The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of a son's suit claiming a 1/9th share by birth in agricultural land his father had inherited from the grandfather under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, holding that property so inherited is held individually unless an HUF or coparcenary character is specifically pleaded (paras 6.10-6.12). His khatedari right must also first be declared by the revenue court (paras 7.4-7.5).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Commercial Court's order quashing an arbitral award in favour of United Spirits, holding that the Section 34 court re-appreciated evidence, relied on documents outside the arbitral record and allowed a set-off across two separate annual supply contracts. The award was restored, reduced for a computational error; the Court also flagged a prima facie case on unpaid customs duty (paras 13-23, 31-33).
Deciding 105 writ petitions, the Rajasthan High Court held that in cyber fraud investigations the ordinary course is to place a lien on the identifiable disputed amount, not to freeze the whole bank account. It laid down binding principles for the State, required compliance with Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS and the MHA SOP of 02.01.2026, and directed the DGP and the RBI to issue circulars (paras 31, 45, 48, 53).
The Bombay High Court quashed a trial court order that let a third party join a specific performance suit as co-plaintiff on the strength of a deed of assignment executed before the suit was filed. Order I Rule 10 permits adding a plaintiff where the suit was filed in the wrong name through a bona fide mistake, and none was pleaded; a pre-suit assignment is no ground for such impleadment, though the assignee may file its own suit (paras 14, 17, 20).
The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council to correct a nurse's records to show him only as male, after he obtained a District Magistrate's certificate of change of gender under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (paras 7-8). It held that the right to construct one's own identity is part of the right to privacy, and ordered transfer of his registration to Karnataka within eight weeks (para 8).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that candidates promised age relaxation because earlier TGT (Sanskrit) advertisements were cancelled cannot be denied it merely because they paid an application fee from which they were exempt (paras 13, 25). Setting aside the 2024 result to that extent, it directed the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to consider them on merit within two months (para 26).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a GST show cause notice, the resulting demand order and a bank recovery notice because none bore a digital or physical signature as Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires. A system reference number tracks a document but does not authenticate it, the Court held, and the taxpayer had also been denied a hearing (paras 7, 10-13).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held that a candidate who cannot prove her reserved-category claim loses only the benefit of reservation, not the right to compete in the open category on merit (para 12). The appellant had scored above the General (Female) cut-off for Junior Engineer but was rejected for not producing an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate. Her claim as a General candidate must now be examined, against a post kept reserved for her (paras 9, 13-14).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside orders treating 79 properties of a Jodhpur real estate company as benami, because the finding rested substantially on a chartered accountant's search statement that was retracted and never tested by cross-examination (paras 23, 31-32). It remanded the matter to the Initiating Officer, who must consider a later income-tax assessment accepting the source of the same investment; the provisional attachment continues meanwhile (paras 35-36).
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that four medical students were wrongly left out of Maharashtra's one-time scheme, under a Government Resolution of 20.09.2019, reimbursing fees to students who lost government or aided college seats in 2019-20 to EWS and SEBC reservation, since 25 of the 106 beneficiaries ranked below them (paras 3, 6). It ordered reimbursement with 6% interest, costs of Rs. 50,000 each and an enquiry by the Principal Secretary (para 8).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a senior official of Hindustan Zinc over a 2005 gas leak at its Chittorgarh plant, holding that criminal liability cannot rest on designation alone (paras 19-34, 85-87). The complaint made only omnibus allegations, the forensic reports contradicted each other, and the private complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act merely duplicated a completed police investigation (paras 39-40, 57-66).
The Rajasthan High Court discharged the registered owner of a motorcycle who had been charged under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act after two riders were caught with 500 grams of ganja. Section 25 reaches only an owner who "knowingly permits" the vehicle to be used for an offence, and knowledge cannot be presumed from ownership (paras 8-9, 16). The Section 35 presumption of a culpable mental state arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts (paras 11, 14).