Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Scroll reported that Jaipur commercial court judge Dinesh Kumar Gupta ruled in a dispute involving state-owned Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RVUNL) and Adani-led Parsa Kente Collieries Limited (PKCL) on July 5, 2025. On that same day, the Rajasthan government issued an order removing Gupta from his commercial-court post, and the Rajasthan High Court ordered his transfer to a district court in Beawar. The timing is documented in the report, but the available information does not establish why he was transferred or prove that the move was retaliation for his ruling.
What happened on July 5, 2025?
In an investigation published on December 18, 2025, Scroll reported that Gupta issued an order in the RVUNL–PKCL dispute while serving in Jaipur’s commercial court. The Rajasthan government’s order removing him from that post and the High Court’s transfer order to Beawar were also dated July 5, according to the report. Beawar is about 200 kilometres from Jaipur.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Rights of Indians and Tribes | $30.93 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary (American Casebook Series) | $311.10 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System | $246.41 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $55.97 | Buy on Amazon |
The sequence matters, but same-day timing alone does not show that one action caused the other. Scroll said Gupta declined to comment and that questions to the state Law and Legal Affairs Department and the Rajasthan High Court registrar had not been answered when its article was published. No verified statement from Gupta, a state official or a court has established the reason for the transfer.
What was the dispute about?
The case concerned road transportation charges for coal from the Parsa East and Kente Basan coal block. RVUNL paid road transportation charges. In 2018, PKCL sought interest over delayed payments, which RVUNL refused. The dispute reached the Jaipur commercial court in 2020, according to Scroll.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
Scroll’s account of Gupta’s July 5 order says PKCL had claimed more than ₹1,400 crore in transportation charges. That figure describes the amount PKCL claimed; it is not, on the information available here, a confirmed amount unlawfully earned or an uncontested debt.
What did Gupta’s reported order direct?
As described by Scroll, the commercial court imposed a ₹50-lakh fine and directed the Rajasthan government to request the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to audit the deal. These are the reported findings and directions in the commercial-court order. They should not be recast as a final finding of fraud.
Was the order stayed, and what is its status?
Scroll reported that the Rajasthan High Court stayed Gupta’s order on July 18, 2025. Its December article said a further hearing was expected in the last week of January 2026. That was a forecast at the time of publication, not confirmation that the hearing took place.
A later Rajasthan High Court summary lists a May 21, 2026 judgment in a separate PKCL v. RVUNL appeal, CMA 2007/2023. That matter concerns a 2023 Commercial Court order setting aside arbitral awards dated January 15 and July 5, 2021. It is not the same as Gupta’s July 2025 order. The available record does not establish the current disposition of the specific order stayed on July 18, 2025.
What the available record does—and does not—show
- Reported: Gupta’s ruling and the orders concerning his post and transfer were all dated July 5, 2025, according to Scroll.
- Reported: The dispute involved RVUNL and PKCL, road transportation charges and interest over delayed payments.
- Reported: The commercial court imposed a ₹50-lakh fine and directed the state to request a CAG audit.
- Not established: Why Gupta was transferred, whether the transfer was connected to the ruling, or the present status of the stayed July 2025 order.
- Separate proceeding: The May 2026 judgment summary concerns arbitration-related proceedings and should not be treated as a decision on Gupta’s order.
The Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. is also a separate dispute and appeal. It does not establish the reason for Gupta’s transfer or the outcome of his July 2025 order.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
