VARUN KHANDELWAL SON OF MR. S. K. KHANDELWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SAW/795/2024 · 2025-01-08
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Uma Shanker Vyas
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35171 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35171 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:1019-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 795/2024 Varun Khandelwal Son Of Mr. S. K. Khandelwal, Aged About 33 Years, F-E-20 Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur 302017 (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Industries State Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur 302005 (Rajasthan).
2. The Riico Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Riico Limited, Through Its Estate Officer, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma with Mr. Avinash Meghwal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order 08/01/2025
1. This case was taken up for hearing on 07.01.2025 and the
learned counsel for the appellant was granted sufficient time to satisfy the Court with regard to merits of the case.
2. Today in support of the submission that even though the
order passed on 16.07.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22425/2017 may have been set aside by the Division Bench, in view of the judgment in the case of Mich Millers Vs. Bronson Plating (197 Mich. App. 482), passed by the Michigan Court of appeals, the order can still be relied upon.
[2025:RJ-JP:1019-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-795/2024]
3. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. Once the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench, the order no longer subsists and merges with the order passed by Division Bench.
4. The argument is, therefore, completely misconceived and is, therefore, rejected.
5. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/177