Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up May 27 - June 3, 2024

Nominal Index:Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog Vs Kamlesh Saklani 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 24Abhimanyu Rathor vs The Registrar General, HP High Court and Others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 25Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited vs. H.P. State Biodiversity Board and others 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 26Hari Singh vs National Highways Authority of India 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 27Judgments/Orders:Can Speaker Be Directed To Decide Upon MLA's Resignation Letters Within Fixed Time Frame? Himachal Pradesh High Court Delivers Split VerdictCase Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and othersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23While delivering a split verdict on the issue as to whether the court by invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a direction to the speaker of the house to decide on the resignation letters forwarded by a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) within a fixed time frame.Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewak Dua pronounced their respective conflicting verdicts while hearing plea of Independent MLA's Of HP Legislative Assembly seeking direction upon the Speaker of the House to forthwith accept their resignation tendered in March this year and issue appropriate communication to that effect forthwith.HP High Court Convicts HPSEBL Law Officer For Contempt, Sentences Him To Civil Imprisonment Till Rising Of CourtCase Title: M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog Vs Kamlesh SaklaniCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 24The Himachal Pradesh High Court convicted a Law Officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEBL) for contempt of court. The officer, Kamlesh Saklani, was sentenced to civil imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for willfully disobeying the Court's orders.While convicting him for contempt Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan observed,“This is not a matter which was required to be stretched so far by the respondent-contemnor and the apology tendered here is nothing but a paper apology, which in the given facts and circumstances cannot be accepted”.Disciplinary Action Against High Court Bar Association Member Is In Realm Of Private Law, Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: Abhimanyu Rathor vs The Registrar General, HP High Court and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 25The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that disciplinary action against a member of the High Court Bar Association as per the norms/bye-laws of the Association is in the realm of private law. Therefore, it held that a writ petition against the Bar Association office bearers in their personal capacity is not maintainable.Indian Registered Companies Exempt From Benefit Sharing Under Biodiversity Act: HP High Court Stays ₹5 Crore Demand Notices On Ayurvedic CompanyCase Title: Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited vs. H.P. State Biodiversity Board and others.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 26The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that an Indian registered company does not require prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to access biological resources for commercial use. A bench comprising Chief Justice M.S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya also stayed a demand notice of Rs. 5 crore issued by the Himachal Pradesh State Biodiversity Board (HPSBB) to an Ayurvedic company for alleged violation of benefit sharing provisions under the Biodiversity Act, 2002. [NHA Act] Section 3G(5) Petition Not Decided Within Prescribed Period Doesn't Preclude Landowner To Seek Enhanced Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Hari Singh vs National Highways Authority of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 27The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that landowner cannot be left high and dry for no fault of his. It held that the mere fact that his petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was not decided by the Statutory Authority within the prescribed/extended period should not foreclose his right to seek enhancement in compensation.The bench held that Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator in deserving cases.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up May 27 - June 3, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags