Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27, 2025 To November 2, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 202 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213 Nominal Index: Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited & another v/s Smt. Basanti Devi., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 202 Kapil Dev v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 203 Lekh Ram & another v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 204 Ugma Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 205 Usha Chaudhary & others V/s Raj Prakash., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 206 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited V/s HCL Infotech Limited.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 207 Chaman v/s State of H.P. and ors.., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 208 Ravinder Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 209 Dalip Singh v/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 210 Ram Krishan v/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211 Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212 Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213 Executing Court Cannot Rely On Evidence From Separate Proceedings Between Parties Under Different CPC Provision: HP High Court Case Name: Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited & another v/s Smt. Basanti Devi Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 202 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an executing court can't rely on evidence led in a separate proceeding under a different provision of the Civil Procedure Code between the parties. The Court remarked that such conduct shows a “complete non-application of judicial mind.” Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “there was a complete non-application of judicial mind by the learned Judge concerned, who did not care to go through the order passed by this Court in the earlier CMPMO”. Right Of Accused To Lead Defence Cannot Be Snatched Away Even If He Failed To Do So When Examined U/S 313 CrPC: HP High Court Case Name: Kapil Dev v/s State of H.P. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 203 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot be deprived of the right to lead defence evidence merely because he had earlier declined to do so when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court remarked that the trial court cannot discuss the merits of a probable defence while deciding an application under Section 311 CrPC. Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “On the said ground of negligence, whether the right of the accused to prove/probabilize his defence, can be snatched away? The answer is in negative, as the accused has every right to prove/probabilize his defence by leading cogent and convincing evidence.” “Sali” Is Filthy Abuse But Not 'Intentional Insult' Causing Breach Of Peace: HP High Court Sets Aside S.504 IPC Conviction Case Name: Lekh Ram & another v/s State of H.P. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 204 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere usage of the word "sali", though amounting to filthy abuse, does not fulfil the ingredients of “intentional insult” under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code unless it provokes or is likely to provoke breach of peace. Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the use of the term 'sali' amounts to filthy abuse. The victim/informant did not state that this term or the filthy abuses induced her to commit breach of peace”. Possessing Intermediate Quantity Of Opium Poppy Doesn't Attract Rigors Of S.37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Name: Ugma Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 205 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that possession of 7.033 kg of poppy husk is an intermediate quantity and the rigorous conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in such cases. Justice Rakesh Kainthla reiterated that: “The Central Government has issued a notification prescribing 1 kg of opium poppy straw as the small quantity, and 50 kg of the poppy straw is the commercial quantity.” Partnership Deed Without Proof Of Accounts Cannot Be Used As Camouflage To Conceal Subletting By Tenants: HP High Court Case Name: Usha Chaudhary & others V/s Raj Prakash Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 206 The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a partnership deed without proof of books of accounts cannot be used as a camouflage to conceal subletting by the tenants. Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that:“Evidently, the partnership deed was executed for dual purpose, firstly to camouflage the relationship and secondly to secure the interest of the tenants to get monthly income.” Casual Absence Of Govt Officials Not “Sufficient Cause” To Condone Delay In Challenging Arbitral Award: HP High Court Case Name: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited V/s HCL Infotech Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 207 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Himachal ...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27, 2025 To November 2, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags