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

Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (PH) 142 - 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 156]Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 142 National Highway Authority of India v. Competent Authority, Land Acquisition-cum-District Revenue Officer, Ludhiana and others, with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 143 Ashok Kumar Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 144 DHANPREET SINGH AND ANR V. STATE OF PUNJAB 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 145 SATPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 146 M/s SGM Packaging Industries versus M/s Goyal Plywood LLP 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 147 Smt. Satya Roopa Sinha v. Sarwan Kumar Mehto 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 148 Deepali Sharma and another Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Land Acquisition Collector, Mohali and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 149 Union of India and others v. Neeraj Mor 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 150 Bhunesh v State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 151 Yashpal Gulati v. Kulwinder Kaur and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 152 Som Dutt v. Babita Rani 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 153 Krishan v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 154 Mrs. Manjit Kaul Versus Mr. Anil Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 155 Deen Mohd. Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 156 1. Municipal Body Can't Take Pre-Emptive Action Against Alleged Illegal Construction On Lease Land During Pendency Of Suit: P&H High CourtCase Title : Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and OthersCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 142The 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 HCCase Title: National Highway Authority of India Versus The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition-cum-District Revenue Officer, Ludhiana and others, with connected mattersCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 143The 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 CostCase Title: Ashok Kumar Versus State of HaryanaCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 144The 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 CourtCase Title : DHANPREET SINGH AND ANR V. STATE OF PUNJABCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 145The 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 HCCase Title: SATPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 146The 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...

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

Shrutika Pandey

Tags