Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 17, 2025 To November 23, 2025
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239 Nominal Index: Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228 Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229 State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230 Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231 Depot Manager of Dehradoon...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
Nominal Index:
Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228
Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230
Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231
Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways v/s Suman Devi and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 232
Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 233
Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 234
Shiv Singh Sen v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 235
Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 236 Man Bahadur Singh v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 237 Shri Vinod Kalia v/s Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 238 Smt. Jawala Devi & others v/s Smt. Prabha Bhagra & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
Case Name: Dilbag Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 228
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has modified the sentence of a truck driver involved in a fatal accident. The Court held that as the truck plunged off the road, and mechanical inspection showed no fault, the accident itself indicated negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “Therefore, it was duly established that the vehicle had left the road and fallen into the gorge. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the vehicles do not usually leave the road and fall into a gorge. Therefore, a principle of res ipsa locutor can be applied to the present case.”
Case Name: Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 50% locomotor-disabled candidate challenging the selection of another candidate for the post of Pharmacist.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner, having 50% locomotor disability, was found unfit for the post of Pharmacist due to improper standing and walking. The work of a Pharmacist involves physical tasks such as giving first aid, performing emergency duties, and sometimes travelling…”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Gulshan Singh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 230
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the National Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to discharge the accused in a criminal case involving non-compoundable offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Section 19(5) of the Legal Service Authorities Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law… the Lok Adalat could not have taken cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”
Case Name: Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 231
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.
The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to reclaim his property for running his shop.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Petitioner cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood. The fact that the landlord was running a shop in rented premises is more than sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises for running his own shop.”
Case Name: Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways v/s Suman Devi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 232
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the monthly income of a deceased is deemed to be rightly assessed when the salary certificate is proved and it is not challenged during cross-examination.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “The Court found that the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's monthly income as ₹25,000, noting that the salary certificate was proved and not challenged during cross-examination”.
Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 233
In a case under Section 324 IPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the injury sustained by the victim in the case, and the condition of his clothing, clearly disproved the accused's claim that the wound resulted from an accidental fall.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The report of this witness and the statement of the Medical Officer clearly show that the clothes were also cut during the incident. This would rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by way of a fall.”
Case Name: Sunil Kumar and another v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 234
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that lapse in establishing the identity of the accused creates a serious discrepancy in criminal cases, especially in the absence of any independent witness to confirm such identification.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:“It was specifically asserted in the rukka that the drivers of the vans ran away from the spot by taking advantage of the darkness. They were identified as Billa and Jitru in the light of the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that Sunil Kumar is known as Jitru, and Ashok Kumar is also known as Billa. No person from the locality was examined to prove this fact.”
Case Name: Shiv Singh Sen v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 235
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that electoral ward boundaries cannot be redrawn merely because a single individual is dissatisfied with population distribution.
The Court further remarked that delimitation is primarily an administrative exercise involving complex geographic, demographic and boundary-based considerations.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel stated that: “…if delimitation is carried out solely on the basis of an individual's grievance, it would lead to unnecessary administrative complications including the requirement for large-scale changes in official documentation of local inhabitants….”
Case Name: Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 236
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case of preventive detention, has observed that the State's reliance on the petitioner's ownership of two vehicles to infer illegal income from drug trafficking was based on biased and incorrect information.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted: “Both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra Finance… therefore, impression given… that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities… seems to be based on a biased information…”
Delay Due To Heavy Rains, Road Blockages Does Not Violate Right To Speedy Trial: HP High Court
Case Name: Man Bahadur Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 237
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the right to speedy trial is not violated when the delay in trial proceedings was due to unavoidable external factors such as road blockages caused by heavy rain.
Case Name: Shri Vinod Kalia v/s Bhagwati Public Aushdhalaya through Shri Rattan Chand Kalia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 238
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot rely on the old age of a person to justify his failure to produce the witness or prove the alleged original rent agreement in a civil suit.
The Court reiterated that when a witness is aged, the law provides a clear mechanism for recording such testimony through a Court-appointed Commissioner.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "The contention that Roshal Lal is an aged person, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner because if that was the case, the petitioner could have had moved an appropriate application to have the statement of Roshan Lal recorded by the appointment of a Commissioner.
Only Surviving Spouse Inherits Tenancy; Other Legal Heirs Have No Right: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Smt. Jawala Devi & others v/s Smt. Prabha Bhagra & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 239
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, governing tenancy succession, the right to inherit a deceased tenant's tenancy vests exclusively in the surviving spouse.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “As per Explanation-II, right of every successor referred to in Explanation-I, shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs. Therefore, objection of defendant disputing the locus of plaintiff to file the suit is not sustainable.”