Nominal Index:

United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jamna Devi & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 184

Sudershan & others v/s Divisional Commissioner, Shimla & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 185

Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 186

Prem Mohini Gupta v/s Sumitra (Deceased through LRs).,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 187

Amar Kaur and other v/s Sh. Rishib Kumar., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 188

Santosh Kumar v/s Pushpa Devi & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 189

Desh Raj Gupta v/s Urmila Gupta.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 190

Manoj Chauhan v/s State of Himachal and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 191

Insurance Company Cannot Use Hidden Or Undisclosed Clauses To Deny Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jamna Devi & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 184

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an insurance company cannot rely on clauses to deny compensation which was not revealed to the insured at the time of signing the agreement.

Emphasizing on the principle of good faith, the court remarked that it was the duty of the insurance company to inform the insured about all clauses. 

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that:“… Exception Clause contained in Policy was not disclosed and, therefore, said condition contained in Main Policy cannot be made basis to relieve the Insurance Company from its liability. It was duty of the Insurance Company to disclose all Exception Clauses to the insured, who, in good faith and without notice of Exception Clause, had purchased the Insurance Policy.”

Mere Payment Of Rent By Partnership Firm Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights: HP High Court

Case Name: Sudershan & others v/s Divisional Commissioner, Shimla & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 185

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when the tenancy is in the name of an individual, mere payment of rent by a partnership firm does not confer tenancy rights in its favour unless there is a valid tenancy in the name of the firm.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Maybe even if some payments were made by some partnership firm, this does not mean that the said partnership firm automatically stood inducted as a tenant.”

HP High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Accidentally Shooting Another Person, Believing Him To Be A Wild Animal

Case Name: Sandeep Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 186

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to the prime co-accused in the accidental shooting of another person, believing him to be a wild animal, and reiterated that the same amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”

Mere Agreement To Sell With Option To Lease Does Not End Landlord-Tenant Relationship: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Prem Mohini Gupta v/s Sumitra (Deceased through LRs)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 187

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when an agreement to sell has the option to either sell or lease the property, the landlord tenant relationship continues to exist.

The Court clarified that according to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 “Agreement to Sell does not create any title in favour of the purchaser as it is only an Agreement to Sell but not sale or transfer of property subject matter of the Agreement to Sell.”

Translated Versions Of Already Exhibited Documents Do Not Constitute Additional Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Smt. Amar Kaur and other v/s Sh. Rishib Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 188

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that translated versions of already exhibited documents are not additional evidence and the courts must prioritize justice over procedural technicalities.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “...by no stretch of imagination it was an application to lead additional evidence. Interest of justice would have been served had the learned Appellate Court allowed the application... Failure on the part of the learned Appellate Court to do so renders the impugned order bad in law.”

Strangers Can Be Proceeded Against For Breach Of Injunction Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Santosh Kumar v/s Pushpa Devi & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 189

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the scope of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, which lays down consequences for disobeying an injunction or breaching the terms, is not confined to the parties in the suit. The provision applies to any person who has violated the order of the court.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "In case of disobedience or breach of an injunction, the Court may order attachment of the property or detention in civil prison of the person guilty of such breach. This provision does not restrict itself to the parties in the lis—the expression used is 'person'.”

Birth Of Daughter From Another Woman Proves Husband's Illicit Relationship; Wife Justified In Living Separately: HP High Court

Case Name: Desh Raj Gupta v/s Urmila Gupta

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 190

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the birth of a daughter from another woman clearly depicts that the husband had a relationship with her while still being married to his first wife. The Court held that this conduct compelled the wife to live separately, and therefore, she could not be accused of desertion.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Birth of a daughter... clearly depicts that either appellant was already in a relationship with someone or developed relations thereafter... respondent has been compelled to live separately.”

Identification Of Driver Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is Essential For Conviction In Road Accident Cases: HP High Court

Case Name: Manoj Chauhan v/s State of Himachal and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 191

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conviction in a road accident case cannot be sustained unless the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “Both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the identity of the accused and the car were not established”.