Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 8, 2025 To December 14, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255 Nominal Index: Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250 Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251 Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252 Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253 Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254 Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255 Court Cannot Assess Veracity Of Local Commissioner's Report While Deciding Amendment Application: HP High Court Case Name: Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250 The 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 was not for the learned Court to have had commented upon the veracity of the report… Had the application been allowed… it would not have amounted to the admission of the averments…” "Treatment By 'Tantriks' Is Not A Valid Excuse For Prolonged Absence From Training As Constable": HP High Court Case Name: Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the 'treatment from Tantriks' could not be accepted as a valid or permissible ground to justify a trainee's prolonged absence from training as a constable. The Court further noted that the record clearly revealed no admissible medical evidence, and her conduct was incorrigible. Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Records reveal that the petitioner had taken a stand that she remained under-treatment from Tantriks cannot be accepted as a permissible ground, to obviate the petitioner charge of willful absence. In these circumstances, conduct of the petitioner being incorrigible definitely points towards the willful absence to be an act attributable to the petitioner solely.” Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Six-Month Extension Granted To Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena Case Name: Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a six-month extension of service granted to the Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, and held that its role is not to substitute its own view for that of the Government. The Court reiterated that as Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits such extension and due process was followed, there was no ground to intervene. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “This Court would not be in a position to substitute the opinion of the Competent Authority… once the due process has been carried out before grant of permission.” Filing Entrepreneur Memorandum Not Mandatory Under MSME Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Name: Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that filing an Entrepreneur Memorandum is not a mandatory requirement for micro and small enterprises under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The Court remarked that micro and small enterprises are not bound to file the Entrepreneur Memorandum within 180 days of commencement of the MSMED Act, as the filing was voluntary, which was clarified by a 2007 government notification. Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“…notification clarifying that for micro and small enterprises… there is no limitation of 180 days… and these enterprises can file EM anytime they decide to do.” Section 92 CPC Broadly Worded, Allows Inquiry Into Trust Property Alienation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Name: Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is “very widely worded”, empowering courts to grant such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. The Court further remarked that Section 92(1)(h) is broad and allows “further or other relief” necessary for trust administration, including examining alienation of trust property. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded… the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 8, 2025 To December 14, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags