Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 3 To April 9

Nominal Index[Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 19- 23] Rattan Chand Vs Madhu Bharat Chadha & another 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 19 Rajesh Kumar & Ors Vs State of H. P. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 20 Ganga Ram v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 21 M/s Bio Veda Action Research Company Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Shimla 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 22 Anil Kapoor Vs Dipika Chauhan 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 23 Judgements/Orders If Building Has Potential To Fetch Higher Revenue Post Reconstruction, Proving 'Dilapidated Condition' For Evicting Tenant Not Necessary: HP High Court Case Title: Rattan Chand Vs Madhu Bharat Chadha & another. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 19 The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that when a building is situated in a commercial location having possible potential to fetch higher income after reconstruction/rebuilding, tenants may be evicted for such bonafide requirement of the landlord and the requirement of demonstrating the dilapidated condition of the building for enforcing eviction is not necessary in such cases. Water Property Of State, Not Private Entitlement Of Villagers Who Use It: Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Interfere With Construction Of Dam Case Title: Rajesh Kumar & Ors Vs State of H. P. & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 20 The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that it is a misconception that water belongs to the villagers who use the same. Water is the property of the State and no individual has any right to claim this as his property, even though the same might be situated within his personal property, it clarified. Highlighting the Constitutional provisions under Article 48A and 51A prescribing the duties of the Sate in matters of environment, the bench siad that the said constitutional provisions, clearly propounded the doctrine of public trust and the said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership. Arbitrator Under The National Highways Act Has To Give An Award Within 1 Year, Failure Can Result In Termination Of The Mandate: HP High Court Case Title: Ganga Ram v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 21 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thus, the arbitrator so appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(a) of the National Highways Act is bound to follow the provisions of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that in terms of Section 29(A) of the A&C Act, the arbitrator is mandated to deliver an award within 1 year from the date of entering reference and non-compliance with this provision will result in the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator. The Court held that the same provision also applies to a statutory arbitration governed by the A&C Act, thus, the mandate of the arbitrator under National Highways Act will stand terminated if the award is not delivered within the stipulated time-period. EPF Act | Reasoned Order Of Tribunal Waiving Pre-Deposit U/S 7-O Cannot Be Intervened With Unless Palpably Illegal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s Bio Veda Action Research Company Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Shimla Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 22 The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a reasoned order of a Tribunal while hearing an application seeking waiver u/s 7-O of the Employee Provident Fund Act to deposit the amount as mandated under Sec 7A cannot be interfered with, unless the said order is either without jurisdiction or Palpably Illegal. Under the Section 7A of the Employee Provident Fund Act, the appeal of the employer cannot be entertained by the Tribunal unless the employer deposits 75% of the amount held due from him.Married Couple's Access To Each Other Conclusively Determines Child's Legitimacy U/S 112 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: Anil Kapoor Vs Dipika Chauhan Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 23 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if a couple is having access to each other, it is conclusive proof of the legitimacy of a baby and hence, the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 gets attracted. “Unless the absence of access is established, the presumption of legitimacy cannot be displaced. Where the husband and wife have co-habited together and no impotency is proved, the child born from their wedlock is conclusively presumed to be legitimate, even if the wife is shown to have been, at the same time, guilty of infidelity”, the bench maintained.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 3 To April 9

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags