Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

NOMINAL INDEX:

Adil V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143

Manish Dharmaik V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 144

Nathu v/s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 145

Raj Kumar & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 146

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v/s Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 147

H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 148

State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149

Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

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

Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167

Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168

Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169

Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170

Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171

Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172

State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173

Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174

Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175

State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh .,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

POCSO Act | Accused Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Because Victims Were Traumatised: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Adil V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to four accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that bail cannot be denied merely on the ground that the victims would be traumatised.

Noting the submission of the State, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is a force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent/State that the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners. However, that is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners”.

Divisional Commissioner Does Not Have The Power To Review An Already Decided Appeal: HP High Court

Case Name: Manish Dharmaik V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 144

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reopen and rehear an appeal once it has been finally decided.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “There is no power vested in the Divisional Commissioner to suo moto again revive an appeal which has been decided by it earlier in exercise of its quasi-judicial power.”

Land Acquisition Act | Benefits Under Rehabilitation Scheme Can Be Provided Only If Name Is In Panchayat Register During Acquisition: HP HC

Case Name: Nathu v/s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 145

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition, holding that benefits of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be granted when there is no entry in the Panchayat's Parivar register during the time of land acquisition.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “One fact which is evident… is that as on the date when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned, which is a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Scheme in terms of Clause 2.2.3 of the same.”

HP Co-Operative Societies Rules | Mere Passing Of Election Resolution Not Equivalent To Initiation Of Electoral Process: High Court

Case Name: Raj Kumar & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 146

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per Rule 38 of the HP Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, the outgoing managing committee of the society is bound to initiate the election process at least 90 days prior to completion of its tenure.

The Court clarified that merely passing a resolution does not amount to the initiation of the election process. 

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Passing of this resolution 90 days before expiry of terms of the outgoing Managing Committee, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be initiation of election process”

Pre-Institution Mediation Is Mandatory When Plaint Is Filed U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act Unless Genuine Urgency Exists: HP High Court

Case Name: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v/s Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 147

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a plaint is filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff cannot bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation unless the relief sought is urgent.

The Court remarked that a commercial suit filed without undergoing pre-institution mediation, in cases where no genuine urgency exists, must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

After perusing the plaint Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “……there is no whisper in the application as to what necessitated the plaintiffs to seek urgent relief, by bypassing the statutory provisions of Section 12A of the Act”

Promotional Benefits Can't Be Denied Post-Retirement If Juniors Were Promoted Earlier: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name : H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 148

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that an employee cannot be denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits merely on the ground of retirement, if his juniors were promoted and regularized during his service tenure.

'Love Letters Sent By Victim To Accused Are 'Pure Reflections' Of Her Feelings': HP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the person who was punished for offences under Sections 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court held that even though in cases of rape, the evidence by the victim must be given predominant consideration, it cannot be believed if the testimony of the victim is inconsistent and contradictory to the record.

After going through the evidence on record Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kureja Noted that: “The perusal of love letters, nowhere reflects that the same were written by the prosecutrix under any kind of pressure. In fact, these letters are pure reflection of feelings of the prosecutrix towards the accused”.

Bureaucrats Must Realise That Benefits Received By Them Are Possible Due To Freedom Fighters: HP High Court On Denial Of Pension To Widow

Case Name: Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.

The Court held that despite repeated reminders by the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme the state authorities continued to deny pension on untenable grounds.

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “However, on the ground a different bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their State of Affairs at this present point of time”.

Human Teeth Are Not A 'Deadly Weapon' Under Section 324 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has partly allowed a revision petition, holding that human teeth are not considered as a “deadly weapon” under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated: “………injury caused by teeth does not fall within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC . Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”

Keeping Unlicensed Medicines On Clinic Rack Amounts To “Offer For Sale”, Violates S.27 Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act: HP High Court

Case Name: Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stocking allopathic medicines without a valid license and keeping them on the racks of the clinic amounted to an “offer for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and violates section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribes punishment for selling drugs without a valid license.

Rejecting the contention of the accused that mere possession is not an offence till there is direct proof of sale, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”.

Pension Is Not A Perpetual Income, Cannot Override Bonafide Need Of Premises By Landlord's Family: HP High Court

Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.

Married Daughter Can't Be Excluded From Family For Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.

Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four…”

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Class-IV employee like petitioner cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action”.

12-Year Limitation Rule Applies To Execution Petitions U/S 174 Of Motor Vehicles Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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”.

Closure Of Partnership Activities Till Dissolution Of Firm Cannot Be Granted As Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act: HP High Court

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.

Promotion Can't Be Denied When Criminal Case Is Pending Without Chargesheet Being Framed: HP High Court

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.”

Prisoners Should Be Allowed To Solve Family's Problems, Maintain Link With Society: HP High Court Grants Parole

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.”

Fairly Determined Compensation For Land Acquisition Must Also Be Given To Land Owners Who Didn't Approach Court: HP High Court

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”.

Mere Usage Of Term “High Speed” By Witness Is Insufficient To Establish Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court

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."

Court Cannot Shy Away From Duty To Decide Case On Merits Until Formal Dismissal Order Is Passed: HP High Court

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.”

Benefit Of Probation Can't Be Given To Those Guilty Of Causing Death By Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court

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.”

Teaching Certificate Issued By School Principal Cannot Be Ignored Merely Because Appointment Was Without State's Permission: HP High Court

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.”

Accidentally Shooting Another Person Believing Him To Be Wild Animal Amounts To Negligence, Not Murder: HP High Court

Case Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167

The 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 Death

Case Name: Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168

The 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 Court

Case Name: Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169

The 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 HC

Case Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170

A 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 Court

Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171

The 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 Court

Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172

The 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% of the decreetal amount,”

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Rape Accused, Says Lack Of Injuries On Victim's Body Shows Presence Of Consent

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, observing that the medical evidence, which revealed no injuries on the prosecutrix, supported the view that she may have consented to the alleged act.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “The medical evidence clearly shows that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on any part of her body and there was no mark of any injury or violence on her person at the time of her medical examination, which further fortifies the fact that she did not resist the alleged act… In fact, it seems that the prosecutrix was consenting party to the alleged act

Employer Liable To Reimburse Customs Duty Paid By Contractor If Exemption Certificate Not Provided At Import Stage: HP High Court

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) upholding an arbitral award in favour of Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd. The court held that the failure to provide exemption certificate by employer at the time of importation of goods for ADB funded project made it liable to reimburse the customs duty paid by the contractor.

Conviction Of Employee Does Not Lead To Automatic Dismissal, Disciplinary Enquiry Must: HP High Court

Case Title: Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the ground of conviction, and that the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry or record reasons for not conducting an enquiry.

Rejecting the contention of HRTC, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Though learned counsel for HRTC argued that Rule 19(i) permits automatic termination of a government servant on conviction, this Court is not persuaded to agree. Having perused Rule 19 in its entirety, it is clear that the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case before passing such an order.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Convicts In Four-Year-Old Child's Murder Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

The Himachal Pradesh High Court commuted the death penalty awarded to Chander Sharma (26) and Vikrant Bakshi (22) in the 2014 Yug Gupta murder case, directing that they will serve life imprisonment “till their last breath.”

The Court acquitted co-accused, Tejinder Pal Singh (29), of all charges, holding that the offences of kidnapping against Tejinder pal for ransom under Sections 364A and 347 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The material on record does not show that the accused cannot be reformed, hence we are unable to confirm the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court despite our indignation towards the crime. The same is reduced to life imprisonment, which will mean the natural life of the convicts till their last breath.”

Using MGNREGA Funds To Pay Skilled Employees Cannot Justify Denial Of Regularisation: HP High Court

Case Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that MGNREGA is designed only for unskilled manual work, and cannot be used to deny regularization to skilled roles like Computer Operators.

The Court observed that the State wrongly used MGNREGA funds to pay for skilled services despite having sanctioned posts.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Unskilled manual work means any physical work which any adult person can do without special training. Petitioners, being skilled Computer Operators, could not have been assigned such work, but the State, noting the need for manpower, employed them and used MGNREGA funds to meet the expenditure.”

Sub-Tenant Bound By Eviction Order If He Fails To Establish Direct Tenancy Under Landlord's Predecessor-In-Interest: HP High Court

Case Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the sub-tenant fails to establish direct tenancy under landlord or predecessor-in-interest, the eviction order passed against tenant would be binding on them as well.

Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was not the aggrieved party.”

Date Of Passing Final Exam Relevant For Batch-Wise Recruitment, Not When Certificate Was Issued: HP High Court

Case Name: Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that for batch-wise recruitment, the year and month of passing the final examination must decide the candidate's batch and not the date on which the certificate was issued.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “…it is nowhere mentioned in the R&P Rules that date of issuance of certificate given in the certificate would be relevant, rather… relevant date would be the year and month of passing.”

Inimical Relationship Between Victim & Accused Requires Cautious Evaluation: HP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Molestation Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a molestation case, observing that when the victim submits that she does not have cordial relations with accused and was not on talking terms with him, her testimony requires greater caution.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “The informant admitted that she had an inimical relationship with the accused, and she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, her testimony was required to be seen with due care and caution, especially in view of the delay in reporting the matter to the police.”