Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74NOMINAL INDEX: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor), 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2Som Dutt & Ors., V/s State of H.P. & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 3X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74
NOMINAL INDEX:
The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1
The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor), 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2
Som Dutt & Ors., V/s State of H.P. & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 3
X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 4
M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 5
Mangal Chand and ors vs. LAC NHAI and ors, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 6
M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 7
Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi [along with connected matters], 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 8
XXX v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 9
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vikram alias Vicky, , 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 10
State of HP v. Ramesh Chand, , 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 11
Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association and another vs. Union of India and others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 12
Gopinder Singh and Ors. Versus The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 13
Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 14
National Highway Authority of India. Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 15
Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 16
Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs v/s State of H.P & Another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 17
Ashish Kumar Rana and another v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 18
Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 19
Roshan Lal Bhardwaj v/s Ashok Sud & another,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 20
Susheel v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Raja Ram Sahu v/s Union of India & another. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v/s Sh. Sheru @ Sher Singh @ Sukhraj & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Geeta Devi and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 24
Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 25
Dr. Ashok Garg v/s State of H.P. & Ors.., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 26
M/s. Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 27
Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus M/s Inox Wind Limited & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 28
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Ram Lal & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 29
Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 30
Deepak Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 31
Hukam Ram v/s State of H.P. ., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 32
M/s Himalaya Wellness Company v/s Union of India & Ors. ., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 33
Bihari Lal v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 34
Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors. ., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 35
Raj Kumar Sharma v/s State of H.P. ., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 36
Kiran Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 37
M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 38
Arif Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 39
Hom Dei @Shallu v/s State of H.P. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 40
M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals & Ors. v/s Union of India2025 LiveLaw (HP) 41
Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 42
Manjana v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 43
Dharam Chand v/s State of H.P. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44
Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 45
Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 46
Dinesh Negi v/s Sahil Sood2025 LiveLaw (HP) 47
Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 48
Yash Pal Thakur v State2025 LiveLaw (HP) 49
Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 50
Akhil v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 51
Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 52
Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 53
Sh. Mohit Shukla v/s Himachal Pradesh University & another,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 54
M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 55
Keshav Ram & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others, Karam Chand & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 57
Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 58
Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 59
Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Satya Devi and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 60
Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 61
Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 62
Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 63
Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 64
Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 65
Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 66
Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 67
State of H.P. v/s Baldev Singh alias Kewal Singh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 68
Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 69
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 70
Sanatam Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 71
Sahil Sharma v/s State of HP & Another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 72
Surinder Kumar v/s central Sanskrit University., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73
Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74
Case Title: The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Bilaspur Versus Ramesh Khaneja
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 1
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India.
Case Title: The Chief General Manager H.P. Telecom Circle & ors. Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh (Government Contractor)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 2
The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original civil jurisdiction has only appointed the arbitrator and has not undertaken any other exercise.
Case Title: Som Dutt & Ors., V/s State of H.P. & Anr, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 3
A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, held that the direction to count the contractual service for pension requires the inclusion of annual increments for the relevant period in the pension calculation.
Case Title: X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 4
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that after setting the criminal machinery into motion, the complainant's role ends, and the complainant or the child victim has no locus standing to file the petition for quashing a POCSO Case, that too, in the name of saving the family's honour.
Case Title: M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 5
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another.
Section 127 stipulates that the Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from Assessing Officer subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to him.
Case Title: Mangal Chand and ors vs. LAC NHAI and ors, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 6
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.
Case Title: M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 7
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.
Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7).
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi [along with connected matters]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 8
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Centre Government challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the ground of delay, observing that the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, to challenge the orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 9
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has confirmed a pre-arrest bail of a rape accused, considering factors including that the prosecutrix refused to undergo medico-legal examination.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vikram alias Vicky
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 10
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an acquittal in an NDPS Act case, expressing shock over the fact that the investigating officer already knew that the accused was carrying contraband without searching him or conducting a test on the material.
Punitive Retrenchment Without Regular Departmental Inquiry Violates Industrial Disputes Act: HP HC
Case Title: State of HP v. Ramesh Chand
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 11
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel set aside the termination of a daily wage worker's services. The court noted that the termination was done under the guise of retrenchment following a preliminary inquiry. It upheld the Labour Court's finding that termination based on alleged misconduct without conducting a proper departmental inquiry was illegal. The court clarified that termination as punishment cannot be treated as simple retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Boxing Association and another vs. Union of India and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday effectively stayed Former sports minister and five-time BJP MP from Hamirpur Anurag Singh Thakur's disqualification from the Electoral College and directed the Boxing Federation of India (BFI) to extend the date of nominations so that Thakur could file his nomination and participate in the polls.
Case Title: Gopinder Singh and Ors. Versus The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.
Case Title: Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 14
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than 10 years of total service should be considered as satisfying the full 10 years of qualifying service.
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India. Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) does not apply to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, if the petition is not filed within the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the delay cannot be condoned.
Case Title: Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that a candidate cannot claim appointment to a supernumerary post, especially when such post itself is challenged by the candidate as illegal.
Case Title: Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs v/s State of H.P & Another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a review petition on the ground that the encroacher of the state land cannot file a prohibitory injunction against the true owner of the land.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Rana and another v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 18
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“Court”) bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that when a candidate applies for any post, the eligibility is assessed till the final selection date and not just on the last date of submission of application.
Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 19
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act only deals with penalty for breach of protection orders (to protect women from acts of violence) and not with other orders such as maintenance (to provide financial support), compensation (for compensation of injuries) or residence (for providing shelter) orders.
Case Title: Roshan Lal Bhardwaj v/s Ashok Sud & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 20
Himachal Pradesh High Court decided a 10-year-long tenancy dispute, holding that re-entry of a tenant into the premises after being evicted by the landlord for construction purposes, is conditional and depends on mutual agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Susheel v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the transfer order of a visually impaired government employee to a hard area who has disability of more than 40%. ("hard/tribal areas" refer to regions that are geographically remote, have challenging terrains and have limited access to resources).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea For Extra UPSC Attempt Due To COVID-19 Impact
Case Title: Raja Ram Sahu v/s Union of India & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an additional attempt in the UPSC Civil Services Examination on the grounds that the petitioner's final attempt was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v/s Sh. Sheru @ Sher Singh @ Sukhraj & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Himachal Pradesh High court held than an insurance company is not liable to provide compensation for injuries sustained by a gratuitous passenger/ porter in a goods vehicle under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
MNREGA Workers are Not Employees Under Employees' Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Geeta Devi and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 24
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, holding that in cases involving the death of worker employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (“MNREGA”), 2005, compensation cannot be claimed under Employees' Compensation Act. The court determined that such workers do not fall under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Higher Pension Cannot Be Granted Based On Duties Performed Temporarily: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 25
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pension benefits are to be granted based on the substantive post held by an employee, and not on temporary work assigned at a higher post for a brief period before retirement.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Garg v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 26
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a professor who had received a job offer from another institution.
Case Title: M/s. Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 27
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State to grant the benefits laid down in Himachal Pradesh Industrial Investment Policy, 2019. The Court held that once the State has notified a policy, the benefits related to it cannot be denied merely because the concerned department failed to issue a formal notification to implement it.
Winding Up Petitions Under Companies Act Not At Irreversible Stage, Should Be Transferred To NCLT For Revival Under IBC: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus M/s Inox Wind Limited & Anr., Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 28
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has held that unless the corporate debtor's demise is inevitable or the winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act have reached an irreversible stage making revival impossible, every effort must be made to revive the company. Accordingly, all such winding-up petitions should be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) under 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Ram Lal & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 29
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that although the 'Act only policy' in motor vehicle insurance covers only third-party damages and injuries but if the Insurance Company is charging premium for personal accident coverage of the driver, it is liable to indemnify the driver.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 30
In a significant order, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently rejected the contention that there can be no offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC between the husband and wife.
A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla said that the declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 377 of IPC by the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India doesn't apply to non-consensual sexual intercourse against the order of nature, even if the act is between a husband and a wife.
Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Deepak Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 31
The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS Act”), by an accused arrested for an offence under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act”).
The court held that bail under the NDPS Act can't be granted based on assumptions that the applicants may have developed drug dependency at a young age and were acquiring Heroin for personal consumption.
Case Title: Hukam Ram v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be granted to a person convicted of criminal breach of trust, as doing so would encourage people to misappropriate the property of other persons and the trust upon which a civil society is based would be affected.
Case Title: M/s Himalaya Wellness Company v/s Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 33
Section 74: Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a show cause notice is issued under Section 74 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and objections can't be raised on the ground that it was issued with a preconceived notion or that it violates the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Bihari Lal v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 34
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Courts must pass separate orders for the cancellation of a bail bond and the imposition of penalty under Section 446 of Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring that the affected person is given a fair opportunity to present their case before any penalty is imposed.
Case Title: Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 35
Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a professor at a government university, stating that repeated disobedience of orders from superiors can't be taken lightly, as it promotes indiscipline and disorder.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sharma v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 36
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that in the absence of a clear allegation of refusal to marry, charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code can't be framed. The Court remarked that when parties are in a long-term relationship of five years, it becomes difficult to determine that their sexual relationship was based solely on a promise to marry.
Case Title: Kiran Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 37
Finding it to be an 'exceptional' situation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday transferred the probe into the 'mysterious' death of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (HPPCL) chief engineer Vimal Negi to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel passed this order while allowing a petition filed by Negi's wife seeking the transfer of the probe. The single judge has directed the Central agency to ensure that no officer from the state cadre is part of the SIT constituted by it.
Case Title: M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of H.P. & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 38
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has held that the statutory bar under subsection (5) of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act applies squarely, as the Director, Department of Digital Technologies and Governance, cannot be considered an independent and impartial arbitrator due to his potential role as a consultant or advisor to the respondents; accordingly, he could not be appointed as an arbitrator, and another arbitrator was appointed in his place.
No Equity In Taxation Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court On Tax Liability Of Auction Purchaser
Case Title: Arif Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 39
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an auction Purchaser is liable to pay the outstanding taxes on vehicles acquired through auction. It stated that there is no equity in taxation law and equity would only come into play in case there is no law operating in the field.
More Than 4 Years Without Trial, Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused
Case Title: Hom Dei @Shallu v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 40
Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a woman who had been in judicial custody for over four years without the conclusion of her trial. The Court held that keeping the applicant in custody serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the chances of the trial getting concluded in the near future are very less.
Case Title: M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals & Ors. v/s Union of India.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 41
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that vicarious liability for the supply of sub-standard quality drugs under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can't be established unless it is specifically proved that the person was directly in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's affairs.
Case Title: Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 42
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, while imposing a sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, trial courts must adhere to the principle of proportionality and should not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government.
Case Title: Manjana v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 43
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that bona fide and trivial errors in a recruitment application, such as inadvertent category selection, should not lead to cancellation of candidature, and candidates must be given an opportunity to rectify such mistakes.
Case Title: Dharam Chand v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the court finds that a proper investigation has not been conducted, the Magistrate can exercise the power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC suo motu to direct the police to conduct further investigation, even after taking cognizance of the case.
Proper Verification Of Vote Counting Procedure Essential In Elections: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 45
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when questions arise regarding the proper conduct of vote counting procedures, it is essential to examine the relevant records to determine whether counting was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.
Case Title: Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 46
Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that under Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee may withdraw a notice of premature retirement before it becomes effective, subject to the specific approval of the competent authority and upon giving valid reasons.
“Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that a government servant who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given the necessary notice to the appointing authority cannot withdraw their notice without the specific approval of that authority”.
Case Title: Dinesh Negi v/s Sahil Sood
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 47
Himachal Pradesh High Court Reduces Sentence to 'Till Rising of the Court' Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Holding That While the Act Prescribes No Minimum Punishment, Sentence May Be Reduced Where the Accused Has Deposited the Entire Default Amount.
Case Title: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 48
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.
“Section 148 enables the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings where income chargeable to tax is believed to have escaped assessment”.
Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v State2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 49
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (June 3), granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing an undue delay in initiating the trial proceedings.
Case Title: Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 50
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an employee seeks the benefit of principle of equal pay for equal work, it is their duty to submit relevant data to support the claim.
Case Title: Akhil v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 51
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the eligibility conditions for a particular post are determined by the employer, and Courts can't modify them or frame new ones.
Case Title: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 52
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.
Case Title: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 53
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.
Case Title: Sh. Mohit Shukla v/s Himachal Pradesh University & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 54
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a student's personal decision to prepare for a competitive examination and not appear for semester examination does not entitle them to an extension of the of the prescribed timeline for completion of a professional course.
Case Title: M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 55
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.
Case Title: Keshav Ram & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others, Karam Chand & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a State Government notification that had fixed the compensation multiplier at one for rural land acquisitions. The Court held that multiplier factor is required to be two for land acquired in rural areas. It emphasized that the state can't treat all landowners the same, as doing so denies poor land owners in rural areas fair compensation, which defeats the main objective of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 57
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can't be given in cases when a person secures a government job through fraud by misusing another individual's educational certificate. The Court emphasized that such fraudulent act deprives another person of public employment.
Income Certificate Not Required When BPL Certificate Is Submitted: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 58
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a valid Below Poverty Line certificate is sufficient to claim marks reserved for candidates from economically weaker backgrounds, and income certificate is not required. The Court stated that a BPL certificate is issued only to families who meet the prescribed income eligibility criteria.
State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 59
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that government authorities must fill vacant posts in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and must uphold fairness and equality in public employment.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Satya Devi and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 60
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation for loss of income is only awarded to family members who were financially dependent on the deceased. However, married daughters, though not financially dependent on their father, are still entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Case Title: Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 61
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that teaching experience acquired before the formal recognition or establishment of a medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of determining eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per the statutory Recruitment Rules.
Case Title: Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 62
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied on flimsy or irrelevant grounds when it was admissible under the beneficial policy of the State Government.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 63
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a lessee who had control over the operations of a factory fell within the definition of "occupier" under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and was therefore legally bound to deduct and deposit Employees Provident Fund contributions into the statutory fund.
Case Title: Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 64
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the Local Commissioner's demarcation report is found to be irregular, only the report should be sent back for a fresh demarcation. The entire suit need not be remanded for reconsideration.
Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 65
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a taxpayer deposits an amount “under protest”, it does not amount to an admission of tax liability.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed as follows;
“Once the petitioner had deposited the amount 'under protest', the same could not have been considered to be an admission of liability because the necessary corollary of deposit under protest is that the amount towards the alleged liability has been deposited without admitting the liability and inherent therein is his right to challenge the order.”
Case Title: Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 66
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State and its functionaries can't use unfair practices to deny regularization to temporary employees who have completed required service years, stating that keeping employees in temporary posts to avoid granting them the benefits of regularization is exploitative and legally unjustified.
Case Title: Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 67
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a penalty imposed on a government doctor, holding that a vague and inconclusive inquiry report can't be used to impose penalty or take disciplinary action.
Case Title: State of H.P. v/s Baldev Singh alias Kewal Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 68
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the trial court in dropping charges against the driver of a Scorpio who was involved in a fatal collision with a motorcycle upon noting that the car was being driven on the correct side of the road, but the motorcycle had suddenly appeared from the wrong side of the highway at an intersection, leading to the car being unable to stop and the subsequent crash.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 69
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not grant the Inquiry Officer the freedom to return findings against an employee without any evidence.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 70
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that an unwilling employee cannot be compelled to continue in service merely on the ground of staff shortage; every individual has a fundamental right to career progression, and resignation or request for NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, especially when applicant is willing to serve the State as a Super Specialist for five years after completing the course.
Case Title: Sanatam Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha v/s State of HP & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 71
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the State is allowed to take over privately managed educational institutions, it can't do so without compensating the management for the immovable and movable assets developed by the private management.
Case Title: Sahil Sharma v/s State of HP & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 72
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when an FIR does not mention that the offence against the victim, in this case rape, was because they belonged to a Scheduled caste commmunity, anticipatory bail can't be denied u/s 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Surinder Kumar v/s central Sanskrit University
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.
Case Title: Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted multiple accused in a case of assault after 13 years, holding that when the accused are strangers to a witness, a test identification parade is necessary. It was held that failure to establish the identity goes to the root of the matter, as it raises a possibility that the accused was wrongly identified.