Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest : December 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262 Nominal Index:Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255Kabir khan & others v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 256M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 257Aarav Potan & others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 258Court on its own motion v/s Union of India & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 259M/s Tania International Company l v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262State Cannot Deny Increment & Benefits To Chief Justice's Staff Once CJ Grants Extension Of Service Under Article 229: HP High CourtCase Name: Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once the Chief Justice grants extension of service to his Principal Private Secretary with full consequential benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, the administrative establishment does not have any right to seek further clarification from the State.Also Read - Co-Sharer In Separate Possession Can't Be Restrained From Construction On Joint Land In Absence Of Proven Prejudice: HP High CourtA Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj stated that: “In our considered opinion, once the order of re-extension had been specifically passed, the query was not required to be made, which has led to the unsavoury situation”Person Who Set Paper Is Best Person To Verify, Court Can't Override Expert View In Exam Matters: HP High CourtCase Name: Veeku v/s State of H.P. and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of a subject expert cannot be substituted by the Court unless it is demonstrably wrong on the face of the record.Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “…opinion given by expert cannot be substituted by Court, until same on the face of it is wrong… best person to verify the correctness… is the person who has set-up the paper.”Electricity Ombudsman Can't Decide Review Petition In Absence Of Both Parties: HP High CourtCase Name: Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Ombudsman while deciding a review petition cannot act contrary to Regulation 37(8) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations and decide in complete absence of both parties.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The impugned order demonstrates that while dismissing the review petition it inserted certain portions in the earlier order… This also could not have been done… in the absence of the parties… insertions… can be done only after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.”University Cannot Reject Candidate's Degree For Recruitment After Accepting Him For PhD Based On Same Qualification: HP High CourtCase Name:Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a university can't apply inconsistent standards by treating a candidate's Master's degree as an eligible subject for PhD admission but ignoring the same qualification during selection for the post of Assistant Professor.Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...respondents are estopped from adopting different yardsticks while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as 'concerned' subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same... for the post of Assistant Professor.”Court Cannot Assess Veracity Of Local Commissioner's Report While Deciding Amendment Application: HP High CourtCase Name: Nanak Chand v/s Madan LalCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Appellate Court cannot question the veracity of the Local Commissioner's report, as examining its veracity lies within the domain of the parties and must be tested through evidence.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Raising objections to the report… lay in the domain of the respondent… it ...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest : December 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags