Nominal Index:The State of H.P. & another vs Prakash Chand 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 19State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs M/s Asphalt Carpet Constructions Co 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 20State of H.P. & another vs M/s Jagson International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 21Hari Ram and others. Vs National Highways Authority of India 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 22Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker,...
Nominal Index:
The State of H.P. & another vs Prakash Chand 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 19
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs M/s Asphalt Carpet Constructions Co 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 20
State of H.P. & another vs M/s Jagson International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Hari Ram and others. Vs National Highways Authority of India 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 22
Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: The State of H.P. & another vs Prakash Chand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 19
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held that mere plea of abandonment, if any, taken by the employer may not be sufficient to prove that workman abandoned the job. It held that it is incumbent upon the employer to place on record substantial evidence to prove that specific notice was issued to the workman before alleged abandonment advising/asking workman to join duty within stipulated period.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs M/s Asphalt Carpet Constructions Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 20
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that in case the interpretation of the relevant clause of agreement as arrived at by the Arbitrator was possible and plausible, the same cannot be interfered with merely because another view could have been taken. The bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 and held that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: State of H.P. & another vs M/s Jagson International Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that for showing sufficient cause as required under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the party is obligated to reveal their bonafidies coupled with plausible reason in not filing the application within the prescribed time.
Case Title: Hari Ram and others. Vs National Highways Authority of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the landowner shouldn't suffer for the act of omission of the Arbitrator to make an award within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that the reason that as right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the landowner cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23
While delivering a split verdict on the issue as to whether the court by invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a direction to the speaker of the house to decide on the resignation letters forwarded by a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) within a fixed time frame.
Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewak Dua pronounced their respective conflicting verdicts while hearing plea of Independent MLA's Of HP Legislative Assembly seeking direction upon the Speaker of the House to forthwith accept their resignation tendered in March this year and issue appropriate communication to that effect forthwith.