Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 15 To September 21, 2025
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166 Nominal Index:Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160Vishwa...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166
Nominal Index:
Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156
Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157
Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158
State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159
Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160
Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 161
State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 162
Mangat Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. Namely Tarsem Lal and others V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 163
State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 164
Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 165
Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166
Case Name: Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that execution petitions filed by insurance companies under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for recovery of compensation, are subject to the twelve years limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The findings returned by the learned Court below that an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act can be filed at any time and there is no limitation for moving such application because there is no limitation for filing a claim petition for the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act in the facts of this case are not sustainable”.
Case Title – Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has observed that an interim relief petition under Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) claiming closure of business and manufacturing activities of the partnership business cannot be granted when the principal dispute pertains to the business activities of that partnership. Granting such a relief would amount to the destruction of the subject matter of arbitration and would defeat the very intent and purpose behind the aforesaid section.
Case Name: Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pendency of a criminal case, where no charge sheet has been filed, cannot be a ground to deny promotion to an employee exonerated of all charges in the departmental inquiry.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “Admittedly no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Though the Magistrate concerned is well within his/her right to order further investigation, such fact, if any, cannot be a ground for the respondents to deny promotion to the higher post, especially when charge has not been framed till date,”
Mere Recovery Of Money From Accused Does Not Amount To Bribery In Absence Of Demand: HP High Court
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Forest Officer who was accused of demanding and accepting a Rs 3000 bribe.
The Court held that mere possession of tainted currency notes cannot constitute bribery unless there is proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification.
After going through the evidence, Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.”
Case Name: Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that maintaining family and social ties is important for prisoners, and that parole should be allowed to them to attend to their personal and family responsibilities.
Justice Virender Singh held that “Mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner, as, the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.”
Case Name: Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 161
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once a fair rate of compensation for land acquisition has been decided, its benefit must be extended to all landowners affected by the same acquisition.
The Court held that denying such benefits to some landowners merely because they did not approach the court amounts to discrimination.
Rejecting the State's reasoning, the Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined which can become a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the Court, the act of the respondents of not giving this benefit to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 162
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere statement by a witness that the accused was driving the vehicle at 'high speed' is not sufficient to establish negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: "Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused."
Case Name: Mangat Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. Namely Tarsem Lal and others V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 163
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a plaintiff has the right to continue a suit until a formal judicial order of withdrawal is passed. It further remarked that merely filing an application or making a statement about compromise and withdrawal does not, by itself, amount to dismissal of the case.
Rejecting the Trial Court's reasoning, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “The Court cannot force the plaintiff to withdraw a case, simply because at an earlier stage the plaintiff might have filed such an application or even may have recorded his or her statement… The Court cannot shy away and shun its duty to decide the case on merit.”
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 164
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be granted to a person convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Virender Singh noted that “…..it has constantly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, should not be given to the person, who has been convicted for the offence for causing death, due to the rash and negligent driving.”
Mere Foreign Nationality Of Accused Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Bail Under NDPS Act: HP High Court
Case Name: Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 165
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the mere foreign nationality of an individual cannot be a ground to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…this Court cannot make a distinction for granting or denying bail, merely on the ground of being a citizen or non-citizen coupled with the fact that the authenticity of the Passport submitted to the police is a matter of trial under the Foreigners Act.”
Case Name: Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that teaching experience certificates issued by Principals of Government Schools cannot be ignored merely on technical grounds, such as the appointment being made on Parent Teacher Association basis without government permission.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that “Important factor was possession of teaching certificate, if any, of Government/ Semi Government Organization. Once Principal of Government Senior Secondary School issued certificate, certifying therein that petitioner herein worked in School for more than three years, question of his appointment in school without permission, if any, of government, may not be of any relevance.”