M/S GOYAL SAVITRI INDUSTRIES vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIDYADHAR NAGAR ZONE — CW/5235/2026

Case under Other Acts Section NO. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.

Next hearing 21-Apr-2026

CNR: RJHC020227862026

Filing Number

CW/13149/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

CW/5235/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Rajasthan Municipalities Act ( 5400 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Acts Section NO

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S GOYAL SAVITRI INDUSTRIES

    Adv. SIDDHARTH BAPNA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIDYADHAR NAGAR ZONE

Case History

  1. 21-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Nupur BhatiView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Rajasthan granted a stay on the Municipal Corporation's order dated 11.02.2026 that had forfeited M/s Goyal Savitri Industries' security deposit of Rs. 1,55,689 and blacklisted them from tender proceedings for six months. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the debarment violated Section 46(5) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided before the action. Notices were issued to the respondents, and the operation of the impugned order remains stayed pending further consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    For Admission- Fresh (With Stay)

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CW/5235/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Rajasthan granted a stay on the Municipal Corporation's order dated 11.02.2026 that had forfeited M/s Goyal Savitri Industries' security deposit of Rs. 1,55,689 and blacklisted them from tender proceedings for six months. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the debarment violated Section 46(5) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided before the action. Notices were issued to the respondents, and the operation of the impugned order remains stayed pending further consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case