Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Nominal IndexAbhishek Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 36Nain Sukh Vs Seema Devi 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 37Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 38State of HP Vs Sita Devi 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 39State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 40Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 41M/s Sterkem Pharma Private Limited vs Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 42Lajwanti & others Vs Priti Devi & others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 43Yogesh Verma and Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 44Judgments/OrdersFIR Registered After Recovery Made From Public Servant On Spot, No Prior Sanction U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act: HP High CourtCase Title: Abhishek Sharma Vs State of Himachal PradeshCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 36The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates the need for prior government approval for any inquiry or investigation against a public servant in cases where the alleged offence is related to an official "decision".FIR registered after on spot recovery following investigation based on a source report of public with general allegations of illegal, improper exercise of powers in violation of prescribed procedure by taking bribes, does not require prior approval under Section 17A, Justice Joytsna Rewal Dua held.No Wife Can Be Forced To Live In A Matrimonial Home With Husband Keeping Another Lady: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Nain Sukh Vs Seema DeviCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 37Dismissing the petition of a husband against his wife alleging cruelty and desertion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed no wife can be forced to live in matrimonial home with husband keeping another lady with him."...Respondent had justifiable ground to live separately as no wife can be forced to live in matrimonial home with husband keeping another lady with him," a bench comprising Justice Satyen Vaidya observed.Withdrawing Consent For Divorce U/S 13B Hindu Marriage Act Not Contemptuous: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 38Dismissing a petition for invoking contempt proceedings against the Respondent-wife for violating terms of settlement with her husband, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that parties have an indefeasible and absolute right to withdraw their consent/petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.Justice Satyen Vaidya, while clarifying that the Respondent's right to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce is absolute and cannot be disputed, also emphasized that any directive issued by the Court, instructing the parties to adhere to the settlement terms, should not be interpreted as undermining or nullifying this fundamental right.Maternity Leave Is A Fundamental Human Right; Its Denial Violate Articles 29, 39 Of Constitution : Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: State of HP Vs Sita DeviCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 39The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that every woman, irrespective of her employment status, is entitled to maternity leave.Maternity leave aims to protect the dignity of motherhood and ensure the well-being of both the woman and her child, a bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Virender Singh remarked."The respondent in the instant case was a daily wage woman employee at the time of advance pregnancy could not have been compelled to undertake hard labour, as it would have been detrimental to not only to her health and safety but also to the child health, safety and growth. The maternity leave is a fundamental human right of the respondent, which could not have been denied. Therefore, clearly the action of the petitioner is violative of Articles 29 and 39D of the Constitution of India."Himachal Pradesh High Court Distressed Over State Govt Litigating Matter Involving Small Amount Of ₹2,500; Imposes 10K CostCase Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 40While ruling in favour of a retired Tehsildar and granting him a regular increment from July 2013 for extended period of service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court criticized the State for engaging in frivolous litigation and emphasized the need for equal treatment of employees."We are distressed that in such small value matters also, the State continues to litigate and harass the citizens", Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan observed.Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Age Limit For Assistant District Attorney PostCase Title: Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 41The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a set of petitions challenging the age limit for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) in the state.“The State Government is within its powers to carve out exceptions for...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags