Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211 Nominal Index: State of H.P. v/s Soni and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181 Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182 Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183 United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jamna Devi & others.,2025 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211
Nominal Index:
State of H.P. v/s Soni and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181
Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182
Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183
United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jamna Devi & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 184
Sudershan & others v/s Divisional Commissioner, Shimla & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 185
Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 186
Prem Mohini Gupta v/s Sumitra (Deceased through LRs).,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 187
Amar Kaur and other v/s Sh. Rishib Kumar., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 188
Santosh Kumar v/s Pushpa Devi & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 189
Desh Raj Gupta v/s Urmila Gupta.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 190
Manoj Chauhan v/s State of Himachal and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 191
Kanto v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 192
M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Himachal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 193
Shri Ram Lal Thakur v/s Shri Randhir Sharma and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 194
Mars Bottlers Una Private Limited v/s State of Himachal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 195
Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 196
Kamli and others v/s Boby Chauhan & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 197
Padam Sharma & Ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 198
Pushpa Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 199
Mahender Singh v/s Union of India & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 200
M/s Greenko Astha Projects (India) Hydro Power Pvt. Limited v/s Directorate of Energy, State Agency, Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 201
Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited & another v/s Smt. Basanti Devi., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 202
Kapil Dev v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 203
Lekh Ram & another v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 204
Ugma Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 205
Usha Chaudhary & others V/s Raj Prakash., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 206
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited V/s HCL Infotech Limited.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 207
Chaman v/s State of H.P. and ors.., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 208
Ravinder Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 209
Dalip Singh v/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 210
Ram Krishan v/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211
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."