Himachal Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2025

Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1 The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. High Court Which Appointed Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Classified As “Court” U/S 42: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2 The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original civil jurisdiction has only appointed the arbitrator and has not undertaken any other exercise. Pensionary Benefits For Contractual Period Before Regularization Must Include Annual Increments : Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: Som Dutt & Ors., V/s State of H.P. & Anr, 2025 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 3 A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, held that the direction to count the contractual service for pension requires the inclusion of annual increments for the relevant period in the pension calculation. Sexual Assault Child Victim Has No Locus To File Quashing Plea In Name Of Saving Family's Honour, Future: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 4 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that after setting the criminal machinery into motion, the complainant's role ends, and the complainant or the child victim has no locus standing to file the petition for quashing a POCSO Case, that too, in the name of saving the family's honour. Twin Conditions U/S 127 Of Income Tax Act For Transferring Assessee's Case From One Officer To Another Are Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 5 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another. Section 127 stipulates that the Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from Assessing Officer subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to him. Application For Extension Of Time Cannot Be Dismissed Due To Mentioning S.151 Of CPC Instead Of S. 29A Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: Mangal Chand and ors vs. LAC NHAI and ors, 2025 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 6 The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. Penalty Provision U/S 16(7) HP VAT Act Cannot Be Invoked Without First Ascertaining Applicability Of S.16(4): Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner and another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 7 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act. Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7). 'Union Cannot Be Permitted Free Play': Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Centre's Plea Challenging AFT Order Citing 2 Yrs Delay Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi [along with connected matters] Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 8 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Centre Government challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the ground of delay, observing that the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, to challenge the orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years. 'Victim Refused To Undergo Medical Examination': Himachal Pradesh High Court Confirms Pre-Arrest Bail Of Man...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags