High Court Which Appointed Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Classified As “Court” U/S 42: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original...

Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. Brief Facts The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in...

Multiple Claims For Same Accident Not Maintainable Under Employee's Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja dismissed an appeal filed a dependent mother under the Employee's Compensation Act. It held that multiple claim petitions for the same accident are not maintainable. The court ruled that when the widow and daughter of the deceased employee had already settled their claim in 2015, a subsequent petition by the...

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

Nominal Index:National Highways Authority of India vs. Devi Ram & Others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 78Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. Versus Dev Raj 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 79Suresh Kumar Vs State of H.P 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 80Ashok Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 81Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82Judgments/Orders:Himachal...

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

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has 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. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by...

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

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. Facts: The petitioner was awarded a contract to...

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

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.Background Facts The respondent department initially appointed the petitioners as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs) on contract...

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

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has 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. Brief Facts Award was passed on 06.11.2023 in favour of the non-applicant/respondent by the...

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

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Virender Singh has 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.Brief Facts:The...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Closure Of Non-Profitable HPTDC Hotels, Calls Properties A Burden On State Exchequer

Highlighting the financial burden imposed on the state exchequer due to underperforming properties, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the immediate closure of several non-profitable hotels operated by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (HPTDC).Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that the continuation of such properties is akin to "white elephants," draining...

HP High Court Orders Attachment Of Himachal Bhawan In Delhi Over State's Failure To Clear ₹64 Crore Dues

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the attachment of Himachal Bhawan in Delhi due to the Himachal Government's failure to implement an award directing it to refund Rs. 64 crore with interest.The controversy traces back to a judgment delivered on January 13, 2023, in a writ petition filed by Seli Hydro Electric Power Company Limited. The court had directed the Himachal Pradesh...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 To 17th, 2024

Nominal Index:M/s Lakhwinder Singh Stone Crusher v. Union of India & ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 72Satpal Singh Satti & others vs.State of Himachal Pradesh & others and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 73National Highway Authority of India Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 74General Manager, Punjab Roadways Pathankot v. Excise & Taxation...