Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5471 (RAJ)

SHRI GANPATILAL/HEMRAJ VAISHNAV v. THE MAHARAJA KISHANGARH SOMYAG MILL CO. TRANS. LTD.

SAC/2/2025 · 2025-05-12

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Mukesh Rajpurohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:19925-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 1/2025 Shri Rishi Kumar Moondra S/o Shri Prem Chandra Moondra, R/o Near Purani Mill Chauraha, Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh- 305801. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mill Co. Trans. Ltd., Kishangarh, Through Its Director, Sandeep Garg S/o Shri Satyanarain Garg. 2. The Official Liquidator Appointed, By The Honble Court. Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 2/2025 Shri Ganpatilal/hemraj Vaishnav, R/o Mahalaxmi Mishtan Bhandar Near Purani Mill Chauraha, City Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mill Co. Trans. Ltd., Kishangarh, Through Its Director, Sandeep Garg S/o Shri Satyanarain Garg. 2. The Official Liquidator, Appointed By The Honble Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/2025 Sadar Subrati Bhai S/o Shri Sultan Mohd., R/o Royal Furniture, Near Purani Mill Chauraha, City Road, Madanganj Kishangarh- 305801. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mill Co. Trans. Ltd., Kishangarh, Through Its Director, Sandeep Garg S/o Shri Satyanarain Garg. 2. The Official Liquidator, Appointed By The Honble Court, [2025:RJ-JP:19925-DB] (2 of 2) [SAC-1/2025] Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 12/05/2025 1. During the course of hearing of the appeals, in order to persuade this Court that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate that the appellants are the tenants, certain new documents have been placed in the appeals. These documents were not before the learned Single Judge. Except this, there is no other material available on record to sustain the claim of the appellants having been validly inducted as tenants. Therefore, these appeals as they stand do not have any merit and no interference is called for. 2. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the appellants, if so advised, to seek review on the basis of new documents which are sought to be placed on record. 3. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of each connected appeal. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT - Diksha/18-20