MANOJ GOYAL Versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, AND ORS. [ HEARD BY : HON. SANJAY KAROL AND HON. PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. ] (C.A. 8142/2018)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 8142/2018

Case Record

C.A. 8142/2018

MANOJ GOYAL Versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, AND ORS. [ HEARD BY : HON. SANJAY KAROL AND HON. PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. ]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE

C.A.Appellate relief Civil appeals

13 PDF renditions· 13 distinct judicial orders· 13 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

MANOJ GOYAL Versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, & ORS.. C.A. 8142/2018 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010201512018. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 13 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 20 July 2018 to 13 July 2026.

On 6 August 2018 the order records: Leave granted limited to the question of validity of Rule 41 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (KAILASH CHANDER) AR-CUM-PS
On 11 December 2018 the order records: Respondent nos. 1 and 3 are duly represented. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that copies of pleadings have not been received, as a result counter affidavit could not be filed. Ld. Counsel for the appellant to provide complete set of pleadings to the ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 within one weeks time a
On 11 February 2019 the order records: Respondent No.1 is duly represented. Service is complete on respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 but none has entered appearance.
On 6 May 2019 the order records: Respondent No.1 is duly represented. Service is complete on respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 but none has entered appearance.
On 26 April 2024 the order records: Upon being mentioned by the appellant, the matter be not deleted from the tentatively shown date i.e., 01.05.2024.
On 3 December 2025 the order records: 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Arguments concluded.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

20 July 2018. Delay of 21 days in refiling is condoned. Process as per rules.
6 August 2018. Leave granted limited to the question of validity of Rule 41 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (KAILASH CHANDER) AR-CUM-PS
11 December 2018. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 are duly represented. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that copies of pleadings have not been received, as a result counter affidavit could not be filed. Ld. Counsel for the appellant to provide complete set of pleadings to the ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 within one weeks time a
11 February 2019. Respondent No.1 is duly represented. Service is complete on respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 but none has entered appearance.
6 May 2019. Respondent No.1 is duly represented. Service is complete on respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 but none has entered appearance.
12 July 2023. The appellant goes unrepresented. List after five weeks.
8 December 2023. List on 17.01.2024.
17 January 2024. Accommodation is asked for on behalf of the appellant. List after one week.
4 March 2024. Not to be deleted from the notified date i.e., on 06.03.2024.
26 April 2024. Upon being mentioned by the appellant, the matter be not deleted from the tentatively shown date i.e., 01.05.2024.
3 December 2025. 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Arguments concluded.
13 July 2026. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
13 July 2026. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Mr Mohit Seth, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Ms Varsha Poddar, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Ms. Cheshta Jetly, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Kajal Giri Advocates — Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Mr Manish Malik, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. Manish Malik, Mr. Rana Prashant, Mr. Milind Kumar, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Mr. Akshay C. Shrivastava, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal

Relief Sought & Granted

On 3 December 2025 the latest order on this record says: 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Arguments concluded.

The court record marks the case disposed. These order files do not contain a sentence that states the appeal or petition was allowed or dismissed, so that result is not restated here.

Subjects

Appellate relief Civil appeals

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 13 Jul 2026

Latest development

Latest recorded event 13 Jul 2026

Final disposition

DISPOSED

Important procedural note

Written only from 13 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added.