Nominal Index Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181 Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182 Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183 State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184 Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index
Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181
Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182
Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183
State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184
Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186
M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187
Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188
M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189
Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant permission for cross-examination of an Investigating Officer who had collected documents against the Petitioner-accused in a corruption case, citing Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Title: Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear, in this case with respect to appointment of Lambardar, that an authority exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot compare merits and de-merits of the parties involved. In this case, the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, stating that the Collector had not considered the comparative merits and de-merits of the parties. While doing so, the Financial Commissioner also confirmed the appointment of Respondent no. 6 instead.
Case Title: Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a review application in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, held that question of relinquishment of share in the property by any of the parties cannot be commented upon in review petition.
Case Title: State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an appeal preferred by the UT administration of Chandigarh against the judgment of the Trial Court in a matter registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, held that the trial Court was correct in holding that the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and the seal, samples, documents etc. are tampered.
Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that if the application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is hopelessly time-barred, no arbitrator can be appointed by the High Court.
Case Title: Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding Trial Court's judgment dismissing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement on ground of delay, held that parties seeking amendment must show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been brought forth earlier or before the commencement of the trial.
Sufficient Material & Solid Reasons Required For Declining Parole: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing a criminal writ petition challenging refusal of parole to the petitioner-convict has held that release on parole is part of the reformative process.
Case Title: Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that as per illustration (b) of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency in which the agent has an interest is neither terminated by insanity nor by the death of the principal.
Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator filed by the applicant in 2017, on the ground of it being barred by limitation.
Other Important Judgements/Updates
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v Mahinder Kaur
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Trial Court to adjourn criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut over her 'Shaheen Bagh Dadi' tweet, beyond September 8, 2022. The complaint was filed in January 2021 wherein Kaur had alleged that actor during farmer protest had made defamatory tweet by comparing Kaur with "Dadi" at Shaheen Bagh, stating that such protestors could be hired.