Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7697 (RAJ)

SHIV TIWARI S/O BHANWARLAL TIWARI v. PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

SAW/1477/2018 · 2026-05-12

Maneesh Sharma, Sudesh Bansal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:19944-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1477/2018 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17567/2018 1. Shiv Tiwari S/o Bhanwarlal Tiwari, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H. No. I 414 Azad Nagar, Bhilwara 2. Narendrak Padlecha S/o Chandmal Padlecha, Aged About 46 Years, Prop. Mayur Cloth Stor, 27 Mil Chauraha, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 3. Sanwarmal Gurjar S/o Bhopal Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, Prop. Of Devnarayan Vastra Bhandar, Near Kamla Factory Gate, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 4. Nauratmal Lodha S/o Ganeshji Lal Lodha, Aged About 61 Years, Prop Of Sidharth Vastra Bhandar, Mahavir Bazar, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 5. Gajendra Jain S/o Bastimal Jain, Aged About 35 Years, Prof L S Garments, Shiv Bazar, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 6. Vinod Jain S/o Gyanchand Jain, Aged About 38 Years, Prop Of Likhmichand Shobhagmal, Near Jain Mandir, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 7. Prem Devi W/o Late Bhanwarlal Tiwari, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla Bijaynagar, Ajmer 8. Sunil Khatri S/o Satynarayan Khatri, Aged About 37 Years, R/o H No. 610/28, Pokharna Colony, Bijaynagar, Ajmer 9. Megha Tiwari W/o Shiv Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o H No. I 414, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara 10. Suraksha W/o Damodar Mundra, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Rc Vyas Colony, District Bhilwara ----Appellants Versus 1. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ajmer ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:19944-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1477/2018] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubhendra Singh for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/05/2026 1. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants, having instructions from the appellants states that with passage of time, the grievance raised by appellants in this appeal has been satisfied and the prayer made therein has rendered infructuous. 2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not press. 3. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/97