Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 19 - August 25, 2024

Shehwaz Khan State of H.P and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 45

Shanker Singh Verma & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 46

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Versus Raj Kumar and another 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 47

Harnam Singh. Versus Champa Devi. 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 48

Sumit Khanna and another Versus Kanchan Sunil Adani and others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 49

Mohan Singh & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 50

Satvir Singh Vs Rajesh Pathania 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 51

Judgments/Orders:

[Triple Talaq] Legislature Has Prohibited Instantaneous & Irrevocable Divorce, Other Forms Of Talaq Still Valid: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Shehwaz Khan State of H.P and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 45

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that the legislative prohibition under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, is specifically aimed at Talaq-e-Biddat or any other similar forms of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce.

The court ruled that the Act does not extend to other forms of divorce like Talaq-e-Hasan, which allows for revocation during the waiting period (Iddat).

Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Confer Ownership, Civil Court Appropriate Forum To Decide Title Dispute: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Shanker Singh Verma & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 46

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that entries made in revenue records, such as mutations, do not confer ownership or title to property. Instead, such entries serve only a fiscal purpose, primarily for paying land revenue.

The Court clarified that any disputes concerning the ownership or title of property, especially when based on contested documents like Wills, must be resolved by a Competent Civil Court.

Not Filing Separate Appeals Against Dismissal Of Suit And Decree In Counter Claim Acts As Res Judicata: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Versus Raj Kumar and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 47

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently clarified a key procedural aspect of civil litigation, emphasizing that when a trial court passes separate decrees on a suit and a counterclaim, each decree must be contested through separate appeals.

Filing a single appeal against both decrees can lead to the application of the doctrine of res judicata, barring the challenge to one of the decrees, the court underscored.

Limitation Act | Justice-Oriented Approach Though Liberal, Cannot Be Used To Defeat Substantial Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Harnam Singh. Versus Champa Devi.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 48

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment held that though the justice-oriented approach in dealing with condonation of delay is liberal, it cannot be used to defeat the provisions of substantial law.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, revolves around the interplay between Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act.

Only CPC Provisions Mentioned In RERA Act Apply To RERA Proceedings, Remaining Provisions Intentionally Excluded By Legislature: HP High Court

Case Title: Sumit Khanna and another Versus Kanchan Sunil Adani and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 49

Addressing the extent to which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), apply to proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that only those provisions of the CPC explicitly mentioned in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, apply to RERA proceedings, while other provisions were intentionally excluded by the Legislature.

CrPC | S.482 Cannot Be Invoked When Alternative Remedy For Compounding Offenses U/S 320(1) Is Available: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mohan Singh & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 50

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy is available under Section 320(1) for the compounding of offences.

The ruling came as the court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized that the statutory right to compound such offences, as provided under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C., negates the necessity of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482.

Negotiable Instruments Act | Court Can Compound Offences U/S 147 Even After Conviction: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Satvir Singh Vs Rajesh Pathania

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 51

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, offences can be compounded even after the recording of a conviction by the court.

Justice Sandeep Sharma delivered this judgment while hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Act and requested that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla, be set aside.