Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Roundup: July 10 To July 16, 2022

Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181

Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182

Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183

State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184

Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186

M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185

Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187

Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188

M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189

S.139 Evidence Act | IO Who Merely Collected Documents Can't Be Cross-Examined With Regard To Its Contents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant permission for cross-examination of an Investigating Officer who had collected documents against the Petitioner-accused in a corruption case, citing Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Authority Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Evaluate Comparative Merits Of Parties Competing For Appointment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear, in this case with respect to appointment of Lambardar, that an authority exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot compare merits and de-merits of the parties involved. In this case, the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, stating that the Collector had not considered the comparative merits and de-merits of the parties. While doing so, the Financial Commissioner also confirmed the appointment of Respondent no. 6 instead.

[Order 47 Rule 1 CPC] Review Lies Against Error Apparent On Record, Can't Be Disguised As Appeal For Re-Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a review application in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, held that question of relinquishment of share in the property by any of the parties cannot be commented upon in review petition.

Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Trial Court Judgement Finding Prosecution Story In NDPS Case 'Fake' Considering Discrepancies In Evidence

Case Title: State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an appeal preferred by the UT administration of Chandigarh against the judgment of the Trial Court in a matter registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, held that the trial Court was correct in holding that the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and the seal, samples, documents etc. are tampered.

Section 11 Application Barred By Limitation; Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that if the application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is hopelessly time-barred, no arbitrator can be appointed by the High Court.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Party Must Show That Proposed Amendment Could Not Have Been Brought Earlier Despite Exercise Of Due Diligence: P&H High Court

Case Title: Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding Trial Court's judgment dismissing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement on ground of delay, held that parties seeking amendment must show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been brought forth earlier or before the commencement of the trial.

Sufficient Material & Solid Reasons Required For Declining Parole: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing a criminal writ petition challenging refusal of parole to the petitioner-convict has held that release on parole is part of the reformative process.

S.202 Indian Contract Act | Agency In Which Agent Has Interest Is Neither Terminated By Insanity Nor Death Of Principal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that as per illustration (b) of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency in which the agent has an interest is neither terminated by insanity nor by the death of the principal.

Limitation Period Of 3 Yrs For Filing Application U/S 11 Arbitration Act Commences From Elapse Of 30 Days From Demand Of Arbitration: P&H High Court

Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator filed by the applicant in 2017, on the ground of it being barred by limitation.

Other Important Judgements/Updates

"Shaheen Bagh Dadi" Tweet: Punjab & Haryana High Directs Lower Court To Adjourn Defamation Case Against Kangana Ranaut Beyond Sept 8

Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v Mahinder Kaur

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Trial Court to adjourn criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut over her 'Shaheen Bagh Dadi' tweet, beyond September 8, 2022. The complaint was filed in January 2021 wherein Kaur had alleged that actor during farmer protest had made defamatory tweet by comparing Kaur with "Dadi" at Shaheen Bagh, stating that such protestors could be hired.