Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1 The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot...
Case Title: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India.
Case Title: The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2
The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original civil jurisdiction has only appointed the arbitrator and has not undertaken any other exercise.
Case Title: Som Dutt & Ors., V/s State of H.P. & Anr, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 3
A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, held that the direction to count the contractual service for pension requires the inclusion of annual increments for the relevant period in the pension calculation.
Case Title: X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 4
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that after setting the criminal machinery into motion, the complainant's role ends, and the complainant or the child victim has no locus standing to file the petition for quashing a POCSO Case, that too, in the name of saving the family's honour.
Case Title: M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 5
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another.
Section 127 stipulates that the Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from Assessing Officer subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to him.
Case Title: Mangal Chand and ors vs. LAC NHAI and ors, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 6
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.
Case Title: M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 7
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.
Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7).
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi [along with connected matters]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 8
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Centre Government challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the ground of delay, observing that the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, to challenge the orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 9
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has confirmed a pre-arrest bail of a rape accused, considering factors including that the prosecutrix refused to undergo medico-legal examination.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vikram alias Vicky
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 10
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an acquittal in an NDPS Act case, expressing shock over the fact that the investigating officer already knew that the accused was carrying contraband without searching him or conducting a test on the material.
Punitive Retrenchment Without Regular Departmental Inquiry Violates Industrial Disputes Act: HP HC
Case Title: State of HP v. Ramesh Chand
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 11
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel set aside the termination of a daily wage worker's services. The court noted that the termination was done under the guise of retrenchment following a preliminary inquiry. It upheld the Labour Court's finding that termination based on alleged misconduct without conducting a proper departmental inquiry was illegal. The court clarified that termination as punishment cannot be treated as simple retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association and another vs. Union of India and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday effectively stayed Former sports minister and five-time BJP MP from Hamirpur Anurag Singh Thakur's disqualification from the Electoral College and directed the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) to extend the date of nominations so that Thakur could file his nomination and participate in the polls.
Case Title: Gopinder Singh and Ors. Versus The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.
Case Title: Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 14
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than 10 years of total service should be considered as satisfying the full 10 years of qualifying service.
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India. Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) does not apply to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, if the petition is not filed within the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the delay cannot be condoned.
Case Title: Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that a candidate cannot claim appointment to a supernumerary post, especially when such post itself is challenged by the candidate as illegal.
Case Title: Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs v/s State of H.P & Another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a review petition on the ground that the encroacher of the state land cannot file a prohibitory injunction against the true owner of the land.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Rana and another v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 18
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“Court”) bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that when a candidate applies for any post, the eligibility is assessed till the final selection date and not just on the last date of submission of application.
Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 19
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act only deals with penalty for breach of protection orders (to protect women from acts of violence) and not with other orders such as maintenance (to provide financial support), compensation (for compensation of injuries) or residence (for providing shelter) orders.
Case Title: Roshan Lal Bhardwaj v/s Ashok Sud & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 20
Himachal Pradesh High Court decided a 10-year-long tenancy dispute, holding that re-entry of a tenant into the premises after being evicted by the landlord for construction purposes, is conditional and depends on mutual agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Susheel v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the transfer order of a visually impaired government employee to a hard area who has disability of more than 40%. ("hard/tribal areas" refer to regions that are geographically remote, have challenging terrains and have limited access to resources).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea For Extra UPSC Attempt Due To COVID-19 Impact
Case Title: Raja Ram Sahu v/s Union of India & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an additional attempt in the UPSC Civil Services Examination on the grounds that the petitioner's final attempt was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v/s Sh. Sheru @ Sher Singh @ Sukhraj & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Himachal Pradesh High court held than an insurance company is not liable to provide compensation for injuries sustained by a gratuitous passenger/ porter in a goods vehicle under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
MNREGA Workers are Not Employees Under Employees' Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Geeta Devi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 24
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, holding that in cases involving the death of worker employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (“MNREGA”), 2005, compensation cannot be claimed under Employees' Compensation Act. The court determined that such workers do not fall under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Higher Pension Cannot Be Granted Based On Duties Performed Temporarily: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 25
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pension benefits are to be granted based on the substantive post held by an employee, and not on temporary work assigned at a higher post for a brief period before retirement.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Garg v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 26
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a professor who had received a job offer from another institution.
Case Title: M/s. Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 27
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State to grant the benefits laid down in Himachal Pradesh Industrial Investment Policy, 2019. The Court held that once the State has notified a policy, the benefits related to it cannot be denied merely because the concerned department failed to issue a formal notification to implement it.
Case Title: Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus M/s Inox Wind Limited & Anr., Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 28
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has held that unless the corporate debtor's demise is inevitable or the winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act have reached an irreversible stage making revival impossible, every effort must be made to revive the company. Accordingly, all such winding-up petitions should be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) under 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Ram Lal & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 29
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that although the 'Act only policy' in motor vehicle insurance covers only third-party damages and injuries but if the Insurance Company is charging premium for personal accident coverage of the driver, it is liable to indemnify the driver.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 30
In a significant order, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently rejected the contention that there can be no offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC between the husband and wife.
A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla said that the declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 377 of IPC by the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India doesn't apply to non-consensual sexual intercourse against the order of nature, even if the act is between a husband and a wife.
Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Deepak Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 31
The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS Act”), by an accused arrested for an offence under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act”).
The court held that bail under the NDPS Act can't be granted based on assumptions that the applicants may have developed drug dependency at a young age and were acquiring Heroin for personal consumption.
Case Title: Hukam Ram v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be granted to a person convicted of criminal breach of trust, as doing so would encourage people to misappropriate the property of other persons and the trust upon which a civil society is based would be affected.
Case Title: M/s Himalaya Wellness Company v/s Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 33
Section 74: Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a show cause notice is issued under Section 74 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and objections can't be raised on the ground that it was issued with a preconceived notion or that it violates the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Bihari Lal v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 34
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Courts must pass separate orders for the cancellation of a bail bond and the imposition of penalty under Section 446 of Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring that the affected person is given a fair opportunity to present their case before any penalty is imposed.
Case Title: Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 35
Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a professor at a government university, stating that repeated disobedience of orders from superiors can't be taken lightly, as it promotes indiscipline and disorder.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sharma v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 36
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that in the absence of a clear allegation of refusal to marry, charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code can't be framed. The Court remarked that when parties are in a long-term relationship of five years, it becomes difficult to determine that their sexual relationship was based solely on a promise to marry.
Case Title: Kiran Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 37
Finding it to be an 'exceptional' situation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday transferred the probe into the 'mysterious' death of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (HPPCL) chief engineer Vimal Negi to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel passed this order while allowing a petition filed by Negi's wife seeking the transfer of the probe. The single judge has directed the Central agency to ensure that no officer from the state cadre is part of the SIT constituted by it.
Case Title: M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 38
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has held that the statutory bar under subsection (5) of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act applies squarely, as the Director, Department of Digital Technologies and Governance, cannot be considered an independent and impartial arbitrator due to his potential role as a consultant or advisor to the respondents; accordingly, he could not be appointed as an arbitrator, and another arbitrator was appointed in his place.
No Equity In Taxation Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court On Tax Liability Of Auction Purchaser
Case Title: Arif Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 39
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an auction Purchaser is liable to pay the outstanding taxes on vehicles acquired through auction. It stated that there is no equity in taxation law and equity would only come into play in case there is no law operating in the field.
More Than 4 Years Without Trial, Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused
Case Title: Hom Dei @Shallu v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 40
Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a woman who had been in judicial custody for over four years without the conclusion of her trial. The Court held that keeping the applicant in custody serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the chances of the trial getting concluded in the near future are very less.
Case Title: M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals & Ors. v/s Union of India.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 41
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that vicarious liability for the supply of sub-standard quality drugs under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can't be established unless it is specifically proved that the person was directly in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's affairs.
Case Title: Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 42
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, while imposing a sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, trial courts must adhere to the principle of proportionality and should not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government.
Case Title: Manjana v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 43
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that bona fide and trivial errors in a recruitment application, such as inadvertent category selection, should not lead to cancellation of candidature, and candidates must be given an opportunity to rectify such mistakes.
Case Title: Dharam Chand v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the court finds that a proper investigation has not been conducted, the Magistrate can exercise the power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC suo motu to direct the police to conduct further investigation, even after taking cognizance of the case.
Proper Verification Of Vote Counting Procedure Essential In Elections: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 45
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when questions arise regarding the proper conduct of vote counting procedures, it is essential to examine the relevant records to determine whether counting was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.
Case Title: Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 46
Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that under Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee may withdraw a notice of premature retirement before it becomes effective, subject to the specific approval of the competent authority and upon giving valid reasons.
“Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that a government servant who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given the necessary notice to the appointing authority cannot withdraw their notice without the specific approval of that authority”.
Case Title: Dinesh Negi v/s Sahil Sood
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 47
Himachal Pradesh High Court Reduces Sentence to 'Till Rising of the Court' Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Holding That While the Act Prescribes No Minimum Punishment, Sentence May Be Reduced Where the Accused Has Deposited the Entire Default Amount.
Case Title: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 48
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.
“Section 148 enables the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings where income chargeable to tax is believed to have escaped assessment”.
Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v State2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 49
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (June 3), granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing an undue delay in initiating the trial proceedings.
Case Title: Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 50
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an employee seeks the benefit of principle of equal pay for equal work, it is their duty to submit relevant data to support the claim.
Case Title: Akhil v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 51
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the eligibility conditions for a particular post are determined by the employer, and Courts can't modify them or frame new ones.
Case Title: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 52
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.
Case Title: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 53
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.
Case Title: Sh. Mohit Shukla v/s Himachal Pradesh University & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 54
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a student's personal decision to prepare for a competitive examination and not appear for semester examination does not entitle them to an extension of the of the prescribed timeline for completion of a professional course.
Case Title: M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 55
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.
Case Title: Keshav Ram & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others, Karam Chand & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a State Government notification that had fixed the compensation multiplier at one for rural land acquisitions. The Court held that multiplier factor is required to be two for land acquired in rural areas. It emphasized that the state can't treat all landowners the same, as doing so denies poor land owners in rural areas fair compensation, which defeats the main objective of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 57
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can't be given in cases when a person secures a government job through fraud by misusing another individual's educational certificate. The Court emphasized that such fraudulent act deprives another person of public employment.
Income Certificate Not Required When BPL Certificate Is Submitted: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 58
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a valid Below Poverty Line certificate is sufficient to claim marks reserved for candidates from economically weaker backgrounds, and income certificate is not required. The Court stated that a BPL certificate is issued only to families who meet the prescribed income eligibility criteria.
State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 59
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that government authorities must fill vacant posts in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and must uphold fairness and equality in public employment.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Satya Devi and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 60
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation for loss of income is only awarded to family members who were financially dependent on the deceased. However, married daughters, though not financially dependent on their father, are still entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Case Title: Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 61
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that teaching experience acquired before the formal recognition or establishment of a medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of determining eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per the statutory Recruitment Rules.
Case Title: Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 62
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied on flimsy or irrelevant grounds when it was admissible under the beneficial policy of the State Government.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 63
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a lessee who had control over the operations of a factory fell within the definition of "occupier" under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and was therefore legally bound to deduct and deposit Employees Provident Fund contributions into the statutory fund.
Case Title: Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 64
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the Local Commissioner's demarcation report is found to be irregular, only the report should be sent back for a fresh demarcation. The entire suit need not be remanded for reconsideration.
Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 65
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a taxpayer deposits an amount “under protest”, it does not amount to an admission of tax liability.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed as follows;
“Once the petitioner had deposited the amount 'under protest', the same could not have been considered to be an admission of liability because the necessary corollary of deposit under protest is that the amount towards the alleged liability has been deposited without admitting the liability and inherent therein is his right to challenge the order.”
Case Title: Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 66
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State and its functionaries can't use unfair practices to deny regularization to temporary employees who have completed required service years, stating that keeping employees in temporary posts to avoid granting them the benefits of regularization is exploitative and legally unjustified.
Case Title: Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 67
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a penalty imposed on a government doctor, holding that a vague and inconclusive inquiry report can't be used to impose penalty or take disciplinary action.
Case Title: State of H.P. v/s Baldev Singh alias Kewal Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 68
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the trial court in dropping charges against the driver of a Scorpio who was involved in a fatal collision with a motorcycle upon noting that the car was being driven on the correct side of the road, but the motorcycle had suddenly appeared from the wrong side of the highway at an intersection, leading to the car being unable to stop and the subsequent crash.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 69
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not grant the Inquiry Officer the freedom to return findings against an employee without any evidence.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 70
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that an unwilling employee cannot be compelled to continue in service merely on the ground of staff shortage; every individual has a fundamental right to career progression, and resignation or request for NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, especially when applicant is willing to serve the State as a Super Specialist for five years after completing the course.
Case Title: Sanatam Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha v/s State of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 71
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the State is allowed to take over privately managed educational institutions, it can't do so without compensating the management for the immovable and movable assets developed by the private management.
Case Title: Sahil Sharma v/s State of HP & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 72
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when an FIR does not mention that the offence against the victim, in this case rape, was because they belonged to a Scheduled caste commmunity, anticipatory bail can't be denied u/s 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Surinder Kumar v/s central Sanskrit University
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.
Case Title: Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted multiple accused in a case of assault after 13 years, holding that when the accused are strangers to a witness, a test identification parade is necessary. It was held that failure to establish the identity goes to the root of the matter, as it raises a possibility that the accused was wrongly identified.
Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to ensure that transfers are made strictly in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The court emphasised that every government employee should be posted to a difficult area once during their service and that such postings should not be influenced by political relations.
Justice Sandeep Sharma: “Transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly reveals that every employee, during his life career, should be sent to sub cadre/hard/tribal area, but this Court has noticed in many cases that employees having good political relation and influence are hardly sent to hard/tribal area, and employees, who do not have any say in the corridors of Government, are repeatedly sent to hard/tribal areas, which results in heartburn.”
Case Title: Monika v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that clubbing the period of stay for the transfer of employees does not violate the State's Transfer Policy or the statutory rules governing transfers. In holding thus, the court overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “We are at a complete loss to understand how the clubbing of stay for the purpose of transfer of an employee violates the aforesaid provisions as it does not alter the meaning of 'transfer."
Case Title: Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State Drug Controller does not have the authority to issue an Office Order or Standard Operating Procedure, as rule-making power under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act lies exclusively with the Central Government.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel: “In this view of the matter, when the Rule making power is exclusively conferred upon the Central Government and the Central Government has in exercise of the powers so conferred, framed Rules which govern all the activities of manufacturers like the petitioners including the sale of drug manufactured, the Office Order in question which has been issued by the State Drug Controller, bereft of any Authority in law vested in the State Drug Controller to issue the same, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Case Title: Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Trial Court order which set aside an ex-parte decree, while holding that an ex parte decree can't be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons if it is established that the other party had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to contest the claim.
Justice Satyen Vaidya said: “The second proviso appended to Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code carves out an exception that no Court shall set-aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.”
Case Title: Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the death of a landlord's son during the pendency of eviction proceedings does not affect the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction, as the date for assessing such requirement is the date of filing the eviction petition and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Court observed that eviction proceedings take time, and the landlord should not suffer because of this. A landlord remains entitled to possession to put their property to better use or settle their family, irrespective of subsequent events, the court said.
Case Title: Parneet Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee can't be arbitrarily denied pension under old scheme when he was transferred through the proper channels and without any break in service.
Justice Satyen Vaidya: “In the facts of the case in hand, petitioner also qualified other condition as he had been transferred to the borrowing employer through proper channel w.e.f. 15.11.2002 when the 1999 Scheme was still in force. His absorption was without any break in service and as such, all the requirements of technical resignation were met.”
Case Title: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” without any justification or basis amounts to defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre People without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person”.
Case Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road constructed on a forest do not have locus standi to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sandeep Sharma held: “Petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from assailing the Regulation in question and on this sole ground, petitions deserve to be rejected particularly when the petitioners belong to class of Judicial Officers who are supposed and expected to be well versed with consequences of participating in the selection process without any protest and filing the petitions only after failing in qualifying the written examination.”
Case Title: Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stating that a vehicle was being driven at “high speed” is not enough, by itself, to prove rashness or negligence. Speed is a relative term and must be explained with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do”.
Case Title: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85
Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.
The court said that transfers shall be in accordance with Sections 12 and 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and should adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006.
Case Title: State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that procedural lapses by the revenue authority cannot defeat substantive rights vested in a party.
The court opined that due to procedural lapses of the revenue authorities in updating records, the petitioner, an Ex-army man, could not be denied his right over a forest land, allotted to him under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968.
Case Title: State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a wife's claim of adverse possession after her husband's death, holding that she is entitled to have her name recorded in the revenue records.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Entries in revenue record reflect that unauthorized possession was very much in the knowledge of State since 1963 and for completion of 30 years of adverse possession without any interruption, interference, objection despite being in knowledge of the Revenue Agency, Gurdass during his life time had right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession and after his death, his adverse possession is heritable. Thus plaintiff is entitled to inherit the encroachment with claim of adverse possession by clubbing the period of possession of her husband since 1963.”
Case Title: Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Local Commissioner can't be appointed at the appellate stage merely to help a party gather fresh evidence which it failed to produce or challenge during the trial.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “By appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court is not to be used as a facilitator for collection of evidence in favour or against any party”.
Case Title: Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a complainant fails to prove proprietorship of a sole proprietorship concern, they can't be treated as the payee or holder in due course under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that a mere authority letter issued after the complaint was filed does not constitute sufficient proof of authorisation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Since in the present case no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that Complainant is the owner of Shirgul Filling Station, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of payee and he was not entitled to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.”
Case Name: Tejinder Singh V/s Govinder Singh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a witness's statement made only after seeing documents shown by the police can't be relied upon to uphold a conviction.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The statement of this witness shows that he did not remember the details of the documents, and he made the statement after seeing the documents brought by the police, which means that he was making the statement based on the documents shown to him by the police and not the personal knowledge. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon to hold that the agriculturist certificates were annexed to the sale deed.”
Case Name: Vijay Kumar V/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 91
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that oil companies must adopt a flexible approach when minor technical issues with the land offered for distributorship arise, especially when the applicant removes the defect in time.
Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “The appellant had also removed the deficiencies as such of the electric wires over the land which is a much larger chunk of land and if the Corporation had kept this aspect in mind, part of the said land could have been utilized as such for the construction of godown.”
Case Name: Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 92
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cautioned the State against filing similar appeals in similar matters, as it causes undue harassment to people belonging to the lowest strata of society.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Respondents-State is preferring similar appeals in similar matters again and again, which is not only causing wastage of time, energy and resources of the Court as well as the State, but also resulting into undue harassment to persons, like present petitioner, belonging to lowest strata of the society.”
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 93
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that fake supplier addresses indicate prima facie GST evasion and refused to quash complaint under Section 69 of CGST Act.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla:“When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address”, stated the bench.
Case Name: Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 94
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a forensic expert's opinion has been brought on record and not been set aside, an accused can't insist on the appointment of another expert just because the existing report is unfavourable.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla said: “Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that there was no necessity to send the signatures for comparison to another Forensic Expert.”
Case Name: Dr. Seema Sharma v/s The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 95
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, if the State fails to communicate refusal of an employee's voluntary retirement request within the statutory notice period, the retirement takes effect automatically.
Justice Sandeep Sharma: “In case the authority fails to refuse the permission to retire before expiry of the period specified in the notice, voluntary retirement sought by an employee concerned would come into effect from the date specified in the notice”.
Infrastructure Location Of University Cannot Be Dictated By Students: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Aman Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 96
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by students of Sardar Patel University, Mandi, holding that the decision regarding the infrastructure location of the University is to be taken by the State Higher Education Council, Department of Higher Education, along with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and cannot be dictated by the students.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said: “This Court again reiterates that where the infrastructure of the Cluster University is to come up is the domain of the respondents and it is not for the petitioners to dictate the respondents as to where they should come up with their infrastructure.”
Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services were regularized retrospectively, is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the qualifying period from the date of retrospective regularization. Further the benefit of judgments granting pension to Class-IV employees can be extended to similarly placed Class-III employees.
Case Name: Rama Devi & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered an enquiry into a lawyer, after the appellants in an MACT appeal case alleged that their former advocate misused their signatures and fraudulently withdrew accident compensation money.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said: “Direct the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to look into the matter personally and ensure to take complaint/application to its logical end, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner and to communicate the action taken on the complaint to applicant No.1-appellant immediately as well as to this Court through Registrar (Judicial) well before next date of hearing.”
Case Name: Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that close family ties do not prevent a valid employer–employee relationship under law if it is supported by credible evidence on record.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed “It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that technically there is possibility that husband and wife can have relation of employer and employee. It is apt to notice that relation of husband and wife is more closer than the relation of brother, as both of them being partners of life, in normal circumstances, cannot be expected to work as employee and employer, however, despite that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that such relationship is possible”.
Case Name: Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a taxi driver cannot be held liable for possession of contraband under the NDPS Act merely because illegal substances were found in the vehicle he was driving, when there is no prima facie evidence showing that he had knowledge or involvement in its transportation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The status report does not show that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The material on record is prima facie insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; therefore, it cannot be said that he would indulge in the commission of a crime in case of his release on bail.”
Case Name: Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Farooq Ahmad, who was arrested for allegedly sharing videos on Facebook that contained insulting comments about the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Army.
The Court held that mere sharing of such videos, in the absence of any incitement to violence or public disorder, does not prima facie attract the offences of sedition or promoting enmity.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The video recording of the Facebook posts was played in the Court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace. Hence, prima facie, the applicability of Sections 152 and 196 of BNS is highly doubtful.”
Case Name: Jogindra v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 102
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed two connected petitions, holding that the dependents of a Home Guard cannot claim permanent job under the Employment Assistant scheme of the State Government when the Home Guard rendered only a voluntary and temporary job.
Justice Satyen Vaidya held: “Thus, when the job performed by Home Guards has been assessed to be purely of temporary nature, it will not be prudent to hold their dependents entitled to benefit under Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The dependents of a Home Guard cannot raise claim for permanent job, when the Home Guard himself renders only a voluntary and temporary job.”
Case Name: Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 103
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of pension deduction from the salary of a retired judge who was appointed as a tribunal chairman.
The court directed the State to pay arrears along with 9% interest to Justice (retd.) V.K. Sharma, former judge of the High Court, who was later appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
The Court held that the deduction of pension from the salary of a retired HC judge subsequently appointed as chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (HPAT) is impermissible under law.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said: “Pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace but a vested right earned for the past service rendered. It is social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hay days of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.”
Case Name: Savita Guleria v/s H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 104
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee cannot claim the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme by clubbing service in two distinct posts under different cadres when pay scale of the cadres is not in the same range.
Justice Satyen Vaidya said: “The plain reading of aforesaid clarification reveals that though an employee having served different cadres can be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme provided the pay scale in both the cadres was same/identical. Since, in the case of petitioner, her pay scale as Steno-typist in the parent department and as Clerk in the borrowing department was different, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from aforesaid clarification”.
Case Name: Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the printed validity of a period at the top of an OBC certificate becomes irrelevant if the certificate clearly certifies the applicant's OBC status for a specific financial year.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “It is the fact certified in the certificate that is material. If that certification is about status as OBC for a specific period and if the certification regarding the period of OBC status differs from a cyclostyled period, casually mentioned at the top of the certificate, the actual certificate with respect to period of OBC status will take precedence”.
Caste Assigned At Birth Doesn't Change Due To Marriage: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that caste is assigned at the time of birth and does not change upon marrying a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
It clarified that such a marriage does not preclude the commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held: “Therefore, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.”
Case Name: Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh Univeristy & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that admission to a three-year LLB course without completion of graduation violates the Legal Education Rules, 2008, and the candidate is ineligible for enrolment as an advocate.
Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma said: “In this scenario, once appellant-petitioner had secured admission to the Three Year Law Course (in June 2014) without possessing the essential qualification of Graduation-Bachelor's Degree (which was passed on 27.07.2015). Thus, once for want of Graduation, the admission of the appellant-writ petitioner to LLB Course was bad (being ineligible) therefore, neither any locus nor any right can be said to have accrued to the appellant, an ineligible incumbent, so as to seek enrolment as an advocate, dehors the Rules”
Case Name: Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be kept in custody merely on the assumption that the blood sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory might reveal traces of heroin or that some incriminating substance would be found.
Denying the State's submission that blood samples sent by the police to forensics were likely to indicate the presence of heroin, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked: “A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified.”
Case Name: Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and non-existent material and by interfering with the Collector's decision without declaring any legal infirmity or perversity.
Setting aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that“The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has exceeded his jurisdiction by basing his opinion on irrelevant and non-existent material and also by interfering with the order of District Collector without declaring it to be illegal or perverse.”
Case Name: United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that overloading of a passenger vehicle is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy unless it is related to the cause of the accident.
Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 which held that the breach on the part of the insured must show that the accident or damage that occurred was due to the breach.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked: “So far as overloading of one extra person is concerned, it is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the policy having consequences of absolving Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner to pay the compensation in an accident, particularly when overloading of one person is not related to cause of the accident”.
Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed.
Case Name: Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that it is the duty of the school education board to issue a merit certificate to a candidate after their marks are increased in the revaluation process, and it cannot shift the onus onto the school authorities.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The petitioner cannot be denied the merit certificate arbitrarily just on the grounds as are propagated by the respondent- Board in its reply. The meritorious students do not deserve such treatment. Rather than rewarding her excellence, the respondent- Board has forced her to knock the doors of justice which is not appreciated”.
Case Name: Tikender Singh Panwar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 113
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has sought a status report on the safety of the 140-year-old underground water tank at Shimla Ridge.
A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma issued notices and sought a status report from the State Government and the Municipal Corporation of Shimla on the structural safety of the 140-year-old underground water tank situated beneath the historic Ridge.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State cannot challenge a court's direction for investigation merely because the proposed accused are government servants.
The Court emphasised that, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every individual is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the Court held that “the State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens by protecting a person against whom an offence has been alleged and investigation has been directed”.
Dismissing the Criminal revision petition filed by the State, Justice Virender Singh observed that: “Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, against the proposed accused persons, by way of filing the Criminal Revision, before this Court”.
Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Section 141 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, it is the duty of the Municipal Council to provide sewerage connections, and it cannot withhold this service merely due to objections from private landowners.
Rejecting the contention of Municipal Council, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that: “There is no statutory requirement that the Council has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the person from whose property the sewerage line is to pass. In case, Section 141 of the Act is interpreted as such, then the Municipal Authorities would not be able to provide majority of the residents' sewerage connection and the Section will become otiose.”
Case Name: Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (August 5) declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, which empowered the State Government to frame rules for regularisation of encroachments on government land, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In its order, a Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the impugned provision is a 'legislation for a class of dishonest persons' which seeks to regularize all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.
Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”
Case Name: V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118
In the alleged rape of a 7 year old girl by a 16 year old boy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that preliminary assessment conducted by the Medical Board in accordance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 found that that the accused had an IQ of 92 and was fully aware of the consequences of his acts as he had threatened the victim and told her to not disclose the incident to anyone.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that “ the Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner's IQ to be 92; therefore, the mere fact that the documents were not forwarded to the Medical Board cannot lead to an interference that the report issues by the Medical Board was bad."
Case Name: Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the plea that documents were inadvertently left in the counsel's brief is not a valid ground to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rejecting the Contention of the Petitioner Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “These pleas are no reasons to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions have been provided in the Statute to advance the cause of justice and not to throttle the wheel of justice as apparently is the intent of the petitioner.”
Case Name: A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the faculty members of VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, over the death of several students on a college trip in the Beas River tragedy, holding that the faculty members were fully aware that the students were likely to die, yet they did not stop the students from entering the riverbed.
Justice Virender Singh noted that: “The alleged rash and negligent act of the accused is causa causans of the incident, which has rightly been held to be the question of law and facts, by the learned trial Court which will be proved during the course of trial.”
Case Name: Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121
The Himachal Pradesh High Court division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma has directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, and the Station House Officer concerned to consider protection request of the 20-year-old petitioner and his 17 year old wife and take appropriate action after they got married without their family's permission.
The court relied on the Supreme Court case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., 2006, which protects the right of consenting individuals to marry and live together without unlawful interference.
Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”
Case Name: Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 123
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while deciding an application for police assistance, can only grant or refuse such assistance for implementing its order and cannot direct police officers to ascertain the actual situation on the spot.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “….by no stretch of imagination in such an application, the Court can direct an Officer or Official of a Department, may be the Police Department, to visit the spot and ascertain the actual situation on the spot, as has been done in the present case by the learned Court below.”
Case Name: Abhishek Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 124
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied bail to the accused involved in a ₹500-Crore Cryptocurrency Fraud Case, holding that economic offences of such huge magnitude, which have a deep-rooted conspiracy and cause massive public loss, must be viewed seriously, and mere prolonged custody or trial delay is not a sufficient ground for bail.
Rejecting the Bail Application, Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State”.
Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Manav Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 125
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside orders of a trial court, that refused policy custody of an accused in a communal violence case and also expunged adverse remarks made by the trial court that branded the investigation as “myopic” and “mala fide.”
Setting aside the Trial Court's order Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The purpose, for which, the police remand has been sought, has specifically been mentioned and to investigate the matter, is the sole prerogative of the police. The Court cannot issue direction to the police not to investigate the matter, in a particular manner”.
Case Name: Kamini Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 126
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that maternity leave, sanctioned while an employee was on contractual service, could not be curtailed merely because she submitted a medical fitness certificate at the time of regularization.
Quashing the State's order that cancelled the leave Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that : “submission of Medical Fitness Certificate, could not have given any right to the respondents to curtail the Maternity Leave of the petitioner granted to her w.e.f. 21.8.2021, for a period of 180 days.”
Case Name: Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal Vaidya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 127
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the omission of certain khasranumbers in an eviction petition does not amount to non-disclosure of cause of action and cannot be a ground for dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rejecting the tenant's contention, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Mere non-mention of certain khasra numbers per se cannot be so fatal so as to throw the petitioners in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the count that the petition did not disclose any cause of action.”
Case Name: Smt. Nalini Vidya v/s The Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even if the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, does not have specific provisions for filing objections in execution proceedings, the principles of natural justice must apply and the judgement debtor must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Setting aside the order of Collector-cum-Deputy Registrar, Mandi Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “the findings returned by the Authority that as the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and Rules do not provide for filing of any objections in the course of deciding the execution proceedings, no objections can be entertained, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The mechanism of natural justice is inbuilt and inherent and no one can be condemned unheard.”
Case Name: Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist, who was accused of allegedly taking photographs of the wife of a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in an attempt to intimidate him.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”
Case Name: Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of an FIR, particularly for petty offences, cannot be a valid reason to withhold compassionate appointment already approved by the competent authority.
Justice Sandeep Sharma observed: “Till the time charge is not framed against the accused and he is not convicted by a competent Court of law, he is deemed to be innocent. If it is so, denial of appointment on the ground of mere pendency of FIR, that too for petty offences, may not be sustainable.”
Case Name: Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.
Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property or the samples is also of no help to the accused.”
Case Name: Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an employee cannot claim promotion merely on the ground that he was found eligible, where the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened only after his retirement.
The Court further stated that there is no vested right to promotion after superannuation in the absence of any mala fide delay on the part of the competent authority.
Rejecting the writ petition Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held: “The petitioner does not have any vested right to seek promotion only on the basis of his name having been found to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Since, the petitioner had superannuated prior to the convening of DPC, he cannot be granted promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I”.
Case Name: Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee was given study leave for pursuing a three-year LLB Degree course, he became entitled to full leave salary in terms of the unamended Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules.
The Court clarified that the subsequent amendment, which reduced the leave salary to 40% could not be applied retrospectively to a leave that had already been sanctioned.
Rejecting the State's contention Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua stated that “Petitioner had applied for study leave through proper channel and the Government had sanctioned study leave in his favour on 01.09.2023, i.e. prior to the issuance of Finance Department's notification dated 07.08.2024, hence, the petitioner is eligible for 100% leave salary during the sanctioned study leave for pursuing three years LLB Degree Course”
Case Name: Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 134
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary punishment involving civil consequences, such as forfeiture of service benefits, must be based on clear proof of misconduct or dereliction of duty.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part, but since the punishment has been sought to be imposed without proof of any incriminating circumstance against petitioner, such a perverse action cannot be sustained.”
Case Name: Susheela Rana V/s State of H.P & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 135
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has extended the retirement age of a government college professor, and held that a welfare State is expected to act fairly and without bias, and can't penalise an employee merely because she approached the Court for enforcement of her lawful rights.
Noting the conduct of college Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “State being 'welfare State' is expected to work impartially without there being any bias, but it seems that the respondents have become very touchy about the action of petitioner in as much as she approached this court, for her rightful claim”.
Case Name: Smt. Ganga Jogta v/s Shri Nand Lal (deceased) through his legal heirs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 136
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in execution proceedings, if a judgment debtor was proceeded against ex parte and subsequently died, his legal representatives must still be brought on record.
Rejecting the contention of the plaintiff, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Simply because, the only judgment-debtor was proceeded against ex- parte, this does not gives any right to the petitioner not to bring on record his legal representatives after his death”.
Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Associate & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 137
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association and others, seeking parity in pay scales with their counterparts in Punjab, holding that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay pattern of the State of Punjab in its entirety, even though it follows the Punjab Pay Commission.
Rejecting the faculty's contention Justice Satyen Vaidya held that: “The mere fact that the State of Himachal Pradesh has been following Punjab's pay pattern does not mean it has bound itself to follow such pay pattern for all intents and purposes,”
Case Name: Suleman V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a street vendor who was accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook.
The Court remarked that merely praising another country without speaking against India does not amount to sedition as it does not encourage rebellion, violence, or separatist activities.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”
Case Name: Sh. Balbir Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 139
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the regularisation of a Class-IV employee after 20 years of service. The court imposed a ₹50,000 cost on the state as it repeatedly denied the claim of the employee, despite repeated directions from the court.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Since petitioner herein was repeatedly compelled by respondents to approach this Court for his rightful claim, coupled with the fact that despite repeated clarifications and directions issued by learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, respondents failed to comply with the earlier directions… it is a fit case where cost amounting to ₹50,000 should be imposed upon the respondents. Ordered accordingly.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ghambo Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 140
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a chargesheet does not mention any notification to specify that the encroachment land was a reserved forest, a person cannot be held liable under the Indian Forest Act.
Relying on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh high court in State of H.P. V/s Ami Chand, 1992, held that A person cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the absence of any notification and its due publication.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The charge sheet does not mention that any notification was issued that the forest where the encroachment was made was a reserved forest”.
Case title - Rishi Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 141
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently observed that a minor girl's representation of herself as being above 18 years of age or an Aadhar card entry showing her as a major cannot help an accused facing charges under the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla thus rejected an accused's regular bail plea, who is facing charges of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Chet Ram versus The State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 142
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted interim bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “Prima facie, the plea taken by the accused that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him appears to be correct and is supported by the memo of arrest. No contrary document was filed by the State showing that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner.”
Case Name: Adil V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to four accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that bail cannot be denied merely on the ground that the victims would be traumatised.
Noting the submission of the State, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is a force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent/State that the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners. However, that is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners”.
Divisional Commissioner Does Not Have The Power To Review An Already Decided Appeal: HP High Court
Case Name: Manish Dharmaik V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 144
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reopen and rehear an appeal once it has been finally decided.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “There is no power vested in the Divisional Commissioner to suo moto again revive an appeal which has been decided by it earlier in exercise of its quasi-judicial power.”
Case Name: Nathu v/s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 145
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition, holding that benefits of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be granted when there is no entry in the Panchayat's Parivar register during the time of land acquisition.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “One fact which is evident… is that as on the date when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned, which is a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Scheme in terms of Clause 2.2.3 of the same.”
Case Name: Raj Kumar & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 146
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per Rule 38 of the HP Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, the outgoing managing committee of the society is bound to initiate the election process at least 90 days prior to completion of its tenure.
The Court clarified that merely passing a resolution does not amount to the initiation of the election process.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Passing of this resolution 90 days before expiry of terms of the outgoing Managing Committee, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be initiation of election process”
Case Name: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v/s Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 147
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a plaint is filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff cannot bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation unless the relief sought is urgent.
The Court remarked that a commercial suit filed without undergoing pre-institution mediation, in cases where no genuine urgency exists, must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
After perusing the plaint Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “……there is no whisper in the application as to what necessitated the plaintiffs to seek urgent relief, by bypassing the statutory provisions of Section 12A of the Act”
Case Name : H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 148
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that an employee cannot be denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits merely on the ground of retirement, if his juniors were promoted and regularized during his service tenure.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the person who was punished for offences under Sections 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court held that even though in cases of rape, the evidence by the victim must be given predominant consideration, it cannot be believed if the testimony of the victim is inconsistent and contradictory to the record.
After going through the evidence on record Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kureja Noted that: “The perusal of love letters, nowhere reflects that the same were written by the prosecutrix under any kind of pressure. In fact, these letters are pure reflection of feelings of the prosecutrix towards the accused”.
Case Name: Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.
The Court held that despite repeated reminders by the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme the state authorities continued to deny pension on untenable grounds.
A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “However, on the ground a different bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their State of Affairs at this present point of time”.
Human Teeth Are Not A 'Deadly Weapon' Under Section 324 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has partly allowed a revision petition, holding that human teeth are not considered as a “deadly weapon” under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated: “………injury caused by teeth does not fall within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC . Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”
Case Name: Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stocking allopathic medicines without a valid license and keeping them on the racks of the clinic amounted to an “offer for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and violates section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribes punishment for selling drugs without a valid license.
Rejecting the contention of the accused that mere possession is not an offence till there is direct proof of sale, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”.
Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.
Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.
Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four…”
Case Name: Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Class-IV employee like petitioner cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action”.
Case Name: Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that execution petitions filed by insurance companies under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for recovery of compensation, are subject to the twelve years limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The findings returned by the learned Court below that an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act can be filed at any time and there is no limitation for moving such application because there is no limitation for filing a claim petition for the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act in the facts of this case are not sustainable”.
Case Title – Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has observed that an interim relief petition under Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) claiming closure of business and manufacturing activities of the partnership business cannot be granted when the principal dispute pertains to the business activities of that partnership. Granting such a relief would amount to the destruction of the subject matter of arbitration and would defeat the very intent and purpose behind the aforesaid section.
Case Name: Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pendency of a criminal case, where no charge sheet has been filed, cannot be a ground to deny promotion to an employee exonerated of all charges in the departmental inquiry.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “Admittedly no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Though the Magistrate concerned is well within his/her right to order further investigation, such fact, if any, cannot be a ground for the respondents to deny promotion to the higher post, especially when charge has not been framed till date,”
Mere Recovery Of Money From Accused Does Not Amount To Bribery In Absence Of Demand: HP High Court
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Forest Officer who was accused of demanding and accepting a Rs 3000 bribe.
The Court held that mere possession of tainted currency notes cannot constitute bribery unless there is proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification.
After going through the evidence, Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.”
Case Name: Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that maintaining family and social ties is important for prisoners, and that parole should be allowed to them to attend to their personal and family responsibilities.
Justice Virender Singh held that “Mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner, as, the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.”
Case Name: Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 161
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once a fair rate of compensation for land acquisition has been decided, its benefit must be extended to all landowners affected by the same acquisition.
The Court held that denying such benefits to some landowners merely because they did not approach the court amounts to discrimination.
Rejecting the State's reasoning, the Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined which can become a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the Court, the act of the respondents of not giving this benefit to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 162
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere statement by a witness that the accused was driving the vehicle at 'high speed' is not sufficient to establish negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: "Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused."
Case Name: Mangat Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. Namely Tarsem Lal and others V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 163
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a plaintiff has the right to continue a suit until a formal judicial order of withdrawal is passed. It further remarked that merely filing an application or making a statement about compromise and withdrawal does not, by itself, amount to dismissal of the case.
Rejecting the Trial Court's reasoning, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that:“The Court cannot force the plaintiff to withdraw a case, simply because at an earlier stage the plaintiff might have filed such an application or even may have recorded his or her statement… The Court cannot shy away and shun its duty to decide the case on merit.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 164
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be granted to a person convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Virender Singh noted that “…..it has constantly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, should not be given to the person, who has been convicted for the offence for causing death, due to the rash and negligent driving.”
Mere Foreign Nationality Of Accused Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Bail Under NDPS Act: HP High Court
Case Name: Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 165
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the mere foreign nationality of an individual cannot be a ground to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…this Court cannot make a distinction for granting or denying bail, merely on the ground of being a citizen or non-citizen coupled with the fact that the authenticity of the Passport submitted to the police is a matter of trial under the Foreigners Act.”
Case Name: Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that teaching experience certificates issued by Principals of Government Schools cannot be ignored merely on technical grounds, such as the appointment being made on Parent Teacher Association basis without government permission.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that “Important factor was possession of teaching certificate, if any, of Government/ Semi Government Organization. Once Principal of Government Senior Secondary School issued certificate, certifying therein that petitioner herein worked in School for more than three years, question of his appointment in school without permission, if any, of government, may not be of any relevance.”
Case Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accidental shooting of a person, believing him to be a wild animal, amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”
Case Name: Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot be denied pension after the death of the first wife, even if the marriage was technically invalid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “True it is that in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of the petitioner with Ms. Jawala Devi i.e. second wife, during subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. Kamlesh Devi can be said to be illegal, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case… respondents ought not have rejected the case of the petitioner”
Case Name: Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the execution of a will in favour of family members who had been caring for the testator and his household could not be termed unnatural.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “… the execution of Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons, who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reasons to establish trust cannot be said to be unnatural. The choice of testator for choosing one of the daughters and son-in-law to inherit the entire property stands duly explained and accordingly the defendants have been able to discharge the burden.”
Case Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that family pension of a deceased employee can be equally shared between the first and second wife through a voluntary and free-will compromise.
Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.
Rejecting the contention of the State, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that “…a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations; i) discharge with compensation; ii) discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension. In the aforesaid rule, word 'or' has been used… meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment…”
Right To Appeal Cannot Be Made Conditional Upon Deposit Of Decretal Sum: HP High Court
Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an appellate court cannot impose the condition of depositing the decreetal amount as a precondition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The learned 1st Appellate Court had no authority to issue a direction that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed subject to deposition of 50% of the decreetal amount,”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, observing that the medical evidence, which revealed no injuries on the prosecutrix, supported the view that she may have consented to the alleged act.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “The medical evidence clearly shows that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on any part of her body and there was no mark of any injury or violence on her person at the time of her medical examination, which further fortifies the fact that she did not resist the alleged act… In fact, it seems that the prosecutrix was consenting party to the alleged act
Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) upholding an arbitral award in favour of Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd. The court held that the failure to provide exemption certificate by employer at the time of importation of goods for ADB funded project made it liable to reimburse the customs duty paid by the contractor.
Case Title: Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the ground of conviction, and that the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry or record reasons for not conducting an enquiry.
Rejecting the contention of HRTC, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Though learned counsel for HRTC argued that Rule 19(i) permits automatic termination of a government servant on conviction, this Court is not persuaded to agree. Having perused Rule 19 in its entirety, it is clear that the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case before passing such an order.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Convicts In Four-Year-Old Child's Murder Case
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176
The Himachal Pradesh High Court commuted the death penalty awarded to Chander Sharma (26) and Vikrant Bakshi (22) in the 2014 Yug Gupta murder case, directing that they will serve life imprisonment “till their last breath.”
The Court acquitted co-accused, Tejinder Pal Singh (29), of all charges, holding that the offences of kidnapping against Tejinder pal for ransom under Sections 364A and 347 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The material on record does not show that the accused cannot be reformed, hence we are unable to confirm the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court despite our indignation towards the crime. The same is reduced to life imprisonment, which will mean the natural life of the convicts till their last breath.”
Using MGNREGA Funds To Pay Skilled Employees Cannot Justify Denial Of Regularisation: HP High Court
Case Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that MGNREGA is designed only for unskilled manual work, and cannot be used to deny regularization to skilled roles like Computer Operators.
The Court observed that the State wrongly used MGNREGA funds to pay for skilled services despite having sanctioned posts.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Unskilled manual work means any physical work which any adult person can do without special training. Petitioners, being skilled Computer Operators, could not have been assigned such work, but the State, noting the need for manpower, employed them and used MGNREGA funds to meet the expenditure.”
Case Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the sub-tenant fails to establish direct tenancy under landlord or predecessor-in-interest, the eviction order passed against tenant would be binding on them as well.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was not the aggrieved party.”
Case Name: Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that for batch-wise recruitment, the year and month of passing the final examination must decide the candidate's batch and not the date on which the certificate was issued.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “…it is nowhere mentioned in the R&P Rules that date of issuance of certificate given in the certificate would be relevant, rather… relevant date would be the year and month of passing.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a molestation case, observing that when the victim submits that she does not have cordial relations with accused and was not on talking terms with him, her testimony requires greater caution.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “The informant admitted that she had an inimical relationship with the accused, and she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, her testimony was required to be seen with due care and caution, especially in view of the delay in reporting the matter to the police.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Soni and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when two accused are searched under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, each must be individually informed of their right under Section 50 of the Act.
The division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “A joint consent memo was prepared, which was signed by both the accused persons...as such the said lapse committed by the Investigation Officer amounts to violation of mandatory requirement, which was necessary to comply under Section 50 of NDPS Act."
Case Name: Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a postgraduate diploma cannot be treated as equivalent to a postgraduate degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “There is no reference of Post Graduation Diploma in the essential qualification, therefore, meaning of words 'after doing Post Graduation' has to be construed as 'after doing Post Graduation Degree.”
Case Name: Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot seek a refund of maintenance paid to his children after they attain majority, as he has a moral duty to support them for their education.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “...being a father, even if, he has no legal duty, but has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly, when they are at the verge of completing their education as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.”
Case Name: United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jamna Devi & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 184
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an insurance company cannot rely on clauses to deny compensation which was not revealed to the insured at the time of signing the agreement.
Emphasizing on the principle of good faith, the court remarked that it was the duty of the insurance company to inform the insured about all clauses.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that:“… Exception Clause contained in Policy was not disclosed and, therefore, said condition contained in Main Policy cannot be made basis to relieve the Insurance Company from its liability. It was duty of the Insurance Company to disclose all Exception Clauses to the insured, who, in good faith and without notice of Exception Clause, had purchased the Insurance Policy.”
Mere Payment Of Rent By Partnership Firm Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights: HP High Court
Case Name: Sudershan & others v/s Divisional Commissioner, Shimla & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 185
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when the tenancy is in the name of an individual, mere payment of rent by a partnership firm does not confer tenancy rights in its favour unless there is a valid tenancy in the name of the firm.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Maybe even if some payments were made by some partnership firm, this does not mean that the said partnership firm automatically stood inducted as a tenant.”
Case Name: Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 186
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to the prime co-accused in the accidental shooting of another person, believing him to be a wild animal, and reiterated that the same amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”
Case Name: Prem Mohini Gupta v/s Sumitra (Deceased through LRs)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 187
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when an agreement to sell has the option to either sell or lease the property, the landlord tenant relationship continues to exist.
The Court clarified that according to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 “Agreement to Sell does not create any title in favour of the purchaser as it is only an Agreement to Sell but not sale or transfer of property subject matter of the Agreement to Sell.”
Case Name: Smt. Amar Kaur and other v/s Sh. Rishib Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 188
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that translated versions of already exhibited documents are not additional evidence and the courts must prioritize justice over procedural technicalities.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “...by no stretch of imagination it was an application to lead additional evidence. Interest of justice would have been served had the learned Appellate Court allowed the application... Failure on the part of the learned Appellate Court to do so renders the impugned order bad in law.”
Case Name: Santosh Kumar v/s Pushpa Devi & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 189
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the scope of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, which lays down consequences for disobeying an injunction or breaching the terms, is not confined to the parties in the suit. The provision applies to any person who has violated the order of the court.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "In case of disobedience or breach of an injunction, the Court may order attachment of the property or detention in civil prison of the person guilty of such breach. This provision does not restrict itself to the parties in the lis—the expression used is 'person'.”
Case Name: Desh Raj Gupta v/s Urmila Gupta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 190
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the birth of a daughter from another woman clearly depicts that the husband had a relationship with her while still being married to his first wife. The Court held that this conduct compelled the wife to live separately, and therefore, she could not be accused of desertion.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Birth of a daughter... clearly depicts that either appellant was already in a relationship with someone or developed relations thereafter... respondent has been compelled to live separately.”
Case Name: Manoj Chauhan v/s State of Himachal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 191
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conviction in a road accident case cannot be sustained unless the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “Both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the identity of the accused and the car were not established”.
The Court remarked that such conduct shows a “complete non-application of judicial mind.”
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “there was a complete non-application of judicial mind by the learned Judge concerned, who did not care to go through the order passed by this Court in the earlier CMPMO”.
Case Name: Kanto v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 192
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that delays in deciding appeals against the suspension of elected representatives defeat the purpose of justice.
The Court further observed that “a growing pattern of suspending elected Pradhans across different parts of the State towards the end of their tenure and noted it to be and raised concerns about it”
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that “It was expected from the Appellate Authority to decide said appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Admittedly, this has not been done, because the appeal is still pending... these tactics of not deciding the case expeditiously defeat the very purpose of filing the appeal.”
Case Name: M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Himachal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 193
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when permission is granted under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the law only requires the land to be put to use for the intended purpose within the prescribed time, and not for the entire project to be completed.
The Court remarked that the “Legislature deliberately used the phrase “put to use” instead of “complete the project” signifying that active progress within the permitted time is sufficient compliance”.
Case Name: Shri Ram Lal Thakur v/s Shri Randhir Sharma and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 194
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an election petition filed with allegations of corrupt practice has to be accompanied by a mandatory affidavit in Form 25, as required under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel Held that:“...though in the election petition there are allegations of corrupt practice, yet the election petitioner has not filed the prescribed affidavit in Form-25 and, therefore, as there is a non-compliance of Rule 94-A of the 1961 Rules, read with Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act, and in absence of this affidavit being in Form-25, the petition cannot be put to trial.”
Case Name: Mars Bottlers Una Private Limited v/s State of Himachal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 195
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 66(2) of the Excise Act, if a licence is cancelled or suspended for breach of licence conditions or non-payment of fees, the suspension can later be revoked after the penalty has been paid.
Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “...in case of cancellation or suspension of licence under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 29, such cancellation or suspension may be revoked or foregone after payment of penalty... Therefore, suspension... was compoundable... and the penalty imposed... is highly disproportionate.”
Appropriation Of Temple Donations Betrays Devotees' Trust: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 196
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that devotees donate money to temples with the belief that the donation will take care of the deities and will help maintain temple spaces.
The Court remarked that “Every rupee of temple funds must be used for the temple's religious purpose or dharmic charity… It cannot be treated like general revenue for the State or general public exchequer… nor diverted to any welfare schemes of the Government.”
Case Name: Kamli and others v/s Boby Chauhan & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 197
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a registered vehicle owner remains legally liable for an accident until ownership is formally transferred under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if a sale agreement had been executed prior to the accident.
The Court reiterated that: “Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that where ownership of any motor vehicle registered under the MV Act is transferred, transferor shall have to report the fact of transfer to Registration Authority within 14 days and Transferee shall report within 30 days thereafter.”
Case Name: Padam Sharma & Ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 198
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that prohibiting entire communities from worshipping at their deity's temple violates their constitutional right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26.
The Court stated that such rights can only be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, or health, and that too through reasonable and proportionate measures.
The Court remarked that: “Illegal acts of a handful of people cannot be ground to take away the right of freedom, profess, practice and propagate religion of public at large.”
Case Name: Pushpa Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 199
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a woman who was accused of confining and beating the deceased child because he belonged to a schedule caste and had touched her house.
She also allegedly demanded a sacrificial goat for purification of her house.The Court noted that such conduct of the accused was clearly motivated by caste-based discrimination.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “A prima facie reading of the status report and F.I.R. shows that the accused had given beatings to the deceased (a member of the scheduled caste) because the deceased happened to touch the house of the accused, and she wanted a sacrificial goat for purification. Hence, the offence was committed because of the caste of the deceased.”
Case Name: Mahender Singh v/s Union of India & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 200
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the dismissal of an Indo-Tibetan Border Police constable for alleged desertion was arbitrary and disproportionate, particularly when his absence was due to medical reasons and he had served the force with an unblemished record for over 18 years.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner had rendered over 18 years of unblemished service and had repeatedly apprised the authorities of his illness; hence, the Court found his dismissal to be harsh and totally uncalled for.”
Case Name: M/s Greenko Astha Projects (India) Hydro Power Pvt. Limited v/s Directorate of Energy, State Agency, Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 201
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Directorate of Energy does not have jurisdiction to reject an application for accreditation under the Renewable Energy certificate mechanism, as such decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the central agency designated by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Whether or not a generating company engaged in generation of electricity from renewable energy sources is eligible to apply for registration… has to be decided by the Central Agency and not by the State Agency.”
Case Name: Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited & another v/s Smt. Basanti Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 202
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an executing court can't rely on evidence led in a separate proceeding under a different provision of the Civil Procedure Code between the parties.
Case Name: Kapil Dev v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 203
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot be deprived of the right to lead defence evidence merely because he had earlier declined to do so when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court remarked that the trial court cannot discuss the merits of a probable defence while deciding an application under Section 311 CrPC.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “On the said ground of negligence, whether the right of the accused to prove/probabilize his defence, can be snatched away? The answer is in negative, as the accused has every right to prove/probabilize his defence by leading cogent and convincing evidence.”
Case Name: Lekh Ram & another v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 204
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere usage of the word "sali", though amounting to filthy abuse, does not fulfil the ingredients of “intentional insult” under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code unless it provokes or is likely to provoke breach of peace.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the use of the term 'sali' amounts to filthy abuse. The victim/informant did not state that this term or the filthy abuses induced her to commit breach of peace”.
Case Name: Ugma Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 205
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that possession of 7.033 kg of poppy husk is an intermediate quantity and the rigorous conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in such cases.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla reiterated that: “The Central Government has issued a notification prescribing 1 kg of opium poppy straw as the small quantity, and 50 kg of the poppy straw is the commercial quantity.”
Case Name: Usha Chaudhary & others V/s Raj Prakash
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 206
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a partnership deed without proof of books of accounts cannot be used as a camouflage to conceal subletting by the tenants.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that:“Evidently, the partnership deed was executed for dual purpose, firstly to camouflage the relationship and secondly to secure the interest of the tenants to get monthly income.”
Case Name: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited V/s HCL Infotech Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 207
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board seeking condonation of delay in filing objections against an arbitral award passed in favour of HCL Infotech Ltd., holding that bureaucratic delays and internal movement of files do not constitute sufficient cause for delay.
Rejecting the State's contention, the Court remarked that: “The Decision with regard to filing of objections, approval whereof ultimately came from the Chairman of the applicant/objector, certainly cannot be taken by menial officials like Junior Engineer and Computer Operator.”
Case Name: Chaman v/s State of H.P. and ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 208
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, a government employee's pay can't exceed that of their immediate senior.
However, the Court quashed the recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner, as the excess payment made occurred due to a departmental error.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “Admittedly, a Clerk is 'placed' as Junior Assistant and not 'promoted' as such. This error, having come to the notice of the competent authority upon being pointed out by respondent No.4, has justly been ordered to be rectified.”
Case Name: Ravinder Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 209
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the School Management Committee is a statutory body under Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and recovery for financial discrepancies can't be imposed on a single teacher.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “as per Section 21 of the RTE Act, SMC is a statutory body, who are to monitor the utilization, the action of the State Authorities in fastening the alleged recovery solely on the petitioner and without involving members of SMC vitiates recovery against the petitioner”.
Case Name: Dalip Singh v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 210
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that injury to a public servant while on official duty must be viewed seriously and a punishment of six months is not excessive in such cases.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “a sentence of six months cannot be said to be excessive because a public servant was injured while discharging his official duties, and such acts are to be viewed seriously”.
The Court stated that: “A deterrent sentence has to be awarded to dissuade the threat to public servant while discharging their duties”
Case Name: Ram Krishan v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted probation to a man after 20 years who was convicted of rash and negligent driving. The Court took into account his good conduct, long pendency of trial, and the reformatory nature of criminal law.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “Rejecting the prayer of the convict to release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences, committed by the convict."
Case Name: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.
The Court clarified that such termination could only be taken up through a fresh industrial dispute or a direct application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The Appropriate Government in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination… had no authority to make a reference of this issue… The termination… was a fresh cause of action… The appropriate Government suo motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made…”
Case Name: Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has nothing to do with the connection with consolidation or clubbing of suits. It provides for the stay of subsequent suits filed between the same parties on the same cause of action.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has got nothing to do with the issue of clubbing or consolidating the cases, because, the same relates to the principle of res-subjudice, wherein, a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause has to be stayed in the light of the pendency of the earlier suit.”
Case Name: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the withdrawal of a retired employee's higher grade pay and directed the institute to reconsider his claim for financial upgradation. The Court held that the delay was caused by NIT's failure to respond to the employee's representation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that : “It is not disputed that filing of the representation in the year 2018 had never been responded to by the present appellant and only when the rejection order was passed on 28.01.2022, the writ petition came to be filed in July 2022… Having delayed to respond to the representation, now they cannot turn around and take the stance that there was a delay on the part of the employee.”
Case Name: Sachin Shridhar & others v/s Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 215
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a communication issued by the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority , which had withheld payment of to the landowners on the ground that a shortfall in the land area could not be treated as a defect in title under the sale deed.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said: “This Court is of the considered view that defect in title of land cannot be confused with the alleged shortfall in the total land sold by the petitioners to the respondent.”
Case Name: Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 216
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts can permit secondary evidence only upon strict proof that the original document is lost, destroyed, or withheld by the opposing party. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims of loss are insufficient grounds for such permission.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “An inquiry report revealed that no original document was submitted by the plaintiff for registration and what he had submitted was only a photocopy of the said Will and the complaint was also dismissed.”
Case Name: Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 217
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority is legally competent to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority.
It was stated that since proper authorisation took place and no procedural irregularity was found, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were valid.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held that: “Once the record goes on to show that the Executive Chairman had delegated the power at the district level to the DLSA who is the District Judge and the Chairman as per Section 9 of the Act, no fault as such can be found in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.”
Case Name: Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 218
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Municipal Corporation can't raise the issue of trespassing by a former occupant, after it had sought vacation of the premises on the promise of re-allotment.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The respondent–Corporation which got the premises vacated from the petitioner on the promise of the petitioner being put back in possession… cannot now be allowed to raise the issue of the petitioner being in unauthorized possession or having trespassed over the property of the State in these proceedings.”
Deceased Cannot Waive Dependents' Right To Motor Accident Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Union of India & Another v/s Kiran Bala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a deceased person cannot relinquish the statutory right of his dependents to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “A person can relinquish his personal claim, but not the claim of other family members or dependents by swearing an affidavit or giving undertaking.”
The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Union of India against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi which granted compensation to the wife, mother, and children of the deceased Halku Ram, who died in a road accident.
Case Name: Shri Roshan Lal v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a person facing eviction under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (which empowers revenue authorities to remove encroachments from Government land) raises a plea of adverse possession, the Assistant Collector must convert himself into a Civil Court as per Section 163(3) of the Act.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “It was incumbent upon the Revenue Authority, i.e. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, to have had converted itself into a Civil Court and proceeded with the matter thereafter, as if it was a Civil Court. Failure on the part of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade to do so, rendered the order passed by him null and void.”
Case Name: Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 221
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the owner of a vehicle can be held liable to pay interim compensation on the principle of “no fault” and the driver of the vehicle cannot be made jointly liable with the owner.
Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The driver could not have been made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the owner of the offending vehicle. It is the owner of the vehicle alone who shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the MV Act.”
Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. v/s M/s C&C Construction Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 222
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when there is no appearance of a qualified person to corroborate the claim certificate, the arbitral award suffers patent illegality.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “In the absence of corroboration of the certificate… and any qualified person putting in appearance, the award of ₹3.82 crore along with lease money is arbitrary and constitutes patent illegality.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Zydus Interim Relief In 'Glucon-D v Glucose-D' Trademark Case
Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 223
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently refused to grant interim relief to Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., which had sought to restrain Leeford Healthcare Ltd. from using the marks “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” for its glucose-based products.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order dated November 11, 2025, held that a company cannot claim exclusive rights over descriptive trade terms such as “glucose.”
Case Name: M/s Esteem Industries v/s Chhatisgarh Medical Services Corp. Ltd. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 224
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition is not maintainable in any state where the award debtor's bank has branches. The Court remarked that it will only be maintainable in the State where the award debtor maintains a bank account.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Simply because the award debtor has an account in a bank in Chhattisgarh, which bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the same will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court… the act of the Court of conferring jurisdiction upon itself on the analogy that the bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, shall be slightly far-fetched.”
Case Name: Bhagwan Dutt & others v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 225
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when the gap between the sale transaction date and the land acquisition notification is short, a cumulative rate of increase cannot be granted while assessing the market value of the land.
The Court remarked that since the sale deed and the acquisition notification were issued within a period of nine months, no cumulative rate of increase could be allowed while assessing the market value.
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 226
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession of kerosene without a permit does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (which prescribes penalties for contravention of orders issued under the Act).
The Court remarked that the Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices) Order, 1993, only applies to licensed dealers and distributors operating under the Public Distribution System (PDS), not individuals found in mere possession of kerosene.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The learned Courts below did not consider whether the kerosene order applied to a consumer or not. Thus, the judgments passed by the learned Courts below suffer from jurisdictional error.”
Sale Deeds Executed After Acquisition Notice Cannot Be Used To Inflate Land Value: HP High Court
Case Name: Secretary (IPH) & ors. v/s Mangak Devi (died and deleted) & ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that sale deeds executed after the issuance of the acquisition notification could not be used for determining market value
Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “The documents and exhibited sale deeds… are subsequent to the issuance of notification… the possibility of these sale-deeds being for the purpose of inflating the price cannot be ruled out.”
Case Name: Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has modified the sentence of a truck driver involved in a fatal accident. The Court held that as the truck plunged off the road, and mechanical inspection showed no fault, the accident itself indicated negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “Therefore, it was duly established that the vehicle had left the road and fallen into the gorge. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the vehicles do not usually leave the road and fall into a gorge. Therefore, a principle of res ipsa locutor can be applied to the present case.”
Case Name: Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 50% locomotor-disabled candidate challenging the selection of another candidate for the post of Pharmacist.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner, having 50% locomotor disability, was found unfit for the post of Pharmacist due to improper standing and walking. The work of a Pharmacist involves physical tasks such as giving first aid, performing emergency duties, and sometimes travelling…”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the National Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to discharge the accused in a criminal case involving non-compoundable offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Section 19(5) of the Legal Service Authorities Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law… the Lok Adalat could not have taken cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”
Case Name: Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.
The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to reclaim his property for running his shop.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Petitioner cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood. The fact that the landlord was running a shop in rented premises is more than sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises for running his own shop.”
Case Name: Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways v/s Suman Devi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 232
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the monthly income of a deceased is deemed to be rightly assessed when the salary certificate is proved and it is not challenged during cross-examination.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “The Court found that the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's monthly income as ₹25,000, noting that the salary certificate was proved and not challenged during cross-examination”.
Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 233
In a case under Section 324 IPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the injury sustained by the victim in the case, and the condition of his clothing, clearly disproved the accused's claim that the wound resulted from an accidental fall.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The report of this witness and the statement of the Medical Officer clearly show that the clothes were also cut during the incident. This would rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by way of a fall.”
Case Name: Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 234
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that lapse in establishing the identity of the accused creates a serious discrepancy in criminal cases, especially in the absence of any independent witness to confirm such identification.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:“It was specifically asserted in the rukka that the drivers of the vans ran away from the spot by taking advantage of the darkness. They were identified as Billa and Jitru in the light of the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that Sunil Kumar is known as Jitru, and Ashok Kumar is also known as Billa. No person from the locality was examined to prove this fact.”
Case Name: Shiv Singh Sen v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 235
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that electoral ward boundaries cannot be redrawn merely because a single individual is dissatisfied with population distribution.
The Court further remarked that delimitation is primarily an administrative exercise involving complex geographic, demographic and boundary-based considerations.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel stated that: “…if delimitation is carried out solely on the basis of an individual's grievance, it would lead to unnecessary administrative complications including the requirement for large-scale changes in official documentation of local inhabitants….”
Case Name: Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 236
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case of preventive detention, has observed that the State's reliance on the petitioner's ownership of two vehicles to infer illegal income from drug trafficking was based on biased and incorrect information.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted: “Both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra Finance… therefore, impression given… that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities… seems to be based on a biased information…”
Delay Due To Heavy Rains, Road Blockages Does Not Violate Right To Speedy Trial: HP High Court
Case Name: Man Bahadur Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 237
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the right to speedy trial is not violated when the delay in trial proceedings was due to unavoidable external factors such as road blockages caused by heavy rain.
Case Name: Shri Vinod Kalia v/s Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 238
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot rely on the old age of a person to justify his failure to produce the witness or prove the alleged original rent agreement in a civil suit.
The Court reiterated that when a witness is aged, the law provides a clear mechanism for recording such testimony through a Court-appointed Commissioner.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "The contention that Roshal Lal is an aged person, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner because if that was the case, the petitioner could have had moved an appropriate application to have the statement of Roshan Lal recorded by the appointment of a Commissioner.
Only Surviving Spouse Inherits Tenancy; Other Legal Heirs Have No Right: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Smt. Jawala Devi & others v/s Smt. Prabha Bhagra & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, governing tenancy succession, the right to inherit a deceased tenant's tenancy vests exclusively in the surviving spouse.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “As per Explanation-II, right of every successor referred to in Explanation-I, shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs. Therefore, objection of defendant disputing the locus of plaintiff to file the suit is not sustainable.”
Case Name: Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 240
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a Nepali national who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The Court held that the investigation was not proper as all pouches of the alleged contraband were mixed together before sampling, which made the procedure highly doubtful.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The Investigating Officer had mixed the contents of the backpack and had weighed them together. The samples were taken from the mixed contents of the backpack. The status report does not mention that the sample was representative and homogeneous. The packets were also not sent individually to determine whether they contained opium or not.”
Employee Can't Decide Location Of Anganwari Centre, Must Abide By Directions: HP High Court
Case Name: Lalita Devi v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 241
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the termination of an angwari worker who repeatedly disobeyed the departmental orders to shift the Anganwari Centre from her home to the local Mahila Mandal Bhawan.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that:“It was not for the petitioner to decide where to run the Anganwari Centre. As an employee, all that was required of her was to abide by the directions issued… and not to sit over the same and take her independent decisions contrary to the directions.”
Allegations Of Fraud Can't Be Decided Under SARFAESI Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: UCO Bank and another v/s Smt. Manjana Verma Sahni and another
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 242
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by UCO Bank, which challenged a trial court order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “This Court is of the considered view that the first relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can be granted under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and for the grant of that relief obviously the Fora is the Civil Court.”
Case Name: Madhu Joshi and another v/s Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 243
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, it does not make him liable for contributory negligence over the accident.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.”
Case Name: Pritam Marshal v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 244
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State can't deduct money granted under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund in 2012 from the petitioner's medical reimbursement claims.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:“An amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, released by the worthy Chief Minister out of his own Relief Fund, was not with any conditionthat the same was to be reimbursed or deducted later on upon the happening of any eventuality.”
Case Name: Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah… The police recovered a WhatsApp chat… Sandeep Shah had transferred money… The petitioner's mobile phone was linked to the account… The WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with Sandeep Shah.”
Case Name: Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once the Chief Justice grants extension of service to his Principal Private Secretary with full consequential benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, the administrative establishment does not have any right to seek further clarification from the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj stated that: “In our considered opinion, once the order of re-extension had been specifically passed, the query was not required to be made, which has led to the unsavoury situation”
Case Name: Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of a subject expert cannot be substituted by the Court unless it is demonstrably wrong on the face of the record.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “…opinion given by expert cannot be substituted by Court, until same on the face of it is wrong… best person to verify the correctness… is the person who has set-up the paper.”
Electricity Ombudsman Can't Decide Review Petition In Absence Of Both Parties: HP High Court
Case Name: Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Ombudsman while deciding a review petition cannot act contrary to Regulation 37(8) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations and decide in complete absence of both parties.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The impugned order demonstrates that while dismissing the review petition it inserted certain portions in the earlier order… This also could not have been done… in the absence of the parties… insertions… can be done onlyafter providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.”
Case Name:Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a university can't apply inconsistent standards by treating a candidate's Master's degree as an eligible subject for PhD admission but ignoring the same qualification during selection for the post of Assistant Professor.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...respondents are estopped from adopting different yardsticks while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as 'concerned' subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same... for the post of Assistant Professor.”
Case Name: Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Appellate Court cannot question the veracity of the Local Commissioner's report, as examining its veracity lies within the domain of the parties and must be tested through evidence.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Raising objections to the report… lay in the domain of the respondent… it was not for the learned Court to have had commented upon the veracity of the report… Had the application been allowed… it would not have amounted to the admission of the averments…”
Case Name: Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the 'treatment from Tantriks' could not be accepted as a valid or permissible ground to justify a trainee's prolonged absence from training as a constable.
The Court further noted that the record clearly revealed no admissible medical evidence, and her conduct was incorrigible.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Records reveal that the petitioner had taken a stand that she remained under-treatment from Tantriks cannot be accepted as a permissible ground, to obviate the petitioner charge of willful absence. In these circumstances, conduct of the petitioner being incorrigible definitely points towards the willful absence to be an act attributable to the petitioner solely.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Six-Month Extension Granted To Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena
Case Name: Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a six-month extension of service granted to the Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, and held that its role is not to substitute its own view for that of the Government.
The Court reiterated that as Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits such extension and due process was followed, there was no ground to intervene.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “This Court would not be in a position to substitute the opinion of the Competent Authority… once the due process has been carried out before grant of permission.”
Filing Entrepreneur Memorandum Not Mandatory Under MSME Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that filing an Entrepreneur Memorandum is not a mandatory requirement for micro and small enterprises under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
The Court remarked that micro and small enterprises are not bound to file the Entrepreneur Memorandum within 180 days of commencement of the MSMED Act, as the filing was voluntary, which was clarified by a 2007 government notification.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“…notification clarifying that for micro and small enterprises… there is no limitation of 180 days… and these enterprises can file EM anytime they decide to do.”
Case Name: Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is “very widely worded”, empowering courts to grant such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
The Court further remarked that Section 92(1)(h) is broad and allows “further or other relief” necessary for trust administration, including examining alienation of trust property.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded… the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised qua the alienation… has to be decided after evidence is led and at this stage even otherwise cannot be done.”
Case Name: Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a candidate who chooses not to apply under the reserved category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation after failing in the selection process.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…once the petitioner has chosen not to avail benefit of reservation available as OBC candidate, then, after participation and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around and claim appointment against OBC post…”
Case Name: Kabir khan & others v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 256
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 29 petitions which challenged the legality of arrests on the ground that the police did not furnish written grounds of arrest.
The Court remarked that the Supreme Court's directions mandating written communication of grounds of arrest in the judgement of Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra apply prospectively and does not invalidate arrests made prior to the judgment.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “…this procedure… shall govern arrests henceforth… this means that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has… made directions… prospective… the present petitioners cannot assail their arrest… because [the judgment] is prospective in nature.”
Case Name: M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 257
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, applying the Supreme Court's Armour Security case, held that once proceedings are initiated by either the State or Central GST authority, parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same issue are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter.
Case Name: Aarav Potan & others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 258
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Bonafide Himachali students who were denied eligibility for MBBS/BDS admissions under the State Quota.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “With respect to the private employees also, when once parents have moved outside in a private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as aforestated footing cannot be said to be irrational or illegal.”