Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14, 2025 To July 20, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 96Nominal Index:Tejinder Singh V/s Govinder Singh and another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90Vijay Kumar V/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 91Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 92Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 93Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 94Dr. Seema Sharma v/s The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 95Aman Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 96Witness Statements Made From Documents Supplied By Police Can't Be Relied Upon For Conviction: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Tejinder Singh V/s Govinder Singh and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a witness's statement made only after seeing documents shown by the police can't be relied upon to uphold a conviction.Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The statement of this witness shows that he did not remember the details of the documents, and he made the statement after seeing the documents brought by the police, which means that he was making the statement based on the documents shown to him by the police and not the personal knowledge. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon to hold that the agriculturist certificates were annexed to the sale deed.”Oil Companies Must Adopt Flexible Approach While Taking Land From Distributors If Defects Are Cured: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Vijay Kumar V/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 91The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that oil companies must adopt a flexible approach when minor technical issues with the land offered for distributorship arise, especially when the applicant removes the defect in time.Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “The appellant had also removed the deficiencies as such of the electric wires over the land which is a much larger chunk of land and if the Corporation had kept this aspect in mind, part of the said land could have been utilized as such for the construction of godown.”Himachal Pradesh High Court Cautions State Against Filing Repeated Appeals In Similar Matters, Causing Undue Harassment To Poor LitigantsCase Name: Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 92The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cautioned the State against filing similar appeals in similar matters, as it causes undue harassment to people belonging to the lowest strata of society.Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Respondents-State is preferring similar appeals in similar matters again and again, which is not only causing wastage of time, energy and resources of the Court as well as the State, but also resulting into undue harassment to persons, like present petitioner, belonging to lowest strata of the society.”[S.69 CGST Act] Fake Supplier Addresses Indicate Prima Facie GST Evasion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses To Quash ComplaintCase Title: Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 93The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that fake supplier addresses indicate prima facie GST evasion and refused to quash complaint under Section 69 of CGST Act.Justice Rakesh Kainthla:“When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address”, stated the bench.S.138 NI Act | Another Forensic Expert Can't Be Appointed Till First Expert's Report On Signature Has Been Set Aside: HP High CourtCase Name: Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 94The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a forensic expert's opinion has been brought on record and not been set aside, an accused can't insist on the appointment of another expert just because the existing report is unfavourable.Justice Rakesh Kainthla said: “Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that there was no necessity to send the signatures for comparison to another Forensic Expert.”Voluntary Retirement Takes Effect Automatically If State Fails To Decline It Within Notice Period: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Dr. Seema Sharma v/s The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. & othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 95The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, if the State fails to communicate refusal of an employee's voluntary retirement request within the statutory notice period, the retirement takes effect automatically.Justice Sandeep Sharma: “In...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14, 2025 To July 20, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags