Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 28, 2025 To January 4, 2026
Citations:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 269 Nominal Index: M/s Tania International Company v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260 Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261 Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262 Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central...
Citations:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 269
Nominal Index:
M/s Tania International Company v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260
Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261
Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262
Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 263
Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 264
Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 265
Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 266
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs HCL Infotech Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 267 Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 268 Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 269
Case Name: M/s Tania International Company v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260
The Himachal Pradesh High Court passed directions in a case which challenges Clause F(c) in the Notices Inviting Tenders issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department.
For reference: “Clause F(c) prescribes that only firms with prior experience of hospital sanitation within the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be eligible to tender for sanitation services in public health institutions.”
Pursuant to the petition, the Court recorded a representation which was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, and observed that there appears to be no rational nexus between the restrictive eligibility clause and the stated objective of ensuring quality sanitation services.
Thus, Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents-State to take a decision on the representation within four weeks, and to ensure that any order rejecting the representation is accompanied by valid reasons.
Case Name: Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261
Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld acquittal of an accused in rape and criminal intimidation case, holding that that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence, as it was full of material contradictions and made improvements at every stage of the proceedings.
The Court further remarked that the prosecutrix exaggerated her version over time, which made it impossible to rely on her submissions.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked;
“Here is a case where the prosecutrix step by step made improvements in her version, thus it is difficult to ascertain that which of her versions is trustworthy and reliable.”
Case Name: Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Faqeer Chand, who challenged his discharge from service during the period of probation while working as a Peon in the establishment of the High Court.
The Court held that the impugned order was a discharge, passed in accordance with the terms of appointment and service rules, and did not amount to a punitive or stigmatic termination merely because criminal proceedings were pending against the employee.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “We are of the considered opinion that the satisfaction of the employer having been breached, the employer was well justified in discharging the employee during the period of probation… the petition stands dismissed”
Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 263
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 264
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 265
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 266
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 267
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 268
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: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 269
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.”