Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Roundup: June 13 - June 19, 2022

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

Case 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.

Before any action could be taken respondent No. 6 has filed a civil suit and the same is pending adjudication. Thus, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ladwa was justified in returning a finding that final action would abide by the decision of the aforementioned suit. No preemptive action can be taken, a bench comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal observed in the facts of the case.

2. 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

Case 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.

3. 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

Case 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.

4. 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

Case 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.

The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that perusal of statement of objects and reasons of the Factories Act shows that the provisions are concerned with the working conditions and protection of the workers but the said Act does not prohibit operation of any other statute.

5. 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

Case 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).

The bench comprising Justice Jaishree Thakur added that Section 47-A (3) empowers the collector to make a person liable to pay the duty if it is found that the instrument has not been properly valued. This can be done within a period of three years from the date of the registration of any instrument.

6. 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

Case 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).

The Single Bench of Justice Lisa Gill reiterated that the MSMED Act being a Special Act shall prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Court held that even if there was an agreement between the parties for resolution of disputes by arbitration, if a seller was covered under the MSMED Act, the agreement between the parties would have to be ignored in view of the mechanism provided under the MSMED Act.

7. 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

Case 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.

8. 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.

The observation was made while dealing with a writ in the nature of mandamus wherein the petitioners were praying to direct the competent authority-Land Acquisition Collector to refer the dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation to the Principal Civil Court.

9. 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,

10. 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.

"There is nothing on record to show that the same disability is such of that kind which would come in his way for serving the Indian Navy. Neither the said order shows that by virtue of that genetic defect as such, the writ petitioner would not be in a position to serve the Indian Navy."

11. 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.

12. 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.

"The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties," the Court remarked.

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

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.

Whereas it was the case of the bail applicant, Krishan, that there is no admissible evidence against him and that the 5 kgs and 100 grams opium contraband involved in the case was not recovered from him.

14. 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.

The observation was made by Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta while dealing with a revision petition against order of the Trial Court directing plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee in accordance with her claim for the recovery of Rs.10 lac for alleged defamatory language used by the defendant against her.

15. 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.

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain observed, "The law is well settled that where a process is "ex debito justitiae" the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides...In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not approached the Court seeking relief of pre-arrest bail with the clean hands and the Lower Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner."