Cheque Bounce Complaint Filed Before Deemed Service & Expiry Of 15-Day Payment Period Is Premature: HP High Court Case Name: Basant v/s Virender Singh Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 128The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881filed before the drawer is deemed to have received the statutory notice and before expiry of...
Case Name: Basant v/s Virender Singh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 128
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881filed before the drawer is deemed to have received the statutory notice and before expiry of the prescribed 15-day payment period is premature. The Court observed that such a complaint cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The complaint was filed before the expiry of the statutory period of 15 days from the date of service of notice. Therefore, the complaint was premature and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of it.”
Case Name: Anil Kumar Mahajan & ors. v/s Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Marketing
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 129
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation Limited (HIMFED) who retired before March 29, 2018 are not entitled to the enhanced gratuity ceiling of ₹20 lakh.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Justice Yogesh Jaswal remarked that:“as the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stood amended w.e.f. 29.03.2018, any incumbent who stood superannuated before 29.03.2018, is not entitled for the benefit of the said amendment.”
Case Name: Upper Bakrota Residents Association v/s The State of HP & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 130
The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that the mere existence of hotels, guest houses and homestays in the vicinity of a plot could not justify permitting a Change of Land Use (CLU) in a designated Restricted Area.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In the absence of any such justifiable reasons, and merely on the ground that the supporting documents showed existing Hotels, Guest Houses, and Home-Stays operating in the vicinity of the plot, this extraordinary power was exercised to violate the 'DPA' issued by the State Government.
Case Name: Prem Lal v/s Sapna & anr
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 131
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a civil court can, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, direct the police authorities to assist in the implementation of an injunction order.
Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “Merely for the reason that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, will not preclude the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 151 CPC for the enforcement of the injunction order through the police assistance.”
HP High Court Directs Status Quo On Disputed Temple Land, Warns Officials Of Contempt Proceedings
Case Name: Thakur Dwara Shri Narsingh Ji Mandir & Ors. v/s State of HP & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 132
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to maintain status quo over land claimed to belong to Thakur Dwara Shri Narsingh Ji Mandir in Solan district and ensure that no development activity is carried out on the disputed property.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi stated that: “In the meantime, the State shall ensure that status quo regarding land in question is maintained and there is no development activity carried out on it. It is the personal responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Nalagarh, and official respondents No. 6 and 7 to ensure compliance, failing which contempt proceedings shall be initiated against the said officers”.
Case Name: Nanal Hydro Power v/s H.P. State Co-operative Bank & Another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 133
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a bank's decision to extend a loan moratorium beyond the period prescribed under the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) COVID-19 relief measures cannot override RBI's prudential norms on classifying loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “Mere acceding to the request, if any made by the petitioner for extension of moratorium period after expiry of moratorium period granted by Reserve Bank of India vide circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020 cannot be a ground for the respondent-Bank to claim that petitioner by asking for a period of moratorium, itself waived off its right, if any, of its being declared as NPA in terms of instruction issued by RBI, which is the apex body as far as banking is concerned.”
Case Name: Bajaj Finance Limited v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 134
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a non-banking financial company (NBFC) cannot be compelled to produce pledged gold ornaments allegedly linked to a criminal offence merely through a notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that appropriate remedy, if any, available to the investigating agency is to approach the competent Court of law under Section 106 and Section 107 of the BNSS, but certainly the petitioner herein, which is a Non-Banking Financial Company cannot be compelled to produce pledged property in terms of notice, if any, issued under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.”
Case Name: Chattar Singh v/s The Executive Enginner, HPSEBL
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 135
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL) to pay 50% back wages, along with up-to-date interest, to a workman whose termination was set aside and reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The respondent-department is directed to pay 50% back wages to the petitioner alongwith up-to-date interest from the date of his termination, with seniority and continuity in service, within a period of six weeks from today.”
Case Name: Aditya Kaushik v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 136
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a British citizen in connection with a property dispute, holding that there was no material to suggest that he had attempted to evade arrest or failed to join the investigation despite coercive measures.
Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the LOC was issued merely on the basis of apprehension and in the absence of circumstances warranting such a measure. The Court permitted the petitioner to travel abroad upon complying with conditions, including furnishing an FDR of ₹10 lakh and two local sureties of ₹2 lakh each before the trial court.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside ₹1.65 Crore Electricity Assessment For Lack Of Inspection
Case Name: Superintendent Engineer v/s M/s Sunoxx International
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 137
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL), upholding the appellate authority's decision to set aside an assessment of ₹1.65 crore imposed on M/s Sunoxx International for alleged unauthorised use of electricity.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “In the instant case, proceedings never came to be commenced with the inspection of premises by Assessing Officer, rather, same came to be initiated on the basis of record of Electricity Board, thus, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Appellate Authority, while passing impugned order.”
Case Name: Dinesh Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 138
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a police officer dismissed from service solely on the basis of a criminal conviction is entitled to reinstatement after the conviction is set aside and he is acquitted in appeal.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “The dismissal of the petitioner was based solely on his conviction in the criminal case. Once the conviction has been set aside in appeal and the petitioner has been acquitted, the basis for his dismissal no longer survives.”
Case Name: Katohar Khurd Co-operative Agriculture Services Ltd. & Anr. v/s Pradeep Kumar Gautam & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 139
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts must confine their examination to the averments in the plaint and the documents accompanying it, without considering the defence raised by the defendants.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “At the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments as made in the plaint, as well as, the accompanying documents are to be taken into consideration. The defence raised by the defendants is not liable to be taken into consideration”
Case Name: M/s K.M. Distillery Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 140
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from an excise inspection team constitutes a material defect, rendering the entire inspection proceedings invalid.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Non-inclusion of officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is a procedural lapse, which can be ignored; rather, the same being a material defect in constitution of team entire inspection proceedings need to be quashed and set aside.”
Case Name: Archna Thakur v/s State of HP & ors
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 141
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that denying Staff Nurses study leave to pursue postgraduate courses in Nursing, while allowing Medical Officers to pursue postgraduate studies as in-service candidates, is discriminatory.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that: “In case a Medical Officer can be granted study leave for pursuing a post-graduate degree/course as an in-service candidate, it defies logic as to why a nurse cannot be granted study leave for undertaking post-graduate course in Nursing. If, according to the respondents, a post-graduate degree obtained by Medical Officers will advance public interest in discharge of their duties, the same analogy would also hold good for the post-graduate degree obtained by Nurses.”
Case Name: TR v/s KL
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 142
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the alleged retention of a wife's 'Istridhan' may not constitute a continuing offence once the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh remarked that: “Thus understood, the demand for 'Istridhan' will remain a continuing offence. After the dissolution of marriage, it may not remain the same. […] After the relations between the husband and the wife severed, the offences relating the Section 498-A and demand of 'Istridhan' may no more remain as 'continuing offence'.”
Case Name: Tarun Bharota v/s State of HP & Anr
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 143
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that being in a relationship does not give a person the licence to engage in sexual acts against their partner's will, remarking that “No” had to mean a “No.”
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh remarked that: Adverting to the facts of the present case, suffice it to say that the conduct of the petitioner/accused was totally inhuman. Even if in a relationship, it did not give him a license to ravish the prosecutrix sexually and that too, in such a barbaric way. "No" had to mean a "No"
Case Name: Lokesh Kumar v/s State of HP
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 144
The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that an accused facing multiple NDPS cases involving intermediate quantities of contraband could be granted bail, considering that he was not a drug peddler, and the likelihood of delay in trial.
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh remarked that : “Since the earlier cases pertain to 'intermediate' quantity and apparently the petitioner was himself addicted to the drugs, it would be in the interest of justice and fairplay that the discretion of bail is exercised in his favour, but subject to strict terms. He may be given a chance to reform himself. The quantity of drugs recovered from him on all the three occasions rule out his being a peddler.”