Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 5, 2026 To January 11, 2026
Citations:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 270 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 285Nominal Index:Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 270M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 271Abhishek v/s State of H.P..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 272Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 273State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar...
Citations:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 270 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 285
Nominal Index:
Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 270
M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 271
Abhishek v/s State of H.P..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 272
Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 273
State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar @Ghungaru.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 274
Soma Devi & others v/s Union of India and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 275
Salochna Devi v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 276
Sandesh Kumar Deceased through his LRs v/s National Highway Authority of India and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 277
Ratnoo Ram v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 278
Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 279
Sh. Joginder Singh v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 280
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. V/s Jaimal Singh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 281
Beverley Singh v/s Tejinder Singh & Another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 282 Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 283 Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 284
Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 285
Case Name: Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 270
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 271
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 272
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 273
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 274
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 275
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 276
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 277
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 278
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 279
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 280
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 281
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 282
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 283
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 284
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:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 285
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.”