Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 01 To September 07, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149

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

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”.