M/S RAJENDRA AND COMPANY vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CW/2617/2023

Case under Other Acts Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: RJHC010113042023

Filing Number

CW/6450/2023

Filing Date

09-Feb-2023

Registration No

CW/2617/2023

Registration Date

09-Feb-2023

Judge

Kuldeep Mathur

Coram

Kuldeep Mathur

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB Writ Pet. which are not covered under any of the above SUB.Category ( 4300 )

Sub-Category

TENDER WORK & CONTRACT MATTERS ( 64 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Acts Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S RAJENDRA AND COMPANY

    Adv. RISHABH TAYAL,JITENDRA CHOUDHARY,JITENDRA CHOUDHARY, ,JITENDRA CHOUDHARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. ,SAJJAN SINGH RATHORE 1123

  2. 2.THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER

  3. 3.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

  4. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

    Adv. PANKAJ SHARMA,RISHI SONI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Kuldeep Mathur

  3. 28-May-2025

    Munnuri Laxman

  4. 24-Apr-2025

    Munnuri Laxman

  5. 06-Apr-2023

    Arun BhansaliView PDF

    The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur issued an interim order staying the debarment and performance security forfeiture of M/s Rajendra and Company, finding the respondents' action unjustified since they failed to execute the contract agreement and provide the project layout, thereby preventing the petitioner from performing. The court found merit in the petitioner's submissions that non-performance cannot be attributed to the contractor when the government failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 09-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CW/2617/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur issued an interim order staying the debarment and performance security forfeiture of M/s Rajendra and Company, finding the respondents' action unjustified since they failed to execute the contract agreement and provide the project layout, thereby preventing the petitioner from performing. The court found merit in the petitioner's submissions that non-performance cannot be attributed to the contractor when the government failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case