The Rajasthan High Court dismissed eight appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by two directors of a Bhiwadi project's developer against orders impleading them in RERA proceedings (paras 1-3, 16). It held that impleadment orders are interlocutory and decide no liability, that the directors' roles are for RERA to examine after hearing them, and that a necessary or proper party may be impleaded without an existing party's application (paras 12-14).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed six Revenue revisions under Section 84 of the RVAT Act and upheld the Tax Board's view that the plant-and-machinery investment of an assessee's two small enterprises at Sri Ganganagar and Alwar could not be clubbed to deny the 0.25% concessional CST rate under the notification of 14 February 2008. The Explanation added in 2017 and the Industries Department's clarifications bar such clubbing, and the Revenue showed no common funding or financial flow-back between the units (paras 15-22).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition against a Labour Court award holding that no employer–employee relationship existed between a claimed Computer Operator and the Library Officer of Govind Ballabh Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (paras 1, 24). With no appointment letter, attendance register or retrenchment order, an isolated payment document and an experience-cum-attendance certificate did not discharge the workman's burden of proving employment and 240 days' service needed to invoke Section 25-F (paras 17-20).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by an officer of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) against his transfer from Alwar to Bharatpur (paras 1, 13). Transfer is an incident of service, and the employer's guidelines on posting husband and wife at the same place are internal directives without statutory force that confer no enforceable right (paras 10-11). The Court also rejected the claims that the transfer was made to accommodate another officer and that the issuing officer lacked competence (paras 10, 12).
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court quashed an Anti-Corruption Bureau FIR against a police inspector and an ASI of Bikaner, holding that the recorded demand-verification conversations showed no demand or attempt to obtain an undue advantage, and that the complaint, filed by a REET-2021 cheating-case accused soon after his bail, was prima facie actuated by vengeance (paras 10-14).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed applications to set aside the abatement of a first appeal admitted in 2006, condone the delay and bring the deceased respondent-plaintiff's legal heirs on record (para 14). The plaintiff had died on 07.10.2007. Holding that parties litigating against each other in several proceedings must seek substitution in all of them once they know of a death, the Court found the appellants negligent and declined the liberal approach of Om Prakash Gupta (paras 10-13).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs for cheating, forgery and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that a complainant's locus standi is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence (paras 10-11). The police cannot question a complainant's locus, civil and criminal proceedings can run together, and the police were entitled to investigate (paras 14-15, 19-21).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a preliminary enquiry into the 2013 recruitment of Junior Assistants by Zila Parishad, Alwar, because it was ordered by the officer who had supervised that recruitment as the Zila Parishad's Chief Executive Officer and later ordered the enquiry as District Collector (paras 8-9, 14-16). Applying the rule that no one may be a judge in her own cause, the Court remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry without that officer, within four weeks (paras 15-18).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the State's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against a District Judge's refusal to set aside an award refunding ₹60,000 of trench and diggi deductions with interest (paras 2.3, 10). It held that a Section 37 court checks only whether the Section 34 court kept within its statutory limits, and cannot reappraise evidence or reinterpret the contract because another view is possible (paras 6.4, 6.7, 9.17-9.18).
The Rajasthan High Court held that once the Anti Corruption Bureau's verification found a bribery complaint true and a trap was planned, the ACB had to register an FIR and investigate; it could not close the matter on a preliminary enquiry (paras 9, 11). It quashed the enquiry findings and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant, directed an FIR and a fair ACB investigation, and declined to transfer the case to the CBI (paras 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed five appeals by the Revenue against Hindustan Zinc Ltd., holding that the company was entitled to CENVAT credit of the 1%/2% additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on imported steam coal under Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (para 16). It upheld the Tribunal's finding that the conditions attached to excise-duty credit under Rule 3(1)(i) had wrongly been read into the credit of CVD (paras 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that employees of a co-operative federation cannot be denied revised pay scales on the ground that the society runs at a loss, and that the denial violated Articles 14 and 21 (para 26). Quashing the Registrar's order of 30.12.2015, it held the members of the employees' union entitled to the benefits of the Rules of 2008, later pay revisions and selection scales after 9, 18 and 27 years of service (para 31).