We publish matter highlights, regulatory updates, and significant judgments from our practice areas regularly. Each entry represents a real development — in the law, in our courts, or in our practice.
High Court · Criminal2025
Rajasthan High Court · Jaipur Bench
Juvenile Defence — Bail Granted After Two Lower Courts Refused
Represented a juvenile accused after bail had been refused by both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special Appellate Court. Argued under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act that a juvenile must ordinarily be released unless the prosecution shows specific risk — and that no such material existed. The High Court accepted the arguments and directed the juvenile's release.
Revision allowed. Both lower court orders quashed. Juvenile released on bail.
High Court · Family2025
Rajasthan High Court · Jaipur Bench
Matrimonial — Excessive Interim Maintenance Stayed by High Court
Represented a client challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 18,000/- per month. Argued the respondent-spouse was a working professional suppressing income and the quantum was disproportionate. High Court stayed recovery and directed payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month pending final disposal.
Recovery stayed. Interim maintenance reduced to Rs. 10,000/- per month.
High Court · Civil2024
Rajasthan High Court · Jaipur Bench
Government Utility — Stays Obtained in Multiple Civil First Appeals
Represented a government-owned power distribution utility in multiple Civil First Appeals challenging compensation awards. Successfully obtained stay of impugned decrees at the first hearing in each matter, protecting the client from immediate execution while the appeals are heard.
Stays granted in each appeal. Execution suspended pending disposal.
High Court · Writ2024
Rajasthan High Court · Jaipur Bench
Jurisdictional Challenge — Commission Directed to Decide Jurisdiction First
Represented a hospitality sector client in a writ petition challenging a Commission's failure to decide a jurisdictional objection at the first instance. Argued jurisdiction must be adjudicated before the Commission proceeds further. High Court agreed and directed the Commission to decide within 15 days.
Writ petition allowed. Commission directed to decide jurisdiction first.
RERA · Appellate2024
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal · Jaipur
Real Estate Developer — Interim Protection Secured Pending Appeal
Represented a real estate developer in connected appeals arising from a dispute with a homebuyer. Secured and maintained interim protection for the developer on the first hearing. The interim order was continued at subsequent hearings, protecting the developer's position throughout.
Interim order obtained and continued. Matter pending final disposal.
RERA · Authority2024
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority · Jaipur
Homebuyers vs Developer — Amicable Settlement Secured
Represented homebuyers in consolidated complaints against a developer in respect of a registered residential project. After proceedings before the Authority, the parties reached an amicable settlement — securing the clients' interests without contested adjudication.
Complaints disposed of as settled in favour of clients.
RERA · Appellate2022
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal · Jaipur
RERA Penalty Upheld — Suo Moto Enforcement Against Non-Compliant Developer
Represented RERA in an appeal by a developer challenging a penalty imposed in suo moto proceedings for failure to obtain a Completion Certificate. We countered that the Certificate obtained post-proceedings was an attempt to take advantage of the developer's own default. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with exemplary costs and upheld the penalty in full.
Appeal dismissed with costs. Penalty upheld. Regulatory order affirmed.
RERA · Appellate2022
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal · Jaipur
Ongoing Project Registration — Exclusion Clause Defeated
Represented RERA against a developer claiming the project was complete before the Act's commencement and seeking exclusion under Rule 4. We argued no valid Completion Certificate existed and possession letters cannot substitute statutory completion certification. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. Registration order and penalty affirmed.
RERA · Appellate2022
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal · Jaipur
RERA Penalty Proceedings — Appeal Withdrawn After Respondent's Arguments
Represented RERA as respondent in a penalty appeal. After hearing arguments on behalf of the regulatory authority, the appellant sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal — effectively conceding the regulatory position.
Appeal withdrawn by developer. RERA's position maintained.
RERA · Authority2022
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority · Jaipur
RERA Regulatory Authority — QPR Compliance Enforcement
Appeared as Law Officer for the Rajasthan RERA Authority in multiple suo moto proceedings against developers for failure to file Quarterly Progress Reports. Argued for imposition of penalty and enforcement of compliance obligations. Penalties imposed and directions issued in each case.
Penalties imposed. Compliance directions issued against developers.
ArbitrationGaurav Gidwani
Beyond the Brief · Crown & Castle Legal
Section 9 Relief — The Window That Closes Before You Know It's Open
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is one of the most consequential — and most misunderstood — provisions in Indian commercial litigation. It gives a party the right to approach a court for interim relief before, during, or after arbitral proceedings. In practice, it is the provision that determines whether a dispute is won or lost before the first arbitral hearing has even been scheduled.
The most common error I see — across both sides of the table — is timing. Parties wait. They wait for the arbitration clause to be invoked. They wait for the tribunal to be constituted. By the time they approach a court under Section 9, the asset has been transferred, the account has been emptied, or the evidence has disappeared. The window for effective interim relief is almost always narrower than the party seeking it believes.
The legal standard for Section 9 relief tracks the three-part test — prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. But in arbitration matters, the courts have increasingly applied this test with commercial sophistication. Post the 2015 amendment, the court's jurisdiction under Section 9 is significantly curtailed once the tribunal is in place — unless the remedy under Section 17 before the tribunal is found to be efficacious.
The practical lesson, drawn from years of appearing in these matters, is straightforward: Section 9 is not a last resort. It is a first move. The party that understands this — and acts on it — shapes the battlefield before the other side has even put on their armour.
Crown & Castle Legal
· Arbitration · Commercial Litigation
Constitution · CivilBhuwaneshwar Singh Sisodia
Beyond the Brief · Crown & Castle Legal
The Writ in Civil Matters — A Remedy of Last Resort, or the Only Remedy That Works?
There is a persistent belief among civil litigants — and, frankly, among some practitioners — that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is reserved for matters of constitutional significance. In civil matters, the argument goes, parties must take their disputes through the civil courts and approach the High Court only in appeal or revision. The writ, on this view, is a constitutional weapon for constitutional battles.
The reality, as anyone who appears regularly before the Rajasthan High Court will tell you, is considerably more nuanced. The principle that a writ will not lie where an adequate alternative remedy exists is not an absolute bar — it is a rule of judicial discretion. Where the alternative remedy is inadequate, inefficacious, or would occasion irreparable prejudice, the writ court retains full jurisdiction to intervene.
Three situations recur in practice. First, where a civil authority has passed an order that is jurisdictionally flawed — not merely wrong on merits, but without legal authority to make it. Second, where the alternative remedy is a civil suit that would take years while the client faces immediate, irreversible prejudice. Third, where a public authority exercises what appears to be a private function but does so in a way that betrays its public character.
In each situation, a well-framed writ petition can achieve in weeks what a civil suit might not achieve in years. The key is framing — identifying the element of public law in what appears to be a private dispute. That is, ultimately, an argument. And arguments are won in the brief, not at the podium.
Crown & Castle Legal
· Constitutional Law · Civil Litigation
GG
BS