Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: December 2 - December 8 2024

National Highways Authority of India vs. Devi Ram & Others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 78

Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. Versus Dev Raj 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 79

Suresh Kumar Vs State of H.P 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 80

Ashok Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 81

Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82

Judgments/Orders:

Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Limited Scope Of Court Intervention U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs. Devi Ram & Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 78

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Virender Singh reiterated that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow and not akin to appellate jurisdiction. Courts may only interfere if the award exhibits patent illegality or arbitrariness that goes to the root of the matter.

Petition Filed After Expiry Of Limitation Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Sufficient Cause Is Shown: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. Versus Dev Raj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 79

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained which is filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under section 34(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause being shown.

Contractual Service Prior To Regularization Qualifies For Pension & Annual Increments Under CCS Pension Rules: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case No. : Suresh Kumar Vs State of H.P

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 80

A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh HC comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, while deciding writ petition held that contractual service preceding regularization qualifies as service for pensionary benefits & annual increments under the CCS Pension Rules.

Award Suffers From Patent Illegality When Adjudication Is Done Without Giving Any Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ashok Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 81

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya, while a Section 34 petition, has held that when an award has been found to be rendered without giving any reasoning regarding the adjudication of the disputes, the said award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and liable to be set aside.

Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case.