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 Pradesh State Electricity Board seeking condonation of delay in filing objections against an arbitral award passed in favour of HCL Infotech Ltd., holding that bureaucratic delays and internal movement of files do not constitute sufficient cause for delay.

Rejecting the State's contention, the Court remarked that: “The Decision with regard to filing of objections, approval whereof ultimately came from the Chairman of the applicant/objector, certainly cannot be taken by menial officials like Junior Engineer and Computer Operator.”

Junior Can't Draw Higher Pay Than Senior Under 2022 Civil Service Rules; Recovery Barred If Excess Due To Departmental Error: HP High Court

Case Name: Chaman v/s State of H.P. and ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 208

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, a government employee's pay can't exceed that of their immediate senior.

However, the Court quashed the recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner, as the excess payment made occurred due to a departmental error.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “Admittedly, a Clerk is 'placed' as Junior Assistant and not 'promoted' as such. This error, having come to the notice of the competent authority upon being pointed out by respondent No.4, has justly been ordered to be rectified.”

School Management Committee Is Statutory Body Under RTE Act; Recovery For Financial Irregularities Cannot Be Made From Single Teacher: HP HC

Case Name: Ravinder Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 209

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the School Management Committee is a statutory body under Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and recovery for financial discrepancies can't be imposed on a single teacher.

Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “as per Section 21 of the RTE Act, SMC is a statutory body, who are to monitor the utilization, the action of the State Authorities in fastening the alleged recovery solely on the petitioner and without involving members of SMC vitiates recovery against the petitioner”.

Causing Injury To Public Servant On Duty Must Be Viewed Seriously; 6-Month Sentence Not Excessive: HP High Court

Case Name: Dalip Singh v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 210

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that injury to a public servant while on official duty must be viewed seriously and a punishment of six months is not excessive in such cases.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “a sentence of six months cannot be said to be excessive because a public servant was injured while discharging his official duties, and such acts are to be viewed seriously”.

The Court stated that: “A deterrent sentence has to be awarded to dissuade the threat to public servant while discharging their duties”

'Denial Would Punish Family': HP High Court Grants Probation To Man Convicted Of Rash Driving After 20 Years

Case Name: Ram Krishan v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 211

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted probation to a man after 20 years who was convicted of rash and negligent driving. The Court took into account his good conduct, long pendency of trial, and the reformatory nature of criminal law.

Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “Rejecting the prayer of the convict to release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences, committed by the convict."

Industrial Disputes Act | Govt Can't Amend Industrial Dispute Reference Without Fresh Demand: HP High Court

Case Name: Auckland House School & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 212

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of any demand or dispute regarding termination the government does not have any authority to refer the issue to the Labour Court.

The Court clarified that such termination could only be taken up through a fresh industrial dispute or a direct application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The Appropriate Government in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination… had no authority to make a reference of this issue… The termination… was a fresh cause of action… The appropriate Government suo motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made…”

Section 10 CPC Deals With Stay Of Subsequent Suits, Not Clubbing Or Consolidation Of Cases: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 213

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has nothing to do with the connection with consolidation or clubbing of suits. It provides for the stay of subsequent suits filed between the same parties on the same cause of action.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has got nothing to do with the issue of clubbing or consolidating the cases, because, the same relates to the principle of res-subjudice, wherein, a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause has to be stayed in the light of the pendency of the earlier suit.”