bail which was eventually granted last year.

    Justice Farjand Ali observed that during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, the counsel appearing for the accused had only mentioned the charges of hurt (Section 323) and endangering human life (Section 336) while hiding the charge of grievous hurt which was added on account of the victim permanently losing vision in his left eye due to the injury caused by the accused.

    S. 138 NI Act | Complainant Can't Be Left Remediless Merely Because He Filed 'Premature' Complaint For Cheque Dishonour: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Moolchand v Bhairulal

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 426

    The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that where the complaint of cheque bouncing was filed before the expiry of stipulated timeline of 15 days under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court could not take cognizance of such compliant.

    However, the court while referring to Supreme Court decisions on the issue said that, in such case, the holder could register a second complaint on same cause of action within one month of receiving the order in the first complaint, as the complainant cannot be left remediless. It further said the very object of laying down of such a law was to curtail the practice of filing the pre-mature complaints. However, the court noted, that by grating liberty to file fresh complaint in cases where the complaints have already been filed before the expiry of the mandatory period of fifteen days in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act, a balance has been struck so as to not make the complainant remediless.

    Next Story