Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 To September 28, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175 Nominal Index: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175Accidentally Shooting Another Person Believing Him To Be Wild Animal Amounts To Negligence, Not Murder: HP High CourtCase Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accidental shooting of a person, believing him to be a wild animal, 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.”HP High Court Allows Plea For Second Wife To Be Included In Govt Employee's Pension Record After First Wife's DeathCase Name: Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot be denied pension after the death of the first wife, even if the marriage was technically invalid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “True it is that in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of the petitioner with Ms. Jawala Devi i.e. second wife, during subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. Kamlesh Devi can be said to be illegal, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case… respondents ought not have rejected the case of the petitioner”Testator Executing Will In Favour Of Persons Taking Care Of His Household Is Not Unnatural: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the execution of a will in favour of family members who had been caring for the testator and his household could not be termed unnatural.Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “… the execution of Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons, who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reasons to establish trust cannot be said to be unnatural. The choice of testator for choosing one of the daughters and son-in-law to inherit the entire property stands duly explained and accordingly the defendants have been able to discharge the burden.”Family Pension Of Deceased Employee Can Be Shared Equally Between First & Second Wife On Basis Of Voluntary Compromise: HP HCCase Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that family pension of a deceased employee can be equally shared between the first and second wife through a voluntary and free-will compromise.Pensioners Eligible For Reemployment Under Punjab Police Rules Even After Seeking Voluntary Retirement: HP High CourtCase Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.Rejecting the contention of the State, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that “…a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations; i) discharge with compensation; ii) discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension. In the aforesaid rule, word 'or' has been used… meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment…”Right To Appeal Cannot Be Made Conditional Upon Deposit Of Decretal Sum: HP High CourtCase Name: Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar ChadhaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an appellate court cannot impose the condition of depositing the decreetal amount as a precondition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The learned 1st Appellate Court had no authority to issue a direction that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed subject to deposition of 50%...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 To September 28, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags