The Bombay High Court allowed Coda Payments India's appeal under Section 42 of the PMLA and quashed the Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the freezing of its bank and payment-gateway accounts (paras 1, 54). The Adjudicating Authority never recorded the Section 8(2) finding that the property was involved in money laundering, and the Tribunal could not supply it (paras 25-30). Freezing about Rs. 100 crore when one FIR of Rs. 85,650 remained was "ex-facie excessive and disproportionate" (para 40).
Hearing a criminal petition on the Paperless Module, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court found that only the stay application, not the main petition, had been scanned and uploaded. Rejecting the explanations of the dealing clerk and the scanning firm, the Court recorded its displeasure (paras 3-4). It directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for an amended Standing Order fixing staff responsibility and making the Paperless Module mandatory in all matters (para 12).
The Rajasthan High Court held that when a higher authority finds an order of remand unsustainable, it must send the matter back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, not reject the plaintiff's suit, which would deprive the plaintiff of a first appeal (paras 12, 14). Following P.E. Prasannakumari v. T.K. Ambujakshi, it quashed a Board of Revenue judgment and remanded the appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority (paras 11, 15).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's order taking a defendant's belated written statement on record in a 2021 injunction suit. In non-commercial suits the time schedule in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, and there is no straitjacket formula for sufficient reason: each explanation turns on its own facts (paras 13, 15). As the delay had not held up the suit or prejudiced the plaintiff, the writ petition was dismissed (paras 14, 16-18).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed three writ petitions by hotel and resort owners against sealing and demolition orders for constructions within one kilometre of the Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Udaipur (paras 1, 49, 71). Deemed permission under the development law cannot override the eco-sensitive zone restrictions, and the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine require environmental protection to prevail over private investment (paras 48, 50-53, 66).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court transferred a husband's divorce petition from the Family Court at Hisar to Sonepat at the wife's request, holding that an offer by the husband to bear travelling expenses does not, in every case, defeat a wife's prayer for transfer (paras 9, 13). The wife had no independent income, lived with her widowed mother and cared for their minor son (paras 7, 10).
The Bombay High Court issued notice to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor of Maharashtra's Law and Judiciary Department, to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Bench took the view that his aggressive outburst in open court, blaming the High Court administration when asked about his affidavit on 179 Fast Track Court posts, constituted contempt ex facie (paras 1-4, 12). The notice is returnable on 11 September 2026 (para 14).
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur upheld the rejection of a father's application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that sought his son's eviction from a family property, holding that only a senior citizen unable to maintain himself may apply under Section 5, and a petitioner drawing a regular pension and his late wife's family pension is not one (paras 7, 11, 13-14). Eviction is only an incident of the right to maintenance (para 17).
The Bombay High Court set aside a Pune Family Court order directing that interim custody of a couple's son be restored to his father, holding that the Family Court made no independent assessment of the child's welfare and relied on extraneous, self-contradictory and stereotypical reasoning, including remarks on the duties of a ‘pious’ wife (paras 1, 8.3.5-8.3.7, 9). The mother, with whom the boy has lived since March 2025, may retain custody; the father gets periodic access (paras 10-11).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the refusal to let a Senior Auditor withdraw the resignation he tendered to contest the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly election, which he lost (paras 3, 9). Resigning to contest was a voluntary act, losing the pension was no compelling reason, and nothing had materially changed under Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021; contesting on a party ticket also breached political neutrality (paras 6-7).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted a husband divorce on the ground of cruelty, holding that the wife's denial of cohabitation since 2005 and her Section 498-A case, in which he was acquitted, each amounted to cruelty (paras 17-18). With the couple apart since 2010 and no chance of reunion, compelling them to live together would be cruelty to both, so the trial court's contrary finding was perverse (paras 19-20).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the compulsory retirement, on proportionate pension, of the in-charge of a Government Ayurved Dispensary found to have issued 24 irregular sickness/fitness certificates to one employee. As in-charge he was responsible for every entry in the dispensary's record and could not blame his subordinate; and since he never disputed issuing or signing the certificates, the use of photocopies in the enquiry made no difference (paras 15-16, 18).