Punjab & Haryana High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2022

1. 1.Lovepreet Singh v. Haryana Public Service Commission and another 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 1
2. 2.Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh v. National Investigation Agency 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 2
3. 3.Mahidul Sheikh Vs. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 3
4. 4.Sukhwinder Kaur @ Rajvir Kaur v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 4
5. 5.Sahil v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 5
6. 6.Mun Mun Dutta v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 6
7. 7.Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini v. State of Punjab Case 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 7
8. 8.Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 8
9. 9.Bikram Singh Majithia Vs. State Of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 9
10. 10.Narendra Singh V. State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 10
11. 11.Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 11
12. 12.Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 12
13. 13.Maam Gujjar @ Maam Hussain v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 13
14. 14.Case title - Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab and connected matters Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 14
15. 15.Jagir Singh @ Sukha @ Pamma v. State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 15
16. 16.Mamta Giri v. State of UT Chandigarh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 16
17. 17.Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State of Haryana and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 17
18. 18.Narinder Singh & another v. State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 18
19. 19.Sanjay v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 19
20. 20.Managing Committee, Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Palwal & Others v. Sabir Hussain & others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 20
21. 21.Neha v. State of Haryana & another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 21
22. 22.Joginder Singh S/o Jai Singh v. the State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 22
23. 23.D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 23
24. 24.Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 24
25. 25.Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajja v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 25
26. 26.Nanu Kumar v. State Of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 26
27. 27.D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 27
28. 28.Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. Hon'ble Justice Amol Rattan Singh
29. 29.Aseem Gaind V. Axis Bank, Retail Assets Centre 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 29
30. 30.Arti Devi v. UT Chandigarh & others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 30
31. 31.Ankit And Others v. State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 33
32. 32.Vineet vs State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 35
33. 33.Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Gupta Brother, Bhiwani and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 36
34. 34.M/s Raghav Metals Versus State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37
35. 35.Sudhir Kumar V. Padam Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 39
36. 36.Savita v. State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 40
37. 37.Mr.Monishankar Hazra and another v. State of Haryana and others and a connected petition 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 41
38. 38.Sandeep Kaur and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 42
39. 39.State of Haryana v. Asman and another and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 43
40. 40.Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 44
41. 41.Amit Sureshmal Lodha v State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 47
42. 42.Shailabh Mendiratta v. State Of Haryana And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 48
43. 43.Smt. Khazani Devi Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 49
44. 44.Sunil Kumar Gulati v. State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 50
45. 45.M/s Paras Ram Milkhi Ram versus Sudarshan Tea. Pvt. Ltd. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 51
46. 46.Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences v Kavita and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 52
47. 47.Aman Lohan and others v. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 53
48. 48.Ravi Parkash Sharma v State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 54
49. 49.Neelam Devi and another v State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 55
50. 50.Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 56
51. 51.Jagdev Singh and another v State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 57
52. 52.Ramesh Razdan And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others And Connected Matters
53. 53.Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 58
54. 54.Mohammad Asif v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 59
55. 55.Paramjit Singh Saholi v. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 60
56. 56.Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 61
57. 57.Deva Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Other 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 62
58. 58.Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 63
59. 59.Anil and another v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 64
60. 60.Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 65
61. 61.Devesh Yadav v. Smt. Meenal 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 66
62. 62.Bikram Singh v. Charanjit Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 67
63. 63.National India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Fajari & Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 68
64. 64.Noor Paul vs Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 69
65. 65.Devesh Yadav v Smt. Meenal 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 66
66. 66.Kishan Chand and others v State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 70
67. 67.Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 71
68. 68.Asha and others v. State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 72
69. 69.Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78
70. 70.Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 79
71. 71.Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 80
72. 72.Gram Panchayat Hansawas Khurd v. Dhan Singh and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 86
73. 73.Ravi alias Rabbu son of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 87
74. 74.Sukhmeet Kaur & Another v. Harjinder Singh & Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 88
75. 75.Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379
76. 76.Abhishek Goyat v State of Haryana and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 89
77. 77.Vipul v. State of Punjab2022 LiveLaw (PH) 90
78. 78.Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 91
79. 79.Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surjeet Kaur and others, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 92
80. 80.M/s Experion Developers Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 93
81. 81.Lovedeep Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur [CRR(F)-314-2022] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 94
82. 82.Amir Kapoor Versus Nisha & another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 95
83. 83.Simranjit Kaur @ Simarn Kaur Versus Bhinder Pal Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 96
84. 84.Sunita Devi Versus Amrit Lal 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 97
85. 85.Resuna & Anr. v. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 98
86. 86.Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and others [Civil Writ Petition No.35638 of 2019] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 99
87. 87.Sunita and Another v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 100
88. 88.Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 101
89. 89.Ajay Vs. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 102
90. 90.Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103
91. 91.Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104
92. 92.Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105
93. 93.Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017] 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107
94. 94.Rani versus Additional District Magistrate And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106
95. 95.Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109
96. 96.Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 110
97. 97.Surjit Singh Dhaliwal Versus State of Punjab and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111
98. 98.Paro and others v. Mahindo 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111
99. 99.Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112
100. 100.Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113
101. 101.Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114
102. 102.Amit v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116
103. 103.Mahavir Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117
104. 104.Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119
105. 105.Rinku Singh Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120
106. 106.Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121
107. 107.Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122
108. 108.Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123
109. 109.Vasu Syal Versus State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124
110. 110.Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125
111. 111.Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115
112. 112.Jaswant Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125
113. 113.Bhakra Beas Management Board & another Versus Jagdish Ram 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 126
114. 114.Ayyub Khan and Anr VERSUS Pratap Gurjar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 127
115. 115.Rohtash @ Raju v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 128
116. 116.Lawrence Bishnoi v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 129
117. 117.Malook Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 130
118. 118.Manpreet Kaur Versus Gurbaksh Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 131
119. 119.Mukesh Mittal Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 132
120. 120.Ishiqa @ Yashika Vs State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 133
121. 121.Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors.| CWP-2667-2022 | 28 April 2022 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 134
122. 122.Jaswinder Singh @ Jass VERSUS State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 135
123. 123.Ghanso @ Kalo v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 136
124. 124.Rohit @ Mirchi Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 137
125. 125.Kanta Devi and Others versus Paripuran Singh and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 138
126. 126.Phool Singh and Another versus Amit Kumar and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 139
127. 127.Robin Gupta v. MS Stratford Educational Management Pvt Ltd And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 141
128. 128.Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 142
129. 129.National Highway Authority of India Versus The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition-cum-District Revenue Officer, Ludhiana and others, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 143
130. 130.Ashok Kumar Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 144
131. 131.Dhanpreet Singh And Anr V. State Of Punjab 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 145
132. 132.Satpal And Others Versus State Of Punjab And Others 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 146
133. 133.M/s SGM Packaging Industries versus M/s Goyal Plywood LLP 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 147
134. 134.Smt. Satya Roopa Sinha v. Sarwan Kumar Mehto 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 148
135. 135.Deepali Sharma and another Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Land Acquisition Collector, Mohali and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 149
136. 136.Union of India and others v. Neeraj Mor 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 150
137. 137.Bhunesh v State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 151
138. 138.Yashpal Gulati v. Kulwinder Kaur and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 152
139. 139.Som Dutt v. Babita Rani 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 153
140. 140.Krishan v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 154
141. 141.Mrs. Manjit Kaul Versus Mr. Anil Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 155
142. 142.Deen Mohd. Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 156
143. 143.Gulam Deen and another v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 157
144. 144.Neelam Kumari Versus Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula & another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 158
145. 145.Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 159
146. 146.Pooja Rani v. State of Punjab and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 160
147. 147.Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 161
148. 148.Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 162
149. 149.Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 163
150. 150.Kanwalpreet Singh Kalra Versus State of Punjab & another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 164

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. 1.Re: Situation arising due to outbreak of the novel Coronavirus (Covid 19)
2. 2.Bikram Singh Majithia vs. State of Punjab
3. 3.PM Security Breach: Punjab & Haryana Bar Council's Chairman Writes To High Court Chief Justice To Take Suo Moto Cognizance
4. 4.Drugs Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Protection To Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia
5. 5.Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and other connected matters
6. 6.Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and other connected matters
7. 7.Kaushal v. State of Haryana and others
8. 8.Lavpreet Singh @ Lavepreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
9. 9.Bikram Singh Majithia vs. State Of Punjab
10. 10.Protection Petitions: P&H High Court Makes Declaration Regarding Status Of Minor Children From First Marriage Mandatory
11. 11.Court On Its Own Motion vs. State Of Punjab And Others
12. 12.Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India and others
13. 13.Re: Situation arising due to outbreak of the novel Coronavirus (Covid 19)
14. 14.Faridabad Industries Association v. State of Haryana and Another
15. 15.Mun Mun Dutta Vs State Of Haryana
16. 16.Faridabad Industries Association v. State of Haryana and another
17. 17.Kamla Devi v. State of Punjab and others along with connected pleas
18. 18.P&H High Court To Hear Challenge To Haryana's 75% Job Reservation For Locals Law On March 3, Centre Asked To File Reply
19. 19.[Chandigarh Electricity Crisis] Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Suo-Moto Cognizance, Seeks Presence Of Chief Engineer
20. 20.Gurmeet Singh Not A "Hardcore' Prisoner": Haryana Defends Move To Release Him On Furlough Before High Court
21. 21.Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another
22. 22.Kamla Devi v. State of Punjab and others along with connected pleas
23. 23.Jai Nrain and another v. State of Punjab and others
24. 24.Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another
25. 25.Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab and Haryana & Ors|WP(C) 687/2021
26. 26.Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another
27. 27.Court on its own motion v. Union of India and others
28. 28.Case Title: Ashwani Oberoi v State of Haryana| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8695/2021
29. 29.Punjab's Advocate General Deepinder S. Patwalia Resigns In View Of Apparent Change In Government
30. 30.Rohit Kumar v. Stae of U.T. Chandigarh and others and connected pleas
31. 31.Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu To Be The New Advocate General For Punjab
32. 32.Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Resigns
33. 33.Case title - IMT Industrial Association and Another V/S State Of Haryana And Another
34. 34.Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu Appointed As The New Advocate General For Punjab
35. 35.Case Title: M/S Shivanand Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Haryana & Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6227/2022
36. 36.Punjab And Haryana High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From March 28
37. 37.Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab and Anr. [CRM-M-17450-2022]
38. 38.Nisha Kumari and Ors v. Haryana Public Service Commission and Anr| WP(C) 310/2022
39. 39.Tajinder Bagga Arrest Row: Punjab Govt Moves High Court For Release Of Its Police Officials Allegedly Detained By Haryana Police
40. 40.Tajinder Bagga Arrest Row: Punjab And Haryana High Court Adjourns Hearing Till May 10 In Punjab Govt's Habeas Plea
41. 41."He Was Released From Custody Of Punjab Police Illegally": Punjab Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga
42. 42.BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga Moves Punjab & Haryana HC Challenging Mohali Court's Arrest Warrant Order, Hearing To Take Place Shortly
43. 43.BREAKING | Punjab And Haryana High Court Stays Arrest Of BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga Till May 10
44. 44.Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Punjab and Another
45. 45.Ajay Pal Singh Middukhera v. State Of Punjab And Others
46. 46.Amanpreet and others v. State of Punjab and others
47. 47.Manpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Ors.
48. 48.Ms Shree Bhagwati Road Lines and Another v. MS GBTL Limited and Others
49. 49.Banwari Lal v. Mool Chand and Others 
50. 50.Gulafsha and another v. State of Punjab and others
51. 51.Rinky Rani v. Daljit Kumar
52. 52.Inam v. State Of Haryana
53. 53.Yoginder Kumar Sud versus Thakur Rajiv Singh and Another
54. 54.Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others
55. 55.Poonam Kalsi v. State Of Punjab And Others
56. 56.Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab and Anr.
57. 57.Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga vs State Of Punjab And Another
58. 58.Plea In Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Postponement Of Haryana JS (Mains) Exam-2021 On Ground Of Clash With MP Civil Judge (Pre) Exam Date
59. 59.President Accepts Resignation Of Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court
60. 60.Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Punjab and Another
61. 61.Ajay Pal Singh Middukhera v. State Of Punjab And Others
62. 62.Om Prakash Soni v. State Of Punjab And Ors.
63. 63.Harkirat Singh Ghuman v Punjab and Haryana HC| SLP (C) 5079 of 2020
64. 64.Raveena Tandon & Ors v State of Punjab & Ors| CRM M 44189 of 2021

Judgments/ Orders 

1. 1.MCQ Exams- "Question Having No 'Most Appropriate Answer' Is Incapable Of Being Asked, Needs To Be Deleted": P&H High Court

Case title: Lovepreet Singh v. Haryana Public Service Commission and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 1

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that in a Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) based examinations, a question which has no single, unique or 'most appropriate answer' (i.e., suspect question) becomes incapable of being asked. It further held that a suspect question in an MCQ based examination needs to be deleted so that no student gets advantage, or is denied advantage, because of evaluation of such questions.

2. 2."Prima Facie Accusation Not True": Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To An Accused In 'Tarn Taran Bomb Blast' Case

Case title: Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh v. National Investigation Agency

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted bail to an accused in the 2019 Tarn Taran Bomb Blast case as it recorded that the accusation against him is not prima facie true and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of regular bail during the pendency of the trial in the case.

3. 3.Fixed Deposits Or Electronic Transfers A Bail Condition Likely To Improve Possibility Of Accused's Attendance: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mahidul Sheikh Vs. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 3

The likelihood of an accused to attend the Court will increase if the accused knows that their money is safe and accruing interest and thus, fixed deposits or electronic transfer or creating lien over the bank, instead of cash or sureties as conditions for bail are better mediums to ensure that the accused does not flout Court's Order. A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Anoop Chitkara has further observed that the advancement in technology has obsoleted the identification through sureties and keeping in mind the menace of securing sureties by payment, substituting surety with fixed deposit/bank transfer/lien will also help in addressing the unethical practices taking place through a corrupt system of unscrupulous stock sureties.

4. 4.Filing Supplementary Challan Should Not Be Deferred Merely Because Anticipatory Bail Application Is Pending: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sukhwinder Kaur @ Rajvir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 4

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that filing of a supplementary Challan under Section 173 of CrPC cannot be deferred merely because an anticipatory bail application is pending. Such filing should not be deferred for long periods and whenever the same is deferred, specific and genuine reasons must be present for this, it said.

5. 5.Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Offence Prima Facie Less Serious Than Co-Accused Who Are On Bail

Case Title: Sahil v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 5

If the role attributed to the accused in an offence is prima facie less serious than the role attributed to the co-accused who have been granted the benefit of bail under S.438 CrPC and under S.439 CrPC, and if the accused is a first-time offender, then he deserves an opportunity to course-correct and the opportunity of bail cannot be denied to him. A single-judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court presided over by Justice Anoop Chitkara has recently observed that if the accused is a first-time offender and if his co-accused who were similarly placed, have been granted bail, even though the role of co-accused in the offence was more serious than that of the accused, then accused's bail application should be accepted and the accused should be given a chance for grant of bail.

6. 6.'Casteist' Remark: P&H High Court Dismisses Munmun Dutta's Pre Arrest Bail Plea, Allows Her To Approach Sessions Court

Case title - Mun Mun Dutta v. State of Haryana

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed (as withdrawn) the anticipatory bail plea filed by actor Munmun Dutta (best known for her portrayal of Babita Iyer in the popular Hindi serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah) over 'Bhangi' remark, a casteist slur, allegedly made by her in a video posted in social media. The was hearing her plea filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in May 2021 FIR (at Hansi) under Section 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. 7.Addl Sessions Judge Treats Regular Bail Plea As Anticipatory Bail Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls It 'Serious' Issue

Case title - Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini v. State of Punjab Case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 7

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently called into question a bail order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, treating a regular bail petition as an anticipatory bail petition, even when the accused had been in the custody at the time of filing the bail plea. Calling it a matter of 'serious concern', the Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri also sent the case file to the concerned Administrative Judge of District Faridkot for information and further necessary action, if so required, in accordance with the law.

8. 8.Second FIR On Same Incident Is Abuse Of Process Of Law, May Be Quashed Without Awaiting Final Report U/S 173 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and another

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 8

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if a second FIR is registered regarding an incident on which a prior FIR already exists, it amounts to abuse of process of law and the High Court is well within its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same, without awaiting a final report under Section 173 CrPC.

9. 9.Drugs Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Akali Leader Bikram Majithia's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea

Case title - Bikram Singh Majithia Vs. State Of Punjab

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 9

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia filed in connection with a Drugs case registered against him. Last week, the Bench of Justice Lisa Gill had reluctantly inclined to adjourn the hearing on his bail plea and had extended his interim protection from arrest till January 24 (today) since his Counsel, R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate had contracted COVID-19 and a request for an adjournment was made before the bench.

1. 10.Consent Given During Prior Sexual Acts Won't Extend To Future Occasions: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Narendra Singh V. State Of Haryana

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 10

Stressing that law acknowledges a woman's right to have a sexual relationship, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that the consent given during prior sexual acts won't extend to future occasions.

1. 11.RERA ACT- Inconvenience In Making Pre-Deposits Not An Onerous Circumstance Warranting Relaxation Of A Statutory Mandate: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 11

Mere hardship in making pre-deposits which include diverting funds is not an arduous circumstance in any manner and does not necessitate waiver of a statutory mandate, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

2. 12.Money Laundering Case- Former Punjab MLA And Congress Leader Sukhpal Khaira Granted Bail By P&H High Court

Case title - Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted bail to former Punjab MLA and Congress leader, Sukhpal Singh Khaira in connection with a money laundering case, registered against him in January 2021 on account of his alleged involvement in the smuggling of heroin, gold, and, illegal weapons. The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur was of the opinion that at this stage, it can't be concluded that the Khaira has committed the offence under the PML Act.

3. 13.Alleged Easy Character Of Wife Not Indicative Of Her Abetting Husband's Suicide, Mens Rea A Necessary Concomitant Of Instigation: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Maam Gujjar @ Maam Hussain v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 13

If there is no prima facie case against the wife and no dying declaration or suicide note alleging the same, just the fact that she is allegedly a woman of easy character is not indicative of the wife abetting and inciting suicide of her husband, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

4. 14."Drug Menace Touching New Heights In Punjab, State Police's Approach Casual": Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab and connected matters

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 14

While allowing bail plea filed in connection with a drugs case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rapped the Punjab Police for their "callously casual approach" towards their official duty even when the drug menace has become a deep-rooted in the state of Punjab. The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta made this observation as it noted that in the Status reports/Reply filed in the bail pleas, the police officers, without realizing the repercussions and consequent legal implications, mentioned the tablets, allegedly recovered from the accused, as 'CLAVIDOL-100 SR' tablets. However, in some paras, the tablets were described as 'CLOVIDOL-100 SR'.

5. 15.High Court's Powers U/S 482 CrPC Wide Enough To Quash FIR & Subsequent Proceedings Even For Non-Compoundable Offences: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Jagir Singh @ Sukha @ Pamma v. State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 15

High Courts can exercise powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. Although compounding of offences is governed under Section 320 of CrPC and non-compoundable offences are not covered in that Section, this limited jurisdiction of compounding an offence within is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers of High Court vested in it by Section 482 of CrPC to prevent abuse of law and to secure ends of justice, it is held.

6. 16.S.82 CrPC Does Not Impose Any Restrictions On Filing Of Anticipatory Bail By Proclaimed Offenders: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title: Mamta Giri v. State of UT Chandigarh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 16

If the offence committed is punishable with less than seven years, is a bailable, non-heinous offence and the accused who is a first-time offender, has established a fair ground for not being present in court, to the court's satisfaction, then just the fact that accused has been a proclaimed offender will not bar him/her from availing the benefit of Anticipatory Bail under S. 438 of CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

7. 17.'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act'- Police Can Probe Offence But Court Can Take Cognizance Only On Complaint Of Appropriate Authority: P&H HC

Case title - Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State of Haryana and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 17

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that an FIR regarding an offence under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 [PCPNDT Act] can be lodged and investigation can be undertaken by the Police, however, cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Court only on the complaint made by the Appropriate Authority as per Section 28 of the Act.

8. 18.Compromise Deed Must State Reasons For Settlement For Quashing Of FIR & Criminal Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case: Narinder Singh & another v. State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 18

High Courts are empowered under Section 482 of CrPC to quash FIR and further criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if a compromise has been reached and the matter is personal. However, to seek such quashing, the compromise deed must not have inconsistencies and must state clear and specific reasons for the compromise, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

9. 19.No Embargo In Treating Testimony Of A Child Witness As The Sole Basis For Conviction: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case: Sanjay v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 19

Stating that statutorily, there exists no prohibition on child witnesses to depose in criminal or civil cases, except when the child does not understand the questions put to them, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that when a child fully understands the questions and can provide answers regarding the same, rationally, then the testimony of a child witness can be the sole reason for conviction.

1. 20.Service Law- An Employee Cannot Seek Protection Against the Dispensation of Services If He Attained The Employment by Fraud: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case: Managing Committee, Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Palwal & Others v. Sabir Hussain & others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 20

An employee cannot seek protection against the dispensation of services if he has attained the employment by fraud, giving forged documents, and misleading the hiring committee, specifically when his employment was offered to him based on such forged documents and he had also been afforded ample opportunity to make his case, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

1. 21."Right Of Convict To Have Conjugal Relations Isn't Absolute": Punjab & Haryana High Court Agrees With Madras HC's Recent Ruling

Case title - Neha v. State of Haryana & another

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 21

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the right of a convict to have conjugal relations is not an absolute one and is subject to 'reasonable restrictions', 'social order', 'security concerns', 'good behavior' in the jail, etc.

2. 22.Public Prosecutor Must File Independent Report Justifying Detention Of Accused Beyond 180 Days U/S 36A(4) NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case: Joginder Singh S/o Jai Singh v. the State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that default bail to an accused charged under NDPS Act cannot be denied on the pretext of investigation not being complete within the stipulated period of 180 days, unless the Public Prosecutor, after he has independently applied his mind, files a report disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.

3. 23.High Rank Defence Personnel Drawing Lesser Pay Than Their Juniors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Asks Centre To Resolve Anomalies

Case Title: D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 23

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Government to resolve the anomalies that crept in the defence pay scale with the implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission.

4. 24.['Bhangi' Remark] "No Intention To Insult But Word Used In Derogatory Sense": P&H HC Grants Partial Relief To Yuvraj Singh

Case title - Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 24

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted partial relief to Cricketer Yuvraj Singh in a case registered against him for his alleged casteist remark 'Bhangi'. Partly allowing his quashing plea, the Court has quashed Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC in the FIR against him. The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh has however clarified that the case/probe against him for an offence under Section 3 (1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 shall proceed as per the law.

5. 25."Punjab Was Once A Prosperous State But Is Now At The Brink Of Drug-Trafficking": P&H High Court

Case title - Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajja v. State of Punjab

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 25

"The State of Punjab which was known as one of the prosperous States is now at the brink of drug trafficking," observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying bail to an NDPS Accused.

6. 26.['Obscene' Posts Against Lord Krishna] "Offence Against Society, Not A Fit Case To Quash FIR Against Accused": P&H High Court

Case title - Nanu Kumar v. State Of Haryana and Others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 26

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to quash an FIR filed against a man who has been booked for allegedly making remarks against Lord Shri Krishna on the holy festival of Shri Krishna Janamashtami and for putting out obscene pictures publicly observing that the alleged offence was an offence against the society at large and it was not a case of a private offence as in the instant case, society at large was affected by the alleged offence.

7. 27.Resolve Pay Anamoly Issue Which Is Adversely Affecting Morale Of Defence Forces: Punjab & Haryana High Court To Centre

Case title - D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Central Government to take appropriate steps in removing pay anomaly while noting that it is adversely impacting and affecting the morale of the Defence Forces.

8. 28.Bhangi Remark: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Yuvraj Singh

Case: Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Amol Rattan Singh

Court partly allowed his plea by quashing charges under Sections 153-A & 153-B of IPC. Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently rejected the petition seeking quashing of FIR against the cricketer Yuvraj Singh, in Hansi, Haryana for using the word 'Bhangi' during an Instagram live. Singh was booked for alleged commission of offences under S.153A and S.153B of IPC and S.3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

9. 29.Borrower Can't Seek Time Extension To Repay Balance 'One Time Settlement' Amount As A Matter Of Right: P&H High Court

Case title - ASEEM GAIND v. AXIS BANK, RETAIL ASSETS CENTRE

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 29

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the High Court has the power to grant an extension of time for completion of the loan repayment under the OTS (One Time Settlement) Scheme, however, such power can't be invoked at the instance of the borrower as a matter of right. The bench of Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice J. S. Bedi also held that it is not open for the Public Sector Banks or Private Sector Banks to decline OTS sought by a borrower, provided he/she falls within the OTS Policy being followed by the Bank.

1. 30."Govt Hospitals Can't Deny Treatment On The Ground Of Place Of Residence": Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Arti Devi v. UT Chandigarh & others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 30

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently clarified that a government Hospital can't deny treatment to someone on the ground that he/she is not a resident of the area where the hospital is located.

1. 31.Section 377 IPC Attracted Even When Penetration With Sexual Intent Happens On Any Part Of Body Other Than Vagina: P&H High Court

Case title - Ankit And Others v. State Of Haryana

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 33

In a significant observation and widening the scope of Section 377 of IPC (Unnatural offences), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that this offence is attracted even in a situation where the penetration happens to be on any other part of the body of a victim (other than Vagina) with sexual intent.

2. 32.Absence Of Proof Of Motive Does Not Break Link In 'Chain Of Circumstances' Connecting Accused With Crime: P&H HC Upholds Conviction In Dowry Death Case

Case Title: Vineet vs State Of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 35

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that even though 'motive' bears significance in cases of circumstantial evidences, however, failure to prove the same may not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case if otherwise the chain of circumstances linking the accused with the alleged crime stands established.

3. 33.VAT ITC Can Be Availed On Evaporation Loss Of Petrol, HSD: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Gupta Brother, Bhiwani and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 36

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench consisting of Justice Ajay Tewari, Justice Avnish Jhingan and Justice Pankaj Jain has ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Value Added Tax can be availed on the evaporation loss of petrol and High Speed Diesel (HSD).

4. 34."Intention To Evade Tax" Must Be Directly Connected to Activity Of Trader: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: M/s Raghav Metals Versus State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain has held that the intention to evade tax must be directly connected to the activity of the trader.

5. 35.When Signature On Cheque Is Admitted Then Question For Appointment Of Handwriting Expert Doesn't Arise: PH High Court

Case title - SUDHIR KUMAR v. PADAM SINGH

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 39

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the view taken by the lower court that when signature over a cheque in question has not been specifically denied then there is no question for the appointment of a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting over the cheque in question.

6. 36."She Had Conspired To Get Her Daughter Killed On Account Of 'Compromising Their Honour', P&H High Court Denies Bail To Mother In Honour Killing Case

Case Title : Savita V State Of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 40

Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 11, 2022, dismissed the plea for regular bail of the petitioner who is involved in a case of honour killing of the minor daughter. The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill rejected the bail plea of the petitioner and directed the Trial to be expedited.

7. 37.Second FIR Can Be Quashed If First FIR In Respect To Same Incident Has Already Been Registered: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title - Mr.Monishankar Hazra and another v. State of Haryana and others and a connected petition

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 41

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that in case an FIR with respect to an incident has already been registered, then a second FIR with respect to the same incident cannot be registered and in case, the same is registered then the High Court is well within its power to quash the second FIR.

8. 38.Court Can't Direct Complainant/ Victim To Give Specimen Signatures U/S 311A CrPC: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Sandeep Kaur and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 42

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently clarified that Section 311A CrPC doesn't allow the Court to make an order directing a complainant or a victim to give specimen signatures or handwriting for the purposes of any investigation or proceedings under the Code.

9. 39.Sanction Order For Prosecution A Public Document U/S 74(1) (iii) Of Indian Evidence Act : Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title : State of Haryana v. Asman and another and connected matter

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 43

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week observed that a sanction order (for prosecution) is a public document within the meaning of Section 74(1) (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the certified copy prepared of the same under Section 76/77 of the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence.

1. 40."False Assertions Ought To Be Discouraged": PH High Court On Woman's Conduct Of Hiding Job Status, Earning In Maintenance Plea

Case title - Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. v. Sandeep Singh Sangwan

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 44

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that false assertions should be discouraged by parties while they come tot he Court seeking reliefs. The Court observed thus in connection with a case of a woman who hid her job details and her earnings in a maintenance plea filed by her under Section 125 of CrPC.

1. 41.Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad Can Be Regulated By Imposing Conditions: Punjab & Haryana HC Permits Accused To Visit USA For Family Reunion

Case Title : Amit Sureshmal Lodha v State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 47

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently permitted an Overseas Indian citizen, booked for offences of Cheating and Criminal breach of trust by the Reawri Police, to visit the United States of America for a family reunion. The bench comprising Justice Vikas Bahl held that the petitioner has a fundamental right to travel abroad, which can be regulated by imposing certain conditions on him. It observed that the Court is required to "draw a balance" between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad on one hand and the right of the prosecution on another.

2. 42.Using Term 'Straight Shooter' In Message Doesn't Amount To 'Extortion' Or 'Criminal Intimidation': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title - Shailabh Mendiratta v. State Of Haryana And Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 48

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed an FIR against a man who had been booked under Sections 386 [Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt] & 506 [Punishment for criminal intimidation] IPC for allegedly sending a WhatsApp message to the complainant using the term 'straight shooter' to extort money.

3. 43.Even In Absence Of Prescribed Statutory Limitation, Party Expected To Approach Court Within 'Reasonable Time': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Smt. Khazani Devi Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 49

Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that in the absence of any prescribed limitation, it has to be a reasonable time within which the party aggrieved has to approach the court.

4. 44.Production Of Certificate U/S 65B(4) Evidence Act Not Necessary To Obtain Voice Sample Of Accused For Further Probe: PH High Court

Case title - Sunil Kumar Gulati v. State of Punjab and another

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 50

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that at the stage of filing an application by the prosecution to obtain the voice sample of the accused for the purposes of further investigation, the production of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not necessary.

5. 45.Summons By Registered Post AD Can't Be Served Directly On Defendant Residing Outside Court's Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: M/s Paras Ram Milkhi Ram versus Sudarshan Tea. Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 51

Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Summons by registered post acknowledgement due cannot directly be sent by the Court where the suit is instituted to a defendant residing outside its jurisdiction.

1. 1.Courts To Ignore Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice If Only One Outcome Is Possible In Facts Of The Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences v Kavita and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 52

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not entitled to be accepted by the courts unless, it is shown in the facts and circumstances of a case that rights of a party have been prejudicially affected. Accordingly, it held that the rules of natural justice are not rigid and have to be applied keeping in view the fact situation of a particular case. A party claiming violation of the rule must show prejudice especially in a case where the facts are indisputable and only one conclusion is possible.

2. 2.Merely Stating That Parties Want To Live In Peace Not Enough For Compounding Of Heinous Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Aman Lohan and others v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 53

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that heinous offenses such as attempt to murder punishable under 307 IPC is not compoundable between parties merely by stating that they have entered into a compromise and want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. The Court further held that without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, the explanation that 'parties want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony' is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offense punishable under section 307 IPC.

3. 3.Direction To Take Voice Sample Of Accused Does Not Infringe Rights Under Article 20(3) Of Constitution: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Ravi Parkash Sharma v State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 54

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that directions to take a voice sample of the accused do not infringe his/her rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the petition, challenging the Lower Court's order which directed the Petitioner-accused to give his voice sample. It observed that the infringement of the fundamental right to privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation.

4. 4."There Can Be No Compromise With Dead Man, FIR U/S 306 IPC Can't Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise": Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Neelam Devi and another v State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 55

Court held that the family of the deceased is not the only ones aggrieved because the offense is broadly committed against the deceased himself. Court also refused to quash the FIR by stating that there can be no compromise with the deceased. Since an offense under Section 306 IPC is alleged to have been committed which is a heinous offense and Avtar Chand had committed suicide, therefore, it is not just Avtar Chand's family who would be aggrieved, but the offense is broadly committed against the deceased himself. There can be no compromise with the dead man. As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

5. 5."The Amendment In The Pleadings, By Way Of Adding Mutually Destructive and Inconsistent Pleas/Reliefs/Claims, Not Permissible": P&H HC

Case Title: Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 56

The court while deciding the matter took into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the Trust sold the property to respondent No.2 in contravention of the object of the gift. This very relief along with Para 5-A was sought to be added in the plaint but could not be incorporated though they are material for the proper adjudication of the dispute. The court came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the afore-referred contentions because the relief originally claimed in the plaint and the relief sought to be added by amendment, are contradictory, the same is not permissible.

6. 6.Rejection Of Compromise May Lead To Ill-Will, Pendency Of Trial Affects Career & Happiness: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Jagdev Singh and another v State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 57

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a FIR registered against the Petitioner-accused for allegedly causing hurt by dangerous weapons to the complainant-victim, which is a non-compoundable offence punishable under section 324 IPC, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. While dealing with the nature of the offense involved in the present case, the court held that the offense under section 324 IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, without adjudicating this point, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed.

7. 7."Look Into Rehabilitation Of Displaced Kashmiri Pandits Who Suffered Due To Terrorism In J&K" : Punjab & Haryana HC To Haryana Govt

Case Title - Ramesh Razdan and Others v. State of Haryana And Others And Connected Matters

Asking the Haryana Government to look into the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed it to include the names of displaced Kashmiri Pandits in a draw of lot for allotment of plots in Haryana's Bahadurgarh. Significantly, the Court directed the Haryana Government to have a relook at the entire issue, looking at the plight of those who have genuinely suffered loss of their homes at the hands of terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir more than 30 years ago and are continuing to suffer on account of no clear title to their homes. In the end, the Court made it clear that those who would be included in the draw of lots would be all such persons who applied for being so included and have been verified to be genuinely displaced Kashmiri Pandits.However, as regards the policy to be drawn up for the displaced Kashmiri Pandits who came to Haryana, the Court directed that it would be taken as a wholesome policy.

8. 8."Complaint To Police By Kin Not Threat To Life & Liberty": PH High Court Dismisses Protection Plea Moved By Same-Sex Live-In Couple

Case title - Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 58

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea filed by a same-sex live-in couple seeking protection of their life and liberty on account of the fact that their family members are against their alliance and are extending threats to them that they would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. "Even, if it is assumed, that a complaint is given to the police by any of the private respondents against the petitioners, then it cannot be construed as a threat to their life and liberty, as private respondents are also free to avail their remedy in law in case, they feel that some offence has been committed," the Court further added.

9. 9.[Pakistani Citizen's Overstay In Judicial Custody] PH High Court Seeks MHA Officials' Affidavits Over Their 'Casual' Appraoch

Case title - Mohammad Asif v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 59

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the affidavits of two high officials of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in connection with the matter of a Pakistani National who is currently in judicial custody and has already spent 2 years 9 months in Central Jail, Amritsar including an overstay of 1 year 9 months. Significantly, the Court has issued this order on a Habeas Corpus plea moved by the Pakistani National, Mohammad Asif, who was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the trial Court in April 2019 under Sections 3/34/20 of Indian Passport Act, 1920 read with Section 14 of Foreigner Act, 1946, however, he was not released after 1 year and hence, he has already undergone total imprisonment for about 02 years and 09 months to date.

1. 10.Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Haryana Govt's Decision To Release Gurmeet Singh On Furlough For 21 Days

Case title - Paramjit Singh Saholi v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 60

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday upheld the move of the Haryana Government to release Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh on Furlough (for a period of three weeks from February 7 to February 27). Finding justification in the argument put forth by the counsel for the Haryana State, the Bench, at the outset, stressed that Gurmit Ram Rahim was granted furlough for 21 days and he had completed the same and has returned to the jail premises, therefore, at this stage, more or less, the writ petition had become infructuous. Further, holding that the respondent-State had rightly interpreted the import of Section 2(aa) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Amendment Act, 2013, the Court remarked thus:

"The Statute identifies an offence of murder simpliciter and not a conspiracy to murder or abetment thereof. The conviction of Gurmit Ram Rahim is not directly under Section 302 IPC, rather the same is with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. Had the intention of legislature been to include aiding offence under Section 120-B IPC for the purpose of defining hardcore prisoner, the language of Amendment Act of 2013 would have been different altogether. It has been excluded in the definition clause of hardcore prisoner. Cases of Section 120-B IPC are consciously excluded and the Legislature was very much alive to the situation, in which Section 120-B IPC has been excluded. The words used in an Act cannot be used or interpreted loosely and inappropriately, rather the same are to be given true meaning, importance and are to be correctly and exactly used."

1. 11.Local Police Competent To Investigate Cognizable Offenses Under PNDT Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 61

Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 02, 2022, dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner approached the court for quashing of FIR under Sections 23, 3(1), 3A, 4, 5(2), 6(b) of the PreConception and Pre Natal-Diagnostic Techniques Act, Sections 120-B/34 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings. The court further noted that the bar as envisaged in Section 28 of the PNDT Act is a bar against taking cognizance by the Court wherein it is provided that it is only upon a complaint made by Appropriate Authority that a Court may take cognizance of an offense. The said bar cannot be extended to the proceedings pertaining to lodging of FIR, as any person can give information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offense to the police. The offenses under the PNDT Act have been classified as 'cognizable' offenses without there being any exclusion clause ruling out police investigation as is there under provisions of section 45(1A) of PMLA and without there being any kind of rider defining a particular class of police officers only to be competent as is noticed in the proviso t Section 14(i) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.

2. 12.Order Refusing To Appoint Local Commissioner Does Not Adjudicate Rights Of Parties, No Revision Lies Against It: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Deva Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Other

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 62

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order. The court relied on the cases of Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191] and held that appointing a commission is totally discretionary on the court.

3. 13.Employee Appointed On Contractual Basis Without Public Advertisement Does Not Have "Right To Regularization": Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 63

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employees appointed on contractual basis without any advertisement and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, do not have right to regularization. Court placed reliance on the case of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus Ranjodh Singh and others and Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC & others versus K.V. Ramana and others wherein it was held that employees appointed on a contractual basis without any advertisement and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have no right to regularization.

4. 14.Parameters Laid Down In 'Dharampal Case' For Suspension Of Sentence Are Only Guidelines, Not Invariable Rule: PH High Court

Case title - Anil and another vs. State of Haryana

Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 64

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the parameters laid down by the High Court in the Dharampal case [Dharampal vs. the State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600] for suspension of the sentence are only guidelines, and the same are not to be taken as an invariable rule. The The bench observed thus:

"Undoubtedly, applicant/appellant No.1 has undergone custody of more than 6 years and 9 months and the same does fall within the parameters laid down by this Court in Dharampal's case (supra) but it is trite that the directions contained in Dharampal's case (supra) are only in the nature of guidelines and the same should not be observed as an invariable rule."

5. 15.[NDPS Act] Call Conversations B/W Co-Accused Sans Transcript Not Corroborative Material In Absence Of Substantive Evidence: PH High Court

Case title - Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab and connected matters

Case Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 65

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Bench observed thus while relying upon Gujarat High Court's recent order in the case of Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66, wherein it was held that mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused in NDPS Cases.

6. 16.Wife Bent Upon Destroying Husband's Career & Reputation Amounts To 'Mental Cruelty': Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Devesh Yadav v. Smt. Meenal [FAO-M-208 of 2013]

Case Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 66

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that if the wife is bent upon destroying the career and reputation of her husband by making complaints against him to his senior officers, then it would amount to mental cruelty and the same would entitle the man to divorce. Consequently, the Court granted a decree of divorce and allowed the plea while noting that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together or living together again.

7. 17.Stamp Duty Is To Be Levied On Agreement To Sell Which Contains Recital Of Delivery Of Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Bikram Singh v. Charanjit Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 67

Punjab and Haryana High Court while relying on Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which states that the instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence, etc, along with the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [2009(1) RCR (Civil) 615] held that the document required to be registered which contains a recital of delivery of possession would require to be stamped.

It is trite that the document that is required to be registered and which contains a recital of delivery of possession would also require to be stamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the State of Punjab.

8. 18.Insurance Company Not Absolved Of Liability If It Fails To Prove That Vehicle Owner Was "Aware" That Licence Of Driver Is Fake: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: National India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Fajari & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 68

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the insurance company needs to establish the breach on the part of the insured to escape from the liability of indemnifying him.

The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin ruled,

It must be established by the insurance company that the breach was on the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise.

9. 19.Look Out Circular Must Be Supplied To Person When Stopped At Airport: P&H HC Grants Rs 1 Lakh Compensation To Woman For Losing Foreign Trip

Case Title: Noor Paul vs Union of India and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 69

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Look Out Circular (LOC), which prevents one from traveling abroad, must be supplied to the person at the time of being stopped at the airport and that the reasons should be communicated to the affected party. The Court further stated that the person must be given an opportunity of post-decisional hearing against the LOC.

A division bench comprising Justices MS Ramachandra Rao and Harminder Singh Madaan observed,

"In our opinion, non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC, and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India".

1. 20.Wife Making False Complaints To Husband's Superiors At Work Amounts To 'Mental Cruelty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Divorce

Case Title: Devesh Yadav v Smt. Meenal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 66

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing the petition, held that conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent, and defamatory allegations amount to mental cruelty. Court further held that filing of the complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings which are found baseless and false has caused harassment and torture to the husband and his family which is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.

The division bench comprising Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma noted,

Matrimonial cases are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love, and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in a broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit, healthy, and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in society, in general.

1. 21.Land Acquisition By State For "Public Purpose" Can't Be Disputed At The Drop Of A Hat: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Kishan Chand and others v State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 70

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that acquisition made by the government for public use cannot be disputed by the landowner at the drop of the hat.

The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma ruled,

"In the present case, land vests in the State and the same is being utilized for allotment of plots. Moreover, while dismissing the earlier writ petition (CWP-13332-2007), it was observed that 236 plots were less, which could not be offered to the allottees. Hence, keeping in view the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop's case (supra), the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-17), whereby representation for release of land under Section 101-A of 2013 Act, has been rejected, does not require any interference by this Court."

2. 22.Call Details Sans Transcript Of Conversation Between Co-Accused Not Corroborative Without Substantive Material Against Accused: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 71

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case for grant of regular bail in FIR registered under provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 held that the petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the disclosure statement by the co-accused.

After relying on the judgment of the Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sandeep and Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat, the court noted,

A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material against the petitioners.

3. 23.'Accused Are Ladies, Incarcerated For 8 Months': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Three Allegedly Involved In ₹31 Crore GST Fraud

Case Title: Asha and others v. State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 72

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a bail plea in proceedings initiated by u/s 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 granted bail to the petitioners involved in the case of siphoning off from the State Exchequer by creating bogus firms.

The bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill granted regular bail to the petitioner without commenting anything on the merits of the case and by considering that all the three petitioners are ladies and have been behind bars for about 8 months whereas the maximum sentence that can be imposed is 5 years, further detention will not be justified.

Other case updates

4. 24.Ordinarily, Court Does Not Interfere In Compassionate Appointment Matters Of Contractual Employee In Absence Of Any Policy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 78

Punjab and Haryana High Court this court would not have interfered in such a matter of contractual employee in the absence of any policy but in the mitigating circumstances of this case, it is expected from the State to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner on any suitable post in any class subject to the requirement of services.

Justice Arun Monga stated that a decision needs to be taken as expeditiously as possible since the petitioner and her four minor children continue to live in penury.

5. 25.Person Not Being A Complainant Cannot Ask For Addition Of Offences In FIR: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 79

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a no-complainant cannot seek directions of addition of particular offences in a FIR lodged by another person.

The bench comprising Justice H.S. Madaan stated that petitioner can avail the remedy by approaching the Illaqa Magistrate seeking registration of FIR by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or by filing a private complaint. Upon which the Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

6. 26.Dependant Parents Entitled To Family Pension After Wife & Children Of Deceased Lose Eligibility: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 80

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that entitlement for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents needs to be seen after the widow or the children loose their eligibility for the grant of the said benefit.

The bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi held that the widow initially is entitled to the family pension, after she becomes ineligible the children will be entitled and when children become ineligible, the dependant parents will be granted the same subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria.

Court further added that the dependent parent's claim for a family pension cannot be ignored only because the deceased is survived by his widow or children.

7. 27.Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Power Of Rejection Of Plaint Mandatory, Can Be Exercised At Any Stage Before Conclusion Of Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Gram Panchayat Hansawas Khurd v. Dhan Singh and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 86

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that powers of the Court conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are mandatory in nature and can be exercised at any stage of the suit, but before the conclusion of the trial. The observation was made while dealing with two revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order dismissing Petitioner's application for rejection of plaint as not maintainable on the ground that trial was at the stage of evidence, and another order vide which the injunction application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was allowed.

8. 28.Birth Certificate Issued By Municipal Authority Must Be Given Eminence If Not Shrouded By Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Ravi alias Rabbu son of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 87

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition against the Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for declaring him a juvenile, held that a birth certificate issued by the competent authority must be given eminence, but it should not be shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The Court held that facts of the instant case render issuance of the birth certificate suspicious and unreliable.

9. 29.Parties Having Any Right, Title Or Interest In Disputed Property Are Necessary Parties For Granting/ Refusing Injunction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Sukhmeet Kaur & Another v. Harjinder Singh & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 88

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition against the order of the Trial Court allowing respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, held that parties having a right, title or interest in the disputed property are necessary parties. The court relied on the judgment of Acqua Borewell Pvt.Ltd. v. Swayam Prabha & Others and held that the parties having any right, title or interest in the disputed property are the necessary parties even for granting/ refusing the injunction.

1. 30.Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Overrides The Seat Clause In An Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Arb. P. No. 1024 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement.

1. 31.'Question Of Credibility & Trust': Punjab & Haryana HC Says Employer Can't Be Compelled To Hire Employee Who Deliberately Suppresses Factum Of Arrest

Case Title : Abhishek Goyat v State of Haryana and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 89

Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that employer cannot be forced to continue with an employee who has made a false statement or has deliberately not disclosed the material facts. Court further added that it is a question of loss of trust therefore, such an employee who at the initial stage of his service made a false statement or has deliberately concealed the material facts cannot be appointed or continued in service.

2. 32.Mere Involvement In Other Cases Can't Be Sole Basis To Confine Accused In Perpetuity, Case To Be Considered On Its Own Merits: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Vipul v. State of Punjab 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 90

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition for seeking concession of regular bail in FIR registered under provisions of IPC and the Arms Act, held that taking into consideration, the role of the petitioner, the alleged recovery and the stage of investigation along with the period of actual custodial detention already undergone, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity.

Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one amongst the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity.

3. 33.POCSO Act | Chargesheet Filed Without FSL Report Not Incomplete, No Ground For Default Bail U/S 167(2) CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 91

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a case registered under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), held that, for an offense of sexual assault, final report would be complete on statement of the prosecutrix and FSL report can be used only to corroborate their version. The bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal held that based on the challan filed by the Investigating Agency, the Court can take cognizance of the offense.

4. Liability Of Insurer Invited Due To "Involvement" Of Vehicle In Accident, Not Negligence Of Driver Per Se: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surjeet Kaur and others, with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 92

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently while dealing with a matter related to compensation in a motor accident act claim observed that negligence of the driver is not, per se, the reason for inviting liability by such a vehicle. The observation came from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, who observed that it is the 'use of vehicle' on the road, which per se, invites liability for the owner of the vehicle; and thus it is for the insurer; to pay compensation; in case the vehicle is involved in accident.

5. 35.Merely Obtaining 'Occupancy Certificate' Before S.3 RERA Came Into Force Would Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Regulatory Authority: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: M/s Experion Developers Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 93

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that obtaining of an occupancy certificate will not render anyone to be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the State Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that with a completion certificate still not having been obtained, simply obtaining of an occupancy certificate or having applied for such certificate in terms of the Haryana Building Code, 2017, we would not consider the petitioner to be outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the respondent Authority.

6. 36.Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance On Grounds That She Is Well-Educated: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case title - Lovedeep Singh v. Gurpreet Kaur [CRR(F)-314-2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 94

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a wife cannot be denied maintenance on the grounds of being well-educated and that a husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his wife and children. The Court, in its order, observed that there was nothing on record showing that the respondent-wife had deserted the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. The Court also discarded the argument of the Husband that since the respondent-wife is well educated and has done her MA in Hindi and thus, she is not entitled to the maintenance.

7. 37.Where More Efficacious Remedy Is Available U/S 41(h) Specific Relief Act, Party Is Under Legal Obligation To Opt It: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Amir Kapoor Versus Nisha & another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 95

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition, held that it is well-settled law that in light of statutory provisions under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, where a more efficacious remedy is available, the party is under a legal obligation to opt for that remedy. The court noted that by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2010, maintenance allowance has been granted to the wife and the minor child and under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., only a revision lies under Section 397, 398, and 399 Cr.P.C. which has not been brought to the notice of this Court, therefore mere challenge to a finding in a civil suit is not permissible in light of the well-settled principles of law that provide that recourse has to be laid to the provisions enshrined under the law.

8. 38.Husband A "Desperado", Wife Travelling 55 Kms To Pursue Divorce Proceedings Under Grave Threat: P&H High Court Allows Transfer Plea

Case Title: Simranjit Kaur @ Simarn Kaur Versus Bhinder Pal Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 96

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer plea by the wife in a divorce case has allowed the transfer on the ground that it is difficult for the wife who has a minor child to travel a distance of 55 km stating that it is certainly a case of undue hardship of exceptional nature, necessitating intervention by the Court.

9. 39.S.24 CPC Can't Be Construed Loosely To Allow Transfer On "Frivolous & Flimsy" Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sunita Devi Versus Amrit Lal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 97

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer application in relation to a matrimonial dispute, held that provisions of Section 24 of CPC cannot be construed so loosely to come to the aid of a party on "frivolous and flimsy" grounds. Section 24 prescribes the general power of transfer and withdrawal. Sub-clause (1)(a) states: On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same.

1. Time To Shift From Orthodox Society With Strong Strings Of Morality & Religion To One That Values Individual Life: P&H HC Grants Protection To Live-In Couple

Case Title: Resuna & Anr. v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 98

"In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual's life above all", the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed recently while hearing a protection plea filed by a live-in couple. The court also remarked that the times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma, added the court.

1. 41.Trafficking Of Human Beings Won't Amount To Jeopardising Sovereignty & Integrity Of India: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title - Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and others [Civil Writ Petition No.35638 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 99

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that trafficking in human beings doesn't amount to jeopardizing the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal further observed that it may jeopardize friendly relations of India with a foreign country but it would be so only if there is tangible evidence available to substantiate the allegations.

2. 42.Public Morality Cannot Overshadow Constitutional Morality: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sunita and Another Vs State Of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 100

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition seeking protection of life and personal liberty, held that the Constitutional right of protection cannot be abridged, except as per the manner established by law. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the Supreme Court has time and time again observed that it is not the Court's domain to intervene in the matters of choice or suitability of a marriage/relationship of an individual.

3. 43.Licensing Authority Can Refuse To Grant Arms Licence Only On The Grounds Enumerated In Section 14 Of Arms Licence Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 101

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition challenging the order and appeal whereby the application for grant of arms license has been rejected, held that the reasons assigned for dismissing an application cannot be different from the ones prescribed under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 14(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. 44.Veracity Of Allegations To Be Evaluated By Trial Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Poisoning Partner

Case Title: Ajay Vs. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 102

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition filed under Section 439 CrPC by a man accused of poisoning the deceased-complainant with whom he was in a relationship, granted bail on the ground that it was a "consensual relationship" and as the investigation stands completed, the veracity of these allegations would be evaluated by the trial Court only.

5. 45.Ordinarily, Bail Shouldn't Be Granted To Accused If Court Is Of Prima Facie View That He Acted With Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Manish Singh @ Golu v. State of UT Chandigarh

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 103

Stressing that cruelty is one of the factors in deciding on bails, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that ordinarily, once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, then such an accused should not be granted bail.

6. 46.Child Adopted Post-Retirement Can't Be Denied Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Others 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 104

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an adoption post-retirement would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the family pension to a child. Merely because the adoption is post retirement which is mainly for the purpose of providing dependency and also some light in the evening of the life of the couple. The same would not as such be good enough to deny the said child the benefit of the family pension merely on account of the fact that the decision as such to adopt was taken at a belated stage.

7. 47.S.437 CrPC Does Not Give Absolute Right To Bail To A Lady Accused In Multiple FIRs For Duping ₹167 Crores: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case where the petitioners conspired and duped several victims of an amount of Rs. 167 crores by alluring innocent persons on the pretext of providing them tenders with National Security Guards (NSG), Manesar, held that there are serious allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners, and no ground is made out to grant them the concession of regular bail.

8. 48."Enough Mental Cruelty Caused To Husband": PH High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Granted In Favour Of Husband On Grounds Of Cruelty

Case title: Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal [FAO-M-272 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 107

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that even one complaint lodged by the wife found to be false against the husband and his family members amounted to cruelty. Even if husband and wife are staying together and husband does not speak to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings can make the life of other spouse miserable, the Court added.

9. 49.Jurisdiction Of Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal Can't Be Invoked When Complainant Woman Is Aged Below 58 Yrs: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Rani versus Additional District Magistrate And Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 106

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a challenge to the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed in response to a maintenance petition filed by a woman claiming to be a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, held that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have invoked its jurisdiction for the reason that the age of the woman was less than 58 years on the relevant date i.e. the date of institution of the proceedings before such Tribunal.

1. 50.S.82 CrPC | 30 Days Period Between Actual Date Of Effecting Proclamation & Date Nominated For Appearance Is Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 109

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a clear period of 30 days starting from the date when a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is actually affected up to the date nominated for causing appearance is mandatory.

1. 51.Punjab & Haryana HC Orders State To Withhold Salary Of Home Secretary Until Payment Of Entire Pensionary Benefits To Widow Of A Class IV Employee

Case Title: Seema Rani Versus Anurag Verma and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 110

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the plea moved by the widow of a Class IV employee of the State, contending her right to pensionary benefits, ordered the salary of the Home Secretary, Punjab, to remain stayed till the entire amount of the pensionary benefits is released to her.

2. 52.Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Arrest Of Proclaimed Offender, Says His Approaching The Court On Own Establishes His Bonafide

Case Title: Surjit Singh Dhaliwal Versus State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently stayed the arrest of a man, who was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court, while directing him to surrender before the Court with a stipulation that he shall be released on bail on the same day, subject to furnishing bail bonds and other appropriate additional conditions.

3. 53.Courts Must Exercise Discretion To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statement After Due Circumspection: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title : Paro and others v. Mahindo

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 111

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur via which petitioner's defense was struck off, held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are directory in nature, however, the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and if it appears that the defendant has attempted to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly.

4. 54.Inadvertent Mistake By Court While Adjourning Matter Can't Take Away Valuable Right Of Party To Lead Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that Merely because an inadvertent mistake was caused by the Court while adjourning the matter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her.

5. 55.While Contesting Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Only Contents Of Plaint Are To Be Seen: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Rakesh Khanna @ Babbu v. Gulzari Lal and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 113

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order vide which the application preferred by the defendant no.1 (petitioner) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for declaration of title was dismissed, held that it is trite that at the time of contesting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen and not those of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or any other pleadings.

6. 56.Parties Are Bound By Statements Made By Their Counsel In Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. The observation was made while disallowing a review application filed against an order on the ground of an 'error apparent'.

7. 57.S.482 CrPC Empowers High Court To Entertain Applications Not Contemplated In CrPC If Required To Meet Ends Of Justice: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Amit v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 116

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that Section 482 of CrPC gives the power to this Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly.

8. 58.Daily Wage Service Rendered By Employee To Be Considered While Computing Pensionary Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

Case Title : Mahavir singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 117

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a writ petition whereby an employee of the Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had sought that the daily wage service rendered by him till his services were regularized should be taken into consideration for computing his pensionary benefits. It further noted that though the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1982, the same was held to be bad by a Labour Court and the Petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of counting his daily wage service as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

9. 59.Undisputed Signatures On The Cheque In Itself Are Not Sufficient For Conviction Under Section 138 Of NI Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Parveen Mehta Versus Vishal Joshi

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 119

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting respondent in Complaint Case of 2012, held that The undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act.

1. 60.Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Case Of Smuggling Of Commercial Quantity Of Heroin From Pakistan To India

Case Title: Rinku Singh Versus Union of India

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 120

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in NCB Crime case filed under provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 to the accused-petitioner who was involved in the smuggling of Commercial quantity of Heroin from Pakistan to India, held that from the reply aforesaid, the role and active involvement of the petitioner is apparent. In view thereof, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

1. 61.Authorities Under Rent Act To Only Ascertain If Premises Are Bonafidely Required By Landlord, Can't Embark On Roving Enquiry: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121

The Punjab and Haryana High Court hile dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the application for directing the respondents-landlord to produce relevant documents in their possession was dismissed, has held that the present petition is nothing but an endeavour to embark on an endeavour not relevant to the matter in dispute. A Court would not embark on a roving and fishing enquiry in order to assist a party to collect evidence.

2. 62.Persons Ineligible To Participate In Tender Process Can't Overcome Disqualification By Entering Into Joint Venture: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122

Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order vide which Sharma Constructions Joint Venture was declared technically non-compliant for e-tender floated by Punjab Agro Industries for the supply of gypsum for agriculture use, on the ground of being ineligible. The Court noted that the expert committee of the authorities had examined the issue detail and found the petitioner to be ineligible. The bench observed that a perusal of the Joint Venture Agreement would indicate that there is no clause indicating as to who would be managing the Joint Venture. On the contrary, the document indicates that in spite of constituting the so called Joint Venture, the constituents/ proprietors would continue to manage their own separate firms.

3. 63.Convict's Sentence Enhanced My Modifying Trial Court Judgment Under Reader's Signature: Punjab & Haryana HC Asks Appellate Court To Conduct Inquiry

Case Title : Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently came across a case where the original order of conviction passed by the Trial Court was modified under the signature of the Reader of the Court, during the pendency of an appeal preferred by the convict against the said judgment, thereby enhancing the sentence of the convict from 2 months to two years, held that though all these points need to be decided by the Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, who herself is administrative head of the Sessions Division, Tarn Taran and on the face of it, it requires an inquiry as to how the corrections were made under the signatures of the Reader of the Court concerned, thereby enhancing the sentence, though in the original order, passed by the trial Court, it was only directed that instead of Section 323 IPC, which is mentioned at two places, Section 326 IPC be substituted at one place and there was no such direction to enhance the sentence from 02 months to 02 years.

4. 64.Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Using Derogatory & Offensive Language Against Shri Guru Nanak Dev

Case Title: Vasu Syal Versus State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of using derogatory and offensive language against Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji and hurting the religious feelings of the people. The bench allowed the petition for bail on the ground that there is no apprehension that the petitioner may evade or otherwise interfere with the trial. The court also observed that the petitioner is in custody since November 13, 2021 and the investigation in the case is complete and a challan has been filed.

5. 65.S.145 Evidence Act | Attention Of Witness Must Be Drawn To Previous Statement If It Is To Be Used For Purpose Of Contradicting Him: P&H High Court

Case Title : Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an appeal filed by three appellants against the order whereby they were convicted for robbery, if the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

6. 66.Executive Can't Exempt Use Of Copyrighted Sound Recordings In Marriage Functions, "Fair Use" To Be Decided In Facts Of Each Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Novex Communications Private Limited v. Union of India and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 115

While quashing a public notice/letter exempting use of copyrighted sound recordings in marriage functions from liability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the executive has no authority under the Copyright Act to clarify or interpret the applicability of the law through public notices. Thus, the executive cannot take away the right of a copyright owner to initiate proceedings for infringement of copyright.

7. Widow Can't Claim Inheritance Of Property Through Natural Succession If Husband Was Not Owner Of Suit Land On Date Of His Death: P&H High Court

Case Title : Jaswant Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh and others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the widow claiming right over the suit property on the basis of natural succession, held that appellant's husband was not the owner of the suit land on the date of his death, therefore, the question of inheritance of the estate does not arise.

8. 68.'Similarly Situated': Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Single Judge Order Retrospectively Granting Promotional Benefit To Employee At Par With Junior

Case Title: Bhakra Beas Management Board & another Versus Jagdish Ram

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 126

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the order of a single Judge, directing the Bhakra Beas Management Board to give the benefit of 9 years promotional scale to one of its employee, (original petitioner) since the benefit had been extended to a junior.

9. 69.Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies MACT Order, Permits Release Of Compensation Amount From 3 Yrs Fixed Deposit To Claimant

Case Title: Ayyub Khan and Anr VERSUS Pratap Gurjar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 127

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed the plea of bereaved parents, seeking release of 50% compensation amount that was granted towards loss of their child in a motor accident, to be released from 3 years Fixed Deposit. Justice Alka Sarin referred to the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain vs. Irfan Ahammed, [2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563], where the Supreme Court held that the amount of compensation awarded in favor of the mothers should not be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.

1. 70.NDPS Act | FSL Report Goes To Root Of Case, Challan Filed Without It Is Incomplete: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Rohtash @ Raju v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 128

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, FSL report goes to the root of the case and hence a charge sheet filed without it cannot be treated as a complete chargesheet.

1. 71."Premature": Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Lawrence Bishnoi's Plea Filed Over Apprehension Of Fake Encounter By Punjab Police

Case title - Lawrence Bishnoi v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 129

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Lawrence Bishnoi in connection with the murder of renowned Punjabi Singer Sidhu Moosewala 29, seeking necessary security arrangements, apprehending a fake encounter by the Punjab Police. Calling the petition 'premature', the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur took into account the submission made by Advocate General, Punjab that Bishnoi has not been nominated as an accused in connection with Moosewala's death, therefore, Bishnoi's apprehensions are completely premature.

2. 72.NDPS Accused In Custody Since Over 2 Yrs, Only Three Of Eight Witnesses Examined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail

Case Title : Malook Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 130

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to an accused, incarcerated since over two years in connection with alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. 73.Mere Small Distance No Reason To Transfer Matrimonial Suit, Wife Can Instruct Her Counsel Whenever Her Presence Is Not Essential: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Manpreet Kaur Versus Gurbaksh Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 131

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer petition invoking Section 24 of CrPC filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that the distance of sixty kilometers between Bathinda and Faridkot is small, hence it is not an overwhelming reason for this Court to order the transfer of the matter.

4. Natural Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Re-Assessment Order Stating Reasonable Time Ought To Be Given To Respond To Show Cause

Case Title: Mukesh Mittal Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 132

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when a draft assessment order/show cause notice is issued to an assessee, reasonable time ought to be furnished to respond to the notice, so as to comply with the principles of natural justice.

5. 75.Punjab & Haryana HC Grants ₹95 Lakh Compensation To Minor Who Got Electrocuted From Live Wire Lying On Street, Resulting In Amputation Of Arms

Case Title: Ishiqa @ Yashika Vs State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 133

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam to pay compensation of Rs. 95 lakh to the petitioner, a minor girl who got electrocuted from a broken electric pole lying on the street with live electric wires attached to it, resulting in amputation of both arms.

6. 76.Taking Away The Right Of Candidate To Be Considered In General Category If He Is Not Found Entitled To Reservation Sought By Him Violative Of Article14,16:P&H HC

Case Title: Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors.| CWP-2667-2022 | 28 April 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 134

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in matters pertaining to the appointment to any office under the State, the general category seats are to be filled from the merit list first and thereafter, the reserved category seats are to be allocated as per the assigned quota. Thus, regardless of whether a candidate is found or not found entitled to reservation sought by him, he still has a right to be considered in an open general category as per the intent of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, Justice Arun Monga held.

7. 77.NDPS Act | Passing Secret Tip About Illicit Drugs To Gazetted Officer Before Apprehending Accused Not Reason To Doubt Prosecution Story: P&H High Court

Case Title: Jaswinder Singh @ Jass VERSUS State of Punjab

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 135

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to doubt the prosecution's story in a NDPS case, merely on the ground that the alleged secret information on the basis of which the accused was apprehended was shared with a Gazetted officer, even before his apprehension.

8. 78.Rigors Of S.37 NDPS Act Can Be Relaxed In Cases Involving Commercial Quantity If There Is Delay In Conclusion Of Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Ghanso @ Kalo v. State of Punjab

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 136

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that on account of delay in the conclusion of trial, rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be relaxed to an extent and prayer of the accused for bail can be considered despite that she was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband.

9. 79.Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail On Ground Of Compromise, Says Complainant May Be Influenced By Co-Accused Who Are Yet To Be Arrested

Case Title: Rohit @ Mirchi Versus State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 137

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a petition seeking regular bail of the accused in FIR relating to physical abuse and abduction of complainant's brother, who later committed suicide, held that the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail.

1. 80.Additional Issues If Necessary Can Be Framed At Any Point Of Time In Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Kanta Devi and Others versus Paripuran Singh and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 138

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a petition challenging Trial Court's order vide which application by the plaintiff-petitioners for framing an additional issue was dismissed, held that an additional issue can be framed at any point of time during trial.

1. 81.Unregistered Agreement To Sell Being In Contravention Of Registration Act Can't Be Accepted For Establishing Possession Of Property: P&H High Court

Case Title: Phool Singh and Another versus Amit Kumar and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 139

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an unregistered agreement to sell, being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be accepted by the Court for granting possession in favour of the claimant party.

2. 82.Constitutional Court Not Constrained By Procedural Law Unless There Is Specific Prohibition: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Robin Gupta v. MS Stratford Educational Management Pvt Ltd And Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 141

Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an application for review of a judgment wherein revision petition filed by the plaintiff in an agreement to sell matter was dismissed, held that the Court has sufficient powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 151 of CPC to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.

3. 83.Municipal Body Can't Take Pre-Emptive Action Against Alleged Illegal Construction On Lease Land During Pendency Of Suit: P&H High Court

Case Title : Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 142

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a petition seeking action against alleged illegal construction raised by private respondent on a land allegedly leased to him by the Municipal Committee, held that since the respondent has already filed a civil suit thus, Municipal Committee was justified in not taking a final action during the pendency of the aforementioned suit.

4. 84.National Highways Act, 1956 | Disputes Regarding Compensation Payable For Land Acquisition Must Be Referred To Arbitration: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: National Highway Authority of India Versus The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition-cum-District Revenue Officer, Ludhiana and others, with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 143

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a dispute with regard to the assessment of the nature of the land to be acquired by the National Highway Authority of India and its market value. The bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that as per the scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956, in case of any dispute, the amount is to be assessed by the Arbitrator, nominated by the Central Government.

5. 85.Filing Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications Without Substantive Change In Circumstances Is 'Abuse Of Process': P&H High Court Imposes 50K Cost

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Versus State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 144

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail by a person apprehending arrest, without substantial change in circumstances, amounts to an abuse of process of Court. Dismissing one such application, Justice Vikas Bahl imposed Rs.50,000/- cost, payable to District Legal Services Authority within a month.

6. 86.Factories Act Is Not In Substitution Of Any Other Statute, Does Not Override Indian Penal Code: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Dhanpreet Singh And Anr V. State Of Punjab

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 145

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a matter wherein usage of non-updated machinery led to the death of two labourers, held that provision of Factories Act, 1948 are not in substitution but are supplemental to any other Act; and thus they do not override the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

7. 87.S.47-A(3) Of Indian Stamp Act Permits Collector To Issue Suo Motu Notice Within 3 Yrs From Date Of Registration Of Instrument: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Satpal And Others Versus State Of Punjab And Others

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Ph) 146

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, if the Collector concerned believes that proper duty has not been paid on a respective property, he may give the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and hold an enquiry under sub section (2).

8. 88.Even In The Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement, The Matter Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Section 18 Of The MSMED Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: M/s SGM Packaging Industries versus M/s Goyal Plywood LLP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 147

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that even in the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter can be referred to arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act).

9. Determination Of Paternity Not Moot Point When Factum Of Marriage Itself Is Disputed: P&H High Court Sets Aside Order For DNA Test In Maintenance Plea

Case Title : Smt. Satya Roopa Sinha v. Sarwan Kumar Mehto

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 148

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition against the order passed by the Family Court, allowing respondent's application seeking DNA test to determine the paternity of the petitioner's child in response to her maintenance petition, held that since the marriage is disputed by the respondent, order of DNA test to determine paternity is not warranted.

1. 90.Land Acquisition | S.3(H)(4) National Highways Act Enables Non-Owners Interested In Compensation To Approach Competent Authority: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Deepali Sharma and another Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Land Acquisition Collector, Mohali and another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 149

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a writ petition pertaining to land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, has held that Section 3(H)(4) thereof enables any person interested in the compensation, to file an application to the competent authority with a request to forward the dispute with regard to entitlement or apportionment to the Principal Civil Court.

1. 91.Person With Single Testicle Not Unfit To Serve Indian Navy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Union of India and others v. Neeraj Mor

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 150

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that having 'single testicle' is not a disability that would render a candidate unfit for serving the Indian Navy. In reference to an order passed by the Centre declaring the Respondent herein unfit for enrolment in the Navy for the reason that he has a single testicle, a bench comprising Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri observed.

2. 92.Unscrupulous Litigants Withdraw Anticipatory Bail Plea To Avoid Dismissal & File Successive Pleas, Waste Judicial Time: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title : Bhunesh v State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 151

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently deprecated the practice of filing successive bail applications, without any adequate ground/ change in circumstances. It also voiced concern over the unfortunate trend being adopted by "unscrupulous litigants" in which anticipatory bail is argued and when the Court is about to dismiss the petition, in order to avoid a detailed adverse order, the counsel seeks to withdraw the petition and after some days, without any justification, files a second anticipatory bail petition.

3. 93.O7 R11 CPC | Plaint Can Be Rejected Only When Court Comes To "Definite Conclusion" That Suit Is Not Maintainable/ Barred Under Law: P&H High Court

Case Title : Yashpal Gulati v. Kulwinder Kaur and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 152

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the power to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be exercised only when the Court comes to a "definite conclusion" that the suit is either not maintainable or barred under the law. The bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal added that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC enlists various grounds on which the plaint can be rejected.

4. 94.Can Presume Marriage Has Broken Down If Separation Has Continued For Long & One Of Parties Move Divorce Plea: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case title - Som Dutt v. Babita Rani

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 153

The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed recently that once the parties have separated and separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and any one of them presents a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down.

5. 95.Man Arrested Based On Phone Calls, Money Trail Connected With NDPS Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail

Case Title : Krishan v. State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 154

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied bail to a man, arraigned as an accused in a FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and arrested, merely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.

6. 96.Defamation Suit Filed With Quantified Damages Amounts To 'Money Suit'; Plaintiff Required To Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fee: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Manjit Kaul Versus Mr. Anil Kumar

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 155

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suit claiming quantified damages for alleged defamation amounts to a 'money suit' and hence, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed.

7. 97.Anticipatory Bail Can Be Denied Solely For The Reason That Party Tried To Mislead Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Deen Mohd. Versus State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 156

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld a trial court's order denying anticipatory bail to an accused, solely on the ground that he had tried to mislead the Court by concealing facts regarding dismissal of his earlier plea.

8. 98.Muslim Girl Over 15 Yrs Of Age Can Enter Into Marriage With Person Of Her Choice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case title - Gulam Deen and another v. State of Punjab and others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 157

The Punjab And Haryana High Court last week granted protection to a Muslim Girl (16 Year Old) who married a Muslim boy (21 year old) while noting that she is of Marriageable Age under Muslim Personal Law.

9. 99.'To Ensure Transparency In Allotment': Punjab & Haryana High Court Approves Auction Policy Providing Non-Disclosure Of Reserved Price

Case Title: Neelam Kumari Versus Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula & another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 158

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the auction policy of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula which provided for non-disclosure of the reserved price. The bench comprising Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Lalit Batra held that the reserved price was not disclosed for confidential reasons and to ensure transparency process of allotment via e-auction.

1. 100.Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Father Allegedly Conniving With Son Who Married Multiple Times Without Divorcing Disabled Spouse

Case Title : Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 159

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying anticipatory bail to the father in a case where he was allegedly acting in connivance with his son who solemnized various marriages without getting divorce from his disabled spouse, held that in view of the seriousness of the allegation and to unravel the truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

1. 101.Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act Does Not Envisage Agreement To Adopt 'Unborn Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Pooja Rani v. State of Punjab and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 160

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case of adoption of an unborn child, held that no such provision as to give effect to adoption of an unborn child is envisaged under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

2. 102.Acquiescence, Delay & Laches Are Grounds To Dismiss Claim Sought To Be Raised At Belated Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 161

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that the law helps those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over it. The bench comprising Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri further added that acquiescence, delay and laches are well recognised exceptions to dismiss the claim sought to be raised at a belated stage.

3. 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines For Arrest Applicable To Offences Punishable With Less Than 7 Yrs Imprisonment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 162

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar with respect to procedure for arrest shall be applicable to offences punishable with less than or up to seven years of imprisonment.

4. 104.NI Act | Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC Can't Be Invoked To Circumvent Due Procedure Of Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 163

In a case relating to dishonour of cheque wherein the limitation period for invoking proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had elapsed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Petitioner cannot invoke Section 482 of CrPC seeking directions to indirectly restore the said right.

5. 105.Girls Attaining Pinnacle Of Education Makes Country Proud: P&H High Court Orders Release Of Man's Passport To Travel Abroad For Daughter's Convocation

Case Title: Kanwalpreet Singh Kalra Versus State of Punjab & another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 164

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently came to the rescue of a father precluded from attending his daughter's convocation at a foreign University, on account of impounding of his passport due to pendency of a criminal case against him.

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. 1.Surge In COVID Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court To Function Through Virtual Mode Only From January 5

Re: Situation arising due to outbreak of the novel Coronavirus (Covid 19)

In view of the sudden surge in Covid-19 cases in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and Union Territory Chandigarh and with a view to ensuring the safety of Judges, Advocates, Staff, and Litigants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided to hear cases only though Virtual Mode from January 5. The decision has been taken on the recommendation of the Special Committee of the HC in consultation with Additional Solicitor General, Union of India, Advocates General for the State of Punjab & Haryana, Senior Standing Counsel & Public Prosecutor U.T. Chandigarh, President, Senior Advocates Bar Association, President & Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.

2. 2.Drugs Case: P&H High Court Seeks Punjab Govt's Reply On Akali Leader Bikram Majithia's Anticipatory Bail Plea

Bikram Singh Majithia vs. State of Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notice to the Punjab Government on Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's anticipatory bail plea filed in connection with a Drugs case registered against him, however, his arrest has not been stayed.

3. 3.PM Security Breach: Punjab & Haryana Bar Council's Chairman Writes To High Court Chief Justice To Take Suo Moto Cognizance

PM Security Breach: Punjab & Haryana Bar Council's Chairman Writes To High Court Chief Justice To Take Suo Moto Cognizance

The Chairman of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council has written a letter (in his personal capacity) to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to take Suo moto cognizance regarding major security lapse in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Security during his recent visit to Punjab. The Letter has been written by Minderjeet Yadav seeking indulgence of the Chief Justice of the High Court for taking cognizance of the major security lapse w.r.t. a high threat perception individual/SPG's blue book protectee, due to the sketchy approach of the Government of Punjab.

4. 4.Drugs Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Protection To Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia

Drugs Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Protection To Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted interim protection from arrest to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in Drugs Case on the condition that he shall co-operate in the police probe. A detailed order in this regard is awaited.

5. 5.Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Election Commission's Reply Over Ensuring 'Drug-Free Elections' In Punjab

Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and other connected matters

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the response of the State Election Commission, Punjab to ensure 'Drug-free Elections' and for this purpose, the Election Commission of India has also been impleaded in the matter. The Court sought the reply of the Election Commission after observing that the assembly elections for the state of Punjab have already been notified and after taking cognizance of the fact that there have been incidents of 'Drugs for Vote' in elections in Punjab.

6. 6.Prolonged Incarceration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suspends Sentence Of 10 NDPS Accused Citing Article 21

Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and other connected matters

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed 10 petitions filed seeking suspension of sentence in cases under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by referring to Article 21 of the Constitution on account of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners in those matters. Importantly, while relying upon SC's 1994 Judgment [Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India, 1994(6) SCC 731], wherein it had held that a person who had undergone five years of pre-convict custody was entitled to be released on bail, on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that though this judgment related to undertrials and only one time directions were issued, however, the directions in no way can be said to be against the legislative intent but are in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. 7.Entire Police Station Including Interrogation Rooms Need To Be Under CCTV Coverage As Per SC's Order: High Court To Punjab, Haryana DGPs

Kaushal v. State of Haryana and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that as per the directions of the Supreme Court, no part of the police stations should be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance and this CCTV Coverage would necessarily include the interrogation rooms. The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed thus as it sought the response of DGP, Haryana, the DGP, Punjab, as also the DGP, U.T., Chandigarh regarding the compliance of the Supreme Court's order in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others (2021) 1 SCC 184. Here it may be noted that in Paramvir Singh Sain's case, the Supreme Court had observed that the State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them.

8. 8.Punjab Polls: High Court Directs Police To Give 7-Day Notice Before Arresting 3 'AAP' Leaders Fearing Political Vendetta

Lavpreet Singh @ Lavepreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week directed the Punjab Police to give 7 days' notice to 3 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders before arresting them. These leaders had moved the court claiming that they are being harassed due to political vendetta and a case could be filed against them under IPC or NDPS Act. This order holds importance as Punjab Legislative Assembly elections will be held on 14 February 2022 for a total of 117 seats of the 16th Assembly of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.

9. 9.Drugs Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Extends Interim Protection Granted To Akali Leader Bikram Majithia Till Jan 24

Bikram Singh Majithia vs. State Of Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today extended till January 24, the interim protection from arrest granted to Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in the drugs case registered against him. Though the Bench of Justice Lisa Gill, observed that it was not inclined to adjourn the matter, however, since Majithia's Lawyer, R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate has contracted COVID-19 and there was a request for an adjournment on this ground, the Bench acceded to the request.

1. 10.Protection Petitions: P&H High Court Makes Declaration Regarding Status Of Minor Children From First Marriage Mandatory

Protection Petitions: P&H High Court Makes Declaration Regarding Status Of Minor Children From First Marriage Mandatory

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it mandatory for parties moving the High Court with their protection pleas in case of Live-in relationships or second marriage, despite subsisting marriages, to declare the status of the minor children from their first marriage, if any.

1. 11."Intention Of Punjab, Haryana States Present But Efforts Lagging": High Court On Slow Pace Of Probe In Cases Against MPs/MLAs

Court On Its Own Motion vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Perusing the status report filed by the States of Punjab and Haryana regarding the probe into the criminal cases against the Lawmakers (MPs/MLAs), the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday observed that the intention to probe cases on the part of the states is present, however, their actions in this regard are lagging.

2. 12.COVID Surge: Punjab & Haryana High Court Extends Interim Orders Passed By It & Courts Subordinate To It Till February 28

Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India and others

Restoring a suo moto case registered in the year 2021, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and courts subordinate to it, including the Tribunals till February 28, 2022. This has been done as the court has noted that owing to a sudden and alarming surge in the number of people, who have been tested Covid positive, the situation has again turned grim and extremely unsafe.

3. 13.Punjab & Haryana High Court To Operate Via Virtual Mode With Full Strength From February 1

Re: Situation arising due to outbreak of the novel Coronavirus (Covid 19)

In view of the decline in COVID cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided to hear cases via virtual mode with full strength from February 1.

4. 14.Breaking | Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Haryana Law Granting 75% Job Quota For Locals In Pvt Sector

Faridabad Industries Association v. State of Haryana and Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted an interim stay on the Haryana government's law providing for 75% reservation for state domicile in the private sector on a Writ petition challenging the vires of the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020.

5. 15.'Casteist' Remark Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Actress Munmun Dutta

Mun Mun Dutta Vs State Of Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted interim anticipatory bail to Actress Munmun Dutta (best known for her portrayal of Babita Iyer in the popular Hindi serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah) over 'Bhangi' remark, a casteist slur, allegedly made by her in a video posted in social media.

6. 16.Can A State Restrict Employment On The Basis Of Domicile?: Punjab & Haryana High Court To Examine

Faridabad Industries Association v. State of Haryana and another

While putting an interim stay on the implementation of Haryana state's law providing for 75% reservation for state domicile in the private sector, the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscored that the core issue which is to be examined is - whether any State can restrict employment (even in the private sector) on the basis of domicile.

7. 17.[CCTVs In Police Stations] Punjab, Haryana Submit Timeline In High Court To Implement Supreme Court's Order

Kamla Devi v. State of Punjab and others along with connected pleas

The Punjab and Haryana States have submitted a timeline in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to implement the order of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others, wherein, the State and Union Territory Governments were directed by the Apex Court CCTVto ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them.

8. 18.P&H High Court To Hear Challenge To Haryana's 75% Job Reservation For Locals Law On March 3, Centre Asked To File Reply

P&H High Court To Hear Challenge To Haryana's 75% Job Reservation For Locals Law On March 3, Centre Asked To File Reply

The Punjab and Haryana High Court will hear a challenge to the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000, on March 3. The Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain has also asked the Central Government to file its response to the bunch of please challenging the law.

9. 19.[Chandigarh Electricity Crisis] Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Suo-Moto Cognizance, Seeks Presence Of Chief Engineer

[Chandigarh Electricity Crisis] Punjab & Haryana High Court Takes Suo-Moto Cognizance, Seeks Presence Of Chief Engineer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today took suo moto cognizance of the Electricity Crisis In UT Chandigarh and has sought the presence of the Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh to appear before the Court tomorrow to apprise the Court about the measures being taken to alleviate the crisis.

1. 20.Gurmeet Singh Not A "Hardcore' Prisoner": Haryana Defends Move To Release Him On Furlough Before High Court

Gurmeet Singh Not A "Hardcore' Prisoner": Haryana Defends Move To Release Him On Furlough Before High Court

The Haryana State has defended its move to release Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh on Furlough (for a period of three weeks from February 7 to February 27) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by stating that he is not a hardcore prisoner.

1. 21."Can't Absolve UOI Of Its Duty To File Reply On Pleas Against Haryana's 75% Job Quota For Locals Law": P&H High Court

Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed the Union Of India to filed its response on a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.

2. 22."Install CCTV Cameras In All Police Stations Including Interrogation Rooms By May 10": HC Directs Punjab, Haryana & UT Chandigarh

Kamla Devi v. State of Punjab and others along with connected pleas

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the States of Punjab, Haryana, and UT Chandigarh to install CCTV cameras in all police stations including the interrogation rooms with 18 months storage by May 10, 2022.

3. 23.Time To Shift Perspective From 'Didactics' Of Orthodox Society: P&H High Court Orders Police Protection For A Live In Couple

Jai Nrain and another v. State of Punjab and others

While granting police protection to a live-in relationship couple, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last week observed that there is a need to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual's life above all.

4. 24.Punjab & Haryana HC Again Directs Centre To File Reply On Pleas Challenging Haryana's 75% Job Quota For Locals Law

Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again directed the Union Government to file its response on a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.

5. 25.Supreme Court Seeks Records Of 2021 Senior Designations From Punjab & Haryana HC On Lawyers' Challenge

Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab and Haryana & Ors|WP(C) 687/2021

The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for the records from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to the senior designation conferred to 19 advocates last year.

6. 26.Justice Ajay Tewari Of PH High Court Recuses From Hearing Pleas Challenging Haryana's 75% Job Quota For Locals Law

Faridabad Industries Association V. State Of Haryana And Another

Justice Ajay Tewari of Punjab and Haryana High Court today recused himself from hearing a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000. Following his recusal, now the matter will be sent before the Chief Justice to place the same before an appropriate bench. Till now, the Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain had been hearing the matter.

7. 27.Punjab And Haryana High Court Withdraws Order Extending Life Of Interim Orders In View Of Improved COVID Situation

Court on its own motion v. Union of India and others

With improvement in the COVID situation in the states of Punjab, Haryana, and UT Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday withdrew its April 2021 order extending the life of interim orders pertaining to the functioning of courts, orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, so far unexecuted, etc. It may be noted that restoring a suo moto case registered in the year 2021, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in January 2022, extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and courts subordinate to it, including the Tribunals till February 28, 2022.

8. 28.Supreme Court Grants Bail To An Accused On Ground Of Co Accused Being On Bail & Likelihood Of Trial Not Being Completed

Case Title: Ashwani Oberoi v State of Haryana| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8695/2021

Taking into consideration that the co accused who was on bail and there was no likelihood of the trial being completed soon, the Supreme Court recently granted bail to an accused who had been in custody since 2020.

9. 29.Punjab's Advocate General Deepinder S. Patwalia Resigns In View Of Apparent Change In Government

Punjab's Advocate General Deepinder S. Patwalia Resigns In View Of Apparent Change In Government

Advocate-General for Punjab Deepinder Singh Patwalia has resigned from his post in view of an apparent change in the State Government. It may be noted that as per the official results of the recently concluded state assembly elections, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is set to form the Government in the state.

1. 30."Specify Proposal To Deal With Cases Of Live In Couples Not Of Marriageable Age": Punjab & Haryana High Court To Centre

Rohit Kumar v. Stae of U.T. Chandigarh and others and connected pleas

Noting that the Court is being flooded with pleas filed by live-In Couples, not of marriageable age, seeking protection of life and liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Union Government to specify its proposal to deal with such cases. Observing that no Act governs any such relationship and once a person has attained majority in terms of the Majority Act, 1875, (i.e. 18 years of age), it would be difficult for a court to refuse such protection, the Bench Justice Amol Rattan Singh sought a response of the centre in this regard.

1. 31.Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu To Be The New Advocate General For Punjab

Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu To Be The New Advocate General For Punjab

Senior Advocate Anmol Ratan Singh Sidhu has been appointed as Punjab's new Advocate General. The post fell vacant after senior advocate Deepinder Singh Patwalia resigned from his post, in view of an apparent change in the State Government.

2. 32.Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Resigns

Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Resigns

Justice Ajay Tewari of Punjab and Haryana High Court has resigned from his office. He was due to retire on April 6, 2022. He is the second seniormost judge of the High court after Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha.

3. 33.Punjab And Haryana High Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging Haryana's 75% Job Quota For Locals Law

Case title - IMT Industrial Association and Another V/S State Of Haryana And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved its judgment on a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.

4. 34.Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu Appointed As The New Advocate General For Punjab

Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu Appointed As The New Advocate General For Punjab

Senior Advocate Anmol Ratan Singh Sidhu has been appointed as Punjab's new Advocate General by State's Governor today.

5. 35.Whether HC While Exercising Writ Jurisdiction In Respect Of One Land Owner Can Issue General Directions Applicable To All Execution Cases? Supreme Court To Examine

Case Title: M/S Shivanand Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Haryana & Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6227/2022

The Supreme Court recently agreed to examine as to whether the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of one landowner can issue general directions applicable to all the execution cases pending in the State of Haryana.

6. 36.Punjab And Haryana High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From March 28

Punjab And Haryana High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From March 28

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana will resume hearing of cases through physical mode from 28.03.2022.

7. 37.Punjab And Haryana High Court Seeks Suggestions Of Bar To 'Streamline Esteemed Principles Of Legal Ethics'

Case Title: Amanpreet and others v. State of Punjab and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has invited suggestions from the Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and also the Bar Association of the High Court through its President for the purpose of streamlining the esteemed principles of legal ethics which should be imbibed in the legal system.

The Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri sought suggestions after it invoked its ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 CrPC to explore the un-attended areas of legal ethics pertaining to the duty of an Advocate towards the Court and his client.

Court stressing that the subject of legal ethics has hitherto been ignored, the Court remarked,

"The duty of an Advocate towards the Court and towards his client is of utmost importance for the survival of the Institution itself. Therefore, an endeavour can be made for future purposes as to what safeguards and steps should be followed to restore and streamline the esteemed principles of legal ethics which should be imbibed in the legal system. Therefore, this Court invokes its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explore the un-attended areas of legal ethics pertaining to the duty of an Advocate towards the Court and his client."

8. 38.Short Duration Of Marriage Not Ground To Disallow Organ Donation By Spouse When Case Is Verified On All Legal Parameters.: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Title: Manpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Ors.

Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that the duration of marriage is not a ground to discard the willingness of the petitioner to donate her kidney for saving the life of her husband.

Court stated that the identity and consent of the petitioner as required have already been verified as required under rule 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 2014 and there is no greed involved nor is there any kind of pressure exerted upon the petitioner to donate her kidney and the same has been verified by the police. There are various statutory provisions that have been promulgated to prevent trafficking and commercial practices but there is nothing on record to show any malpractice, greed, or pressure in the instant case.

While stating that the petitioner and her husband are not foreign nationals, the court held that there is no legal bar attached to the petitioner for donating one of the kidneys to her husband. As far as the authorization committee's rejection of the case is concerned, the court held that it was done on the basis of the short duration of marriage between the petitioner and the recipient but the same is not a ground to discard the willingness of one of the spouses to donate a kidney to the other.

9. 39.Plaintiff Enjoys Status Of Dominus Litis & Has Right To Pursue His Claim Against Anyone He Thinks Fit: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Ms Shree Bhagwati Road Lines and Another v. MS GBTL Limited and Others

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there was no privity of contract between respondent No.1-plaintiff and the said proposed defendant which is why they cannot be construed to be a necessary party.

The bench comprising Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta concluded by stating that the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has a right to pursue claim against anyone.

Even otherwise, the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit.

1. 40."Section 89 CPC Extends To Compromises Entered Outside Court Also": Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Refund Of Court Fees

Case Title: Banwari Lal v. Mool Chand and Others 

Punjab and Haryana High Court while setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court held that the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of court fees.

The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin held that Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is interpreted and extended to compromises entered into between the parties outside the Court also. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the settlement has taken place and the suit has been decreed in terms of the said settlement.

Section 89 CPC has been interpreted and has been extended to compromises entered into between the parties outside the Court also. In the present case the settlement has taken place and the suit has been decreed in terms of the said settlement.

1. 41.Irreversible Loss Will Be Cause If Allegations Of Threat To Life Are True: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Protection To Live-In Couple

Case Title: Gulafsha and another v. State of Punjab and others

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition invoked under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by a live-in couple, seeking direction to the State to protect them from their family members held that if the allegations of apprehension turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss.

The bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara further stated that this protection provided to the petitioners must not be flaunted, and places of threat must be avoided by them.

2. 42."Court Shouldn't Be Swayed By Emotions Tilting Towards Fairer Sex": PH High Court Rejects Wife's Plea To Transfer Matrimonial Case

Case Title: Rinky Rani v. Daljit Kumar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a woman who sought transfer of the matrimonial case to her home district as it observed that merely because the applicant is a wife, the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting toward the fairer sex.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh observed that the wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs and rather the present petition is nothing but a sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law and more so the invocation of a jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be rightly inferred unless and until there are bonafide compelling reasons for the Court to come to the aid of the applicant and dismissed the plea.

3. 43.Anticipatory Bail Plea On Behalf Of Proclaimed Offender Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Inam v. State Of Haryana

Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the warrant and is declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

4. 44.Once Suit For Permanent Injunction Stood Decreed, Executing Court Cannot Render Said Decree Nugatory: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Case Title: Yoginder Kumar Sud versus Thakur Rajiv Singh and Another

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once a suit for the permanent injunction was decreed the same cannot be declared nugatory by the Executing Court stating that the petitioner ought to file a suit for partition.

Justice Alka Sarin added that the Executing Court cannot render a decree nugatory once the suit for permanent injunction stood decreed which it did so in the present case and by doing so it has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it.

5. 45.S.17(2) Working Journalists Act | Notice To Employer Not Mandatory Before Making Reference To Adjudicatory Mechanism: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others

Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that whereas adjudicatory mechanism under the Working Journalists Act is intended to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer qua the question of claim raised by the employee, the employer cannot claim any hearing before making of the reference by the appropriate government under Section 17(2) of the Act.

The bench comprising Justice Rajbir Sehrawat held that the action of the appropriate government in referring the matter to the Labour Court is in tune with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

6. 46.Mother Has Preferential Right To Custody Of Minor Below 5 Yrs But Utmost Consideration Is Child's Welfare: P&H HC Rejects Habeas Corpus Against Father

Case Title: Poonam Kalsi v. State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Custody of the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful and therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of habeas corpus in favour of the petitioner.

Justice Sant Parkash further held that while making orders for the appointment of guardians of minors, the most important consideration should be given to the welfare of the minor. Court further added that the legal rights of the mother must be understood subject to provisions of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

7. 47.Kumar Vishwas' Plea To Quash FIR Filed Over Comments On Arvind Kejriwal: Punjab & Haryana HC Reserves Order On Interim Relief

Case title - Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab and Anr.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved its order on interim relief sought by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and poet Kumar Vishwas who has approached the High Court to quash the FIR registered against him by the Punjab Police in connection with his statements against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Essentially, Vishwas has sought a stay on any coercive action against himself, a stay on the investigation, and a stay on his arrest/consequent proceedings against himself during the pendency of his petition filed for seeking quashing of FIR.

8. 48.Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Relief To BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga In Case Over Alleged Statements Against Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal

Case title - Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State Of Punjab And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga in a case registered against him for his alleged criminal intimidating statement against the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal. Noting that the offences listed in the FIR are all punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu directed the Punjab State Government to strictly adhere to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014(8) SCC 273.

9. 49.Plea In Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Postponement Of Haryana JS (Mains) Exam-2021 On Ground Of Clash With MP Civil Judge (Pre) Exam Date

A Writ petition has been moved before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking postponement of Mains Examination of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)- 2021 in view of its clash with the date announced for conducting the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam-2021.

In all, 63 petitioners who have qualified Preliminary exam of HCS (Judicial Branch) Pre Exam 2021 have moved the High Court seeking postponement and rescheduling of the Mains Examination in a manner so as to ensure that the same does not coincide/clash with the MP CJ's Preliminary Exam-2021 being conducted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

1. 50.President Accepts Resignation Of Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court

The President has accepted the resignation tendered by Justice Ajay Tewari Of Punjab And Haryana High Court. The notification to the above effect, issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justices says:

"Shri Justice Ajay Tewari has tendered his resignation from the office of Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, in pursuance of proviso (a) to clause (1) of Article 21 7 of the Constitution, with effect from 15th March, 2022 (afternoon)."

1. 51.Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Arrest Of Dr. Kumar Vishwas In A Case Over His Comments On Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal

Case title - Kumar Vishwas v. State of Punjab and Anr. [CRM-M-17450-2022]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the arrest of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and poet Kumar Vishwas in a case registered against him by the Punjab Police in connection with the statements made by him on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara issued the order today on Kumar Vishwas's plea challenging the FIR and seeking a stay on any coercive action against himself, a stay on the investigation, and a stay on his arrest/consequent proceedings against himself.

2. 52.Supreme Court Stays Holding Of Haryana JS(Mains) Exam From May 6-8 Due To Clash With MP Judicial Exams

Case Title: Nisha Kumari and Ors v. Haryana Public Service Commission and Anr| WP(C) 310/2022

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the holding of the Mains Examination of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch)- 2021 from May 6 to May 8 in view of the clash with the date announced for conducting the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam-2021. Taking note of the fact that the MP Judicial Service exam is being held on May 6, a bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice JK Maheshwari passed the interim order to postpone the Haryana exam.

3. 53.Tajinder Bagga Arrest Row: Punjab Govt Moves High Court For Release Of Its Police Officials Allegedly Detained By Haryana Police

Another significant development has taken place in the ongoing BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga Arrest Row as the Punjab Government has moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a habeas corpus plea for the release of its officials from the alleged illegal custody of the Haryana Police. It may be noted that Bagga was arrested by the Punjab Police however, with the intervention of the Harayana Police and on the strength of a Delhi Court's order, Delhi Police was able to bring Bagga back to Delhi in the evening after taking him under their Custody from Thanesar police Station, Kurukshetra (Haryana).

4. 54.Tajinder Bagga Arrest Row: Punjab And Haryana High Court Adjourns Hearing Till May 10 In Punjab Govt's Habeas Plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today adjourned the hearing till May 10 in the Punjab Government's habeas corpus plea for the release of its officials from the alleged illegal custody of the Haryana Police.

5. 55."He Was Released From Custody Of Punjab Police Illegally": Punjab Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga

A Local Court in Punjab (SAS Nagar) has issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga. The court has also termed the release of Bagga from Punjab Police's Custody as 'illegal'. Essentially, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohali, Ravtesh Inderjit Singh was hearing an application filed by the Punjab State praying for the issuance of an arrest warrant against Bagga in connection with a case registered against him under Section 153-A, 505, 505 (2), 506 of IPC.

6. 56.BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga Moves Punjab & Haryana HC Challenging Mohali Court's Arrest Warrant Order, Hearing To Take Place Shortly

In yet another significant late-night development, BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the non-bailable arrest warrant issued against him by the Mohali Court earlier today. The Chief Justice of the High Court has ordered an urgent hearing of the plea and the hearing is set to take place later tonight at the residence of Justice Anoop Chitkara.

7. 57.BREAKING | Punjab And Haryana High Court Stays Arrest Of BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga Till May 10

In midnight development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the arrest of BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga till May 10. Bagga had approached the HC challenging the warrant issued against himself by the Mohali Court earlier today. The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara directed Punjab police to not take any coercive action against Bagga until the next date of hearing.

8. 58.Punjab And Haryana High Court Stays BJP Leader Tajinder Bagga's Arrest Till July 6; No Stay On Investigation

Case title - Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State Of Punjab And Another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the arrest of BJP Leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga till July 6. This development comes three days after the High Court had, in a midnight hearing, directed the police not to take any coercive action again him till May 10. However, the Punjab Police has been given the liberty to continue its investigation in the case and has asked Bagga to cooperate in the probe. The Court directed that in case the police want to investigate the matter, they can go to Bagga's house twice before the next date (July 6).

9. 59.Youth Leader Vicky Middukhera's Murder | Sole Eye Witness & His Brother Moves Punjab & Haryana HC Seeking Adequate Security

Case title: Ajay Pal Singh Middukhera v. State Of Punjab And Others

Brother of the slain Youth Akali Dal (YAD) leader Vicky Middukhera has moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking adequate protection in view of the alleged threat perception from the gang members. Vicky's elder brother Ajaypal Singh Middukhera has moved this plea. The bench of Justice Karamjit Singh has asked the State of Punjab and Punjab Police to look into representation (submitted earlier by Ajay Pal Sigh) and assess threat perception and if the situation so warrants to do the needful in accordance with law and to submit its report in this regard by the next date of hearing (August 18, 2022).

1. 60.[Sidhu Moosewala Murder] How Did Information On Security Withdrawal Come Into Public Domain?: HC Seeks Punjab Govt's Reply

Case Title - Om Prakash Soni v. State Of Punjab And Ors.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday asked the Punjab State Government as to how the list of persons whose security was withdrawn by it, came out in the public domain. The State Government has been asked to respond to the Court's query by June 2.

1. 61.Supreme Court Raises Questions Over Manner In Which Punjab & Haryana Superior Judicial Services Main Written Examination- 2019 Was Conducted

Case Title: Harkirat Singh Ghuman v Punjab and Haryana HC| SLP (C) 5079 of 2020

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concerns at the manner in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court had conducted Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services Main Written Examination- 2019.

2. 62.FIR Against Raveena Tandon, Farah Khan, Bharti Singh Over "Backbenchers" Show: High Court Directs Punjab Police To Not Take Coercive Steps

Case Title: Raveena Tandon & Ors v State of Punjab & Ors| CRM M 44189 of 2021

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Wednesday directed the Punjab Police to not take any coercive steps against Bollywood actress Raveena Tandon, filmmaker Farah Khan, comedian Bharti Singh, Screen Player, Writer Abbas Aziz Dalal & Frames Production in connection with a FIR lodged against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during a web show titled as 'Backbenchers' released by Flipkart.