Nominal IndexIndian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)04Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs...
Nominal Index
Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01
Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02
Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03
Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)04
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs HCL Infotech Ltd.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 05
Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 06
Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 07
Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 08
M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 09
Abhishek v/s State of H.P..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 10
Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 11
State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar @Ghungaru.,2026LiveLaw (HP)12
Soma Devi & others v/s Union of India and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)13
Salochna Devi v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 14
Sandesh Kumar Deceased through his LRs v/s National Highway Authority of India and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 15
Ratnoo Ram v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)16
Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)17
Sh. Joginder Singh v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 18
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. V/s Jaimal Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)19
Beverley Singh v/s Tejinder Singh & Another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 20
Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 22
Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 24
Meenki Devi, Ram Pal & Anr. V/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 25
Chaman Lal v/s State of H.P. through its Secretary (Panchayati Raj) and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 26
Sanjeev Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 27M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 28
Bir Singh v/s Tirath Raj & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 29
Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. v/s Central Public Works Department & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 30
Sh.Satpal and others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 31
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v/s State of H.P. and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition holding that mere financial or consequential interest was insufficient to implead a non-signatory in the arbitration proceedings unless the stringent tests as laid down by the Supreme Court which include participation in the negotiation, performance or termination of contract were satisfied.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed: “Merely because the petitioner had a substantial interest in the subject matter of the contract, the same was not a ground to implead it as a party in the arbitration proceedings going on between the parties before the learned Arbitrator. This Court holds that the petitioner had no direct or indirect role to play in the execution of the contract between CPWD and the Contractor.”
Case Name: Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by Satish Kumar, refusing to interfere with the Trial Court's order which denied extension of time for depositing deficient court fee in a decree for specific performance.
The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish bona fide reasons or absence of negligence and therefore did not deserve discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:“ Along-with the application, no document has been appended or was appended to demonstrate that indeed the petitioner had gone for a pilgrimage of two months… and that after coming back, he suffered viral infection, cough and fever… these bald assertions made in the application, are not supported by any document on record.”
Employee Who Forgoes Earlier Promotion Can't Claim Reconsideration Within One Year: HP High Court
Case Name: Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Indu Sharma, a retired Junior Assistant, challenging the placement and promotion of her juniors to the post of Senior Assistant in the Department of Language and Culture.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “If an employee was promoted to a higher post and such an employee refuse or foregoes his promotion then, the said employee is not to be considered for promotion again for a period of one year from the date of refusal of first promotion or till a next vacancy arises, whichever is later.”
Case Name: Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 04
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that abolition of the work-charged establishment in 2005 could not nullify a right that had already accrued in favour of the employee in 2003.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Once a right for work charge status had accrued to the petitioner on completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2003… the abolition of work charge establishment in August, 2005 cannot be permitted to a ground to deprive and deny benefit which accrue/flow to the petitioner.”
Case Title: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs HCL Infotech Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 05
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that statutory interest and penalty arising from delayed payment of entry tax cannot be shifted onto a contractor when the delay was caused by the employer's own failure to act in time, and where the arbitral tribunal had consciously restricted the contractor's scope of liability.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel in an order dated December 29, 2025, dismissed a challenged filed by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (HPSEBL) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to set aside an award passed in favour of HCL Infotech.
Case Title: Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 06
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noting that the validity of such notices is already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma passed the order while hearing a writ petition which had challenged a reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2017-18, on the ground that it was without jurisdiction.
Case Name: Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 07
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a fatal road accident case, holding that when pedestrians and cattle are moving on the road, the driver is required to slow down and drive with caution; failure to do so constitutes negligence.
The Court further remarked that the accused failed to reduce speed despite cattle movement on the road and drove the vehicle in a manner that resulted in the death of a child.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “Therefore, a driver was supposed to drive the vehicle carefully so as to avoid any injury to any person or animal… In the present case, the accused failed to slow down the vehicle when the cattle and people were moving on the road and this would constitute negligence.”
Case Name: Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 08
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a Family Court does not lose jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to stridhan, gifts, and other matrimonial property merely because a decree of divorce has already been passed.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “… it is apparent that irrespective of any provision in any other law including the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court has a jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit and proceedings related to property dispute related to property of the parties or of either of them…”
Case Name: M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 09
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council functions within the statutory framework of the MSMED Act, 2006 and cannot equate itself with a civil court.
The Court further clarified that the Facilitation Council has no authority to invoke or exercise powers vested in civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “By no stretch of imagination, the Council constituted under the 2006 Act is comparable to a Civil Court at all. It is just a statutory Council which has to perform the duties which have been encompassed upon it under the provisions of the 2006 Act and it cannot enshrine upon itself the powers which are conferred upon a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Case Name: Abhishek v/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 10
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to a petitioner accused under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court held that mere criticism of war, expression of dissent, or advocacy of peace on social media, without incitement to violence or public disorder, does not amount to sedition.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Prima facie, they show that the petitioner chatted with someone, and both of them criticised the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose.It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition.”
Case Name: Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 11
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed held that once the petitioner acquires the requisite qualification and the policy continued to operate, absorbtion cannot be denied.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once it is not in dispute that communication dated 06.03.2017 has not been withdrawn till date and pursuant to afore communication, number of similarly situate persons have been absorbed, there appears to be no justification to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner…
Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar @Ghungaru
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State's appeal, which challenged the acquittal of an accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (unlawfully possess any intoxicant (like liquor or drugs) or materials/apparatus for making them).
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “S.I. Balak Ram (PW-7) admitted in his cross-examination that bottles were half-filled and empty. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the police had recovered filled bottles. There is no explanation for producing the half-filled and empty bottles before the Court.. therefore, there is reasonable doubt regarding the identification of the case property in the Court.”
Case Name: Soma Devi & others v/s Union of India and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a temporary employee of the Postal Department, who had rendered more than two decades of continuous service after the grant of temporary status, could not be denied pensionary benefits merely because a formal order of regularisation was not issued before his retirement.
The Court remarked that Union of India could not take advantage of their own inaction in not issuing a formal regularisation order, and the denial of pension was contrary to the settled law and applicable rules.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Inaction of the respondents… in exploiting the petitioner by treating him as 'temporary employee' despite having rendered whole time service for more than 20-23 years continuously, is calculated design and an exploitative methodology to deny the petitioner of the accrued right for pensionary benefits.”
Case Name: Salochna Devi v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 14
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition, holding that when ad-hoc promotion is clearly beyond the 15% quota and therefore not in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules no consequential service benefits can be given.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Once the adhoc promotion given to the petitioner was beyond or in excess of 15% quota… therefore, the adhoc promotion granted 'not as per the Rules' will neither confer any right nor a legally enforceable claim for benefit of service rendered dehors the Rules for service benefits.”
Case Name: Sandesh Kumar Deceased through his LRs v/s National Highway Authority of India and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India could not be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches to defeat continuation of arbitral proceedings when extensions had already been granted and proceedings concluded in the cases of other similarly placed landowners.
The court remarked that, having participated in the proceedings for almost nine years, NHAI could not invoke delay, particularly when the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to ensure effective resolution of disputes.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that:“Respondents-NHAI cannot be permitted to take the plea of delay and laches when, in cases of other similarly placed landowners extension was given by this Court and proceedings were concluded…”
Case Name: Ratnoo Ram v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can't deny compensation to the father of the deceased on the ground that he was not financially dependent on his son.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj Remarked that: “The findings recorded by the Tribunal below to the effect that the appellant being father of the deceased is not entitled for compensation as legal representative under the head of loss of dependency are wrong and illegal. Even if the father was not dependent upon the deceased… he is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and thus, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of the income of the deceased.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹16.72 Lakh GST Input Tax Credit Demand After Tax Is Paid
Case Title: Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a tax demand of Rs 16.72 lakh raised against Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. for the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The court held that the subsequent payment of tax along with interest by the supplier cannot be ignored while examining the sustainability of a demand raised against the recipient, even if such compliance takes place after a delay of more than five years.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by the company. The petition challenged a show cause notice and the consequential order dated 4 January 2023. The order had been issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Case Name: Sh. Joginder Singh v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 18
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that there is a distinction between an association formed by employees or volunteers to collectively raise their grievances and a society capable of registration under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.
The Court remarked that while such groups are often described as “societies,” they do not automatically qualify as societies under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “There is a difference between a group of employees in a Department or volunteers serving in an organization, intending to form an Association… and the registration of a Society under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.”
Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Once Loan Contract Is Exhausted: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. V/s Jaimal Singh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 19
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a civil suit seeking damages for harassment and mental agony on account of non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate could not be linked to the original loan agreement once the loan was fully repaid.
The Court remarked that the loan contract had been exhausted upon complete repayment of the loan amount, and therefore, the subsequent claim for damages could not be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The suit filed for damages obviously has nothing to do with the contract initially entered into between the petitioners and the respondent–plaintiff, because the same stood exhausted once the loan amount was repaid by the plaintiff.”
Case Name: Beverley Singh v/s Tejinder Singh & Another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 20
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the mere name of a person in the revenue record does not confer ownership or create any enforceable right in respect of immovable property.
The Court further remarked that revenue entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and cannot be treated as proof of title.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “Merely name of defendant No.1 appeared in the revenue record is of no value as the revenue record is not the proof of title.”
Case Name: Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that upon the death of the original tenant, the right to succeed to the tenancy under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act is strictly governed by the statutory order of succession.
The Court remarked that since the wife was alive and residing with her husband at the time of his death, she alone became the lawful successor to the tenancy and, as per Explanation-II to Section 2(j) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, the right did not devolve upon any other legal heirs after her death.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Jawala Devi was alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy… As per Explanation-II, right of every successor… shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs.”
Case Name: Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Election Commission cannot act unilaterally when elections are deferred under the powers exercised by the State Government under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Thus, the Court quashed the final notification constituting Nagar Panchayat Swarghat and directed reconsideration of objections raised by affected residents through a reasoned and lawful process.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “A tug of war is going on between the State Election Commission and the Government… The State Election Commission cannot thrust upon its decision by issuing notification dated 17.11.2025, when elections have been deferred in exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.”
Elections To Panchayati Raj Institutions Can't Be Deferred Beyond Five-Year Term: HP High Court
Case Name: Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 23
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that statutory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can't override the authority of the State Election Commission or justify postponement of elections.
The Court remarked that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions must be completed before the expiry of their five-year term, according to Article 243E of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “All limbs of the system involved in governance should act harmoniously… instead of deciding unilaterally causing tug-of-war between them, hampering the interest of larger public and violation of Constitutional mandate.”
Case Name: Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 24
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed the State Government's decision to shift the office of the H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala, holding that the decision required closer examination in light of administrative and financial implications.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawlia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj while hearing a public interest litigation, passed an interim order.
Case Name: Meenki Devi, Ram Pal & Anr. V/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 25
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband, his mother, and his brother for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that general, vague and non-specific allegations of dowry harassment are insufficient to establish cruelty or abetment of suicide.
The Court further remarked that prosecution in matrimonial disputes must be based on clear particulars, acts, and proof of mens rea, failing which continuation of conviction would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.”
Case Name: Chaman Lal v/s State of H.P. through its Secretary (Panchayati Raj) and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 26
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that siting criteria for poultry farms apply independently of the number of birds being reared, and that no poultry farm—small or large can be permitted to operate within 500 metres of a residential area.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Therefore, a poultry farm of whatever size obviously has to be 500 metres away from the residential area so that there is no danger whatsoever either of foul smell or of any kind on account of such like poultry farms.”
Case Name: Sanjeev Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 27
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an ex-serviceman's vested right to have his entire approved military service counted for the purpose of pay fixation cannot be defeated merely because he joined civil service after an amendment to the applicable rules came into force.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Rightful claim of the petitioner for counting of entire military service rendered by him prior to his civil employment… cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that since he joined after 29.01.2018…”
Case Name: M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 28
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a provisional assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be made without conducting a site inspection or inspecting the records maintained by the consumer.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel rejected the Board's argument that its own records could form the basis of assessment under Section 126 and clarified that: "A provisional assessment order cannot be issued on the basis of the record maintained by the Board. It has to be on the basis of records maintained by any person and this 'any person' by no stretch of imagination can be the Board".
Case Name: Bir Singh v/s Tirath Raj & another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 29
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a co-sharer cannot ordinarily be restrained from raising construction on joint land merely because the property remained undivided, provided the construction does not amount to ouster or cause detriment to the other co-owners
A bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner…merely because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession".
Case Name: Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. v/s Central Public Works Department & another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 30
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that merely because a party has a substantial financial interest in the subject matter of the contract, that alone cannot be a ground for impleading it as a party in the arbitration proceedings between the parties before the learned Arbitrator.
With these observations, a Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel dismissed a writ petition filed by IIT Mandi and upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's order, which refused to implead the Institute in a dispute between the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and a private contractor, M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited.
Case Name: Sh.Satpal and others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 31
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently disposed of a writ petition after the State Transport Authority (STA) issued new instructions relaxing the condition requiring an auto-rickshaw owner to personally drive the vehicle as a prerequisite for the grant of a permit.
The relaxation was made after the High Court observed that the rigid restriction was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it failed to account for several real-life situations in which the owner might be unable to drive the vehicle due to circumstances beyond their control.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, in the interim orders leading up to the final disposal, had remarked thus:
"This Court is of the considered view that imposition of condition that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw shall have to drive the same, itself appears to be arbitrary. This is for the reason that there can be more than one eventuality which may lead to a situation, whereas the owner of the Auto Rickshaw may not be in a position to drive the vehicle himself."
Case Name: Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 32
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of blacklisting and directed the refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) to Intas Pharmaceuticals, holding that once the bid validity period has expired, the State cannot penalise a bidder for refusing to extend the bid validity.
The Court further held that a three-year debarment has serious civil and adverse consequences and cannot be imposed without prior issuance of a show-cause notice.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked:
"Once Clause 2 specifically provides that each bid shall be valid for a period of 180 days… the action on the part of the respondents to forfeit the amount is unjust and arbitrary".