Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgments & News

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Penalty for Delay in Compensation Must be Paid by Employer, Not Insurance Company: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

Read Details / 8 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Himachal Pradesh High Court Clarifies Scope of Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Matters

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate remedy in child custody disputes between parents.

In a case involving a child relocated from Thailand to India, the Court clarified that this extraordinary writ is intended for cases of illegal detention, not for settling matrimonial conflicts where the child's whereabouts are known.

The Bench emphasized that such disputes should be adjudicated by a competent Guardian Court under specific statutes.

Since the mother’s location was known and the child was not 'unlawfully detained' by a third party, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

[Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]

Read Judgement / 14 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Actress Prathyusha Death Case, Upholds Abetment Conviction

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals in the 23-year-old death case of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyusha, ruling out allegations of murder and rape.

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence established death by poisoning. The Court noted that Prathyusha and her boyfriend, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, had consumed poison amid opposition to their relationship, though Reddy survived.

Rejecting the defence of accidental intake, the Court found Reddy guilty of abetment to suicide for procuring the poison and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

It also termed the postmortem conducted by Dr. Muni Swamy unprofessional.

[Gudipalli Siddharta Reddy v. State (C.B.I.)]

Read Details / 25 days ago

VishwaBookmark

Revenue Entries Do Not Confer Title & No Legal Right Arises from Mere Name In Records: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that the mere presence of a person’s name in revenue records does not confer ownership or create any enforceable legal right over immovable property.

The Court clarified that revenue entries are maintained only for fiscal purposes and cannot be treated as proof of title.

The Court noted that the plaintiff herself admitted the existence of an earlier settlement deed in favour of another defendant, thereby negating any subsisting cause of action.

It held that contradictory pleadings in the plaint were fatal and that the proper remedy, if aggrieved, was to file a suit for declaration challenging the settlement deeds.

[Beverley Singh v. Tejinder Singh & Anr.]

Read Judgement / 2 months ago

MananBookmark

HP High Court Sets Limits on State Election Commission’s Powers When Polls are Deferred

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State Election Commission cannot act unilaterally when elections are deferred by the State Government under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The Court quashed the final notification constituting Nagar Panchayat Swarghat, noting that although objections were filed by affected residents, no reasoned decision was passed by the competent authority.

While the objections were recorded and forwarded, an incorrect impression was created that they had already been decided.

Holding the decision-making process to be flawed, the Court directed the Secretary (Urban Development) to reconsider the objections and pass a reasoned order.

[Bal Krishnan & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors.]

Read Order / 2 months ago

Thanush SBookmark

Expressing Desire For India–Pakistan Peace is Not Sedition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that expressing a desire to end hostilities between India and Pakistan does not amount to sedition.

Granting bail, the Court ruled that criticism of war or advocacy of peace cannot attract Section 152 BNS in the absence of incitement or disaffection against the Government.

It further clarified that mere posting of slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” on social media, without evidence of provocation or impact, does not prima facie constitute an offence.

[Abhishek v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

Read Details / 2 months ago

MananBookmark

HP High Court Questions Shifting Of RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala, Continues Interim Restraint

The Himachal Pradesh High Court admitted a petition challenging the State Government’s decision to shift the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) office from Shimla to Dharamshala and indicated that the interim order restraining the move would continue.

The Court observed that RERA is a small statutory body with limited manpower and shifting it would create practical difficulties for developers and stakeholders.

It noted that nearly 80% of RERA-registered projects are located in Shimla, Solan, and Sirmaur districts, while Kangra has a much smaller share.

While the State defended the move as an administrative decision aimed at decongesting Shimla and promoting development in Kangra, the Court found the concerns raised by the petitioner substantial and kept the interim protection in force.

[Naresh Sharma v. UOI & Ors.]

Read order / 2 months ago

MahiraBookmark

Right to Life Prevails: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Closure of Kangra Poultry Farm

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the immediate closure of a poultry farm in Kangra, holding that the right to livelihood cannot prevail over the right to life and a clean, hygienic environment of nearby residents.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that the farm was operating barely 50–60 metres from residential houses, in violation of Central Pollution Control Board guidelines mandating a 500-metre distance from habitation.

The court found that around 6,000 birds were being reared, causing environmental and health concerns due to foul smell and waste discharge.

While directing closure, the court granted liberty to the owner to relocate the farm in compliance with prescribed distance norms.

Read Details / 2 months ago

MananBookmark

Discharge During Probation Not Punitive Merely Due to Pending Criminal Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Peon challenging his discharge during the probation period, holding that such discharge was not punitive merely because a criminal case was pending against him.

The Court observed that the order was passed strictly in accordance with the terms of appointment and service rules, based on the employer’s dissatisfaction with the employee’s performance during probation.

It noted that the discharge order did not refer to the criminal proceedings and therefore could not be treated as stigmatic or punitive.

The Court further clarified that suspension following custody for more than 48 hours was in line with service rules and did not vitiate the discharge.

[Faqeer Chand v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh]

2 months ago

MahiraBookmark

HP High Court Upholds Discharge of Constable for Wilful Absence

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the discharge of a Lady Constable, holding that her explanation of undergoing treatment by a Tantrik could not justify prolonged absence.

The Court said the inquiry had already proved wilful absence and noted that no medical documents or admissible evidence were produced to show otherwise.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings during her initial constabulary training, where she was absent for long periods despite notices directing her to rejoin, and later failed to respond to the show-cause notice after the inquiry report.

The Court held that the discharge order did not suffer from any illegality and required no interference.

[Sapna Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors]

Read Details / 3 months ago

Thanush SBookmark

HP High Court Says Courts Cannot Override Expert Opinion in Exam Evaluation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts cannot substitute the view of a subject expert in exam evaluation unless it is patently incorrect on the face of the record.

In a plea filed by a constable aspirant denied one mark in the 2025 screening test, the Court noted that the recruitment commission had received over 1,200 objections and had forwarded all of them, including the petitioner’s, to subject experts for review.

Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the paper-setter is the best person to assess correctness, and since due process was followed, no interference was warranted.

[Veeku v. State of Himachal Pradesh]

3 months ago

MananBookmark

Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Driving Without Licence Does Not Amount to Contributory Negligence

The Himachal Pradesh High Court enhanced compensation in a 2013 fatal accident where a 16-year-old was hit by a tipper truck.

The tribunal had earlier awarded ₹3,42,750 after reducing compensation by 25% on account of alleged contributory negligence because the deceased lacked a driving licence.

The Court held that driving without a licence did not contribute to the accident and cannot be treated as contributory negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It found the notional income undervalued and said prospects must be added when assessing compensation.

The amount was accordingly enhanced.

[Madhu Joshi & Anr. v Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and Ors.]

Read Order / 3 months ago

Thanush SBookmark

Weather-Related Delays Do Not Violate Speedy Trial Right: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that delays caused by heavy rain and road blockages do not amount to a violation of the right to a speedy trial.

The Court was hearing a bail application in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity, where multiple witnesses were unable to appear as roads frequently remained blocked.

The Court observed that examining eight witnesses over the course of a year was reasonable in such circumstances and did not reflect any lapse by the prosecution. Concluding that no constitutional breach had occurred, the Court refused to grant bail.

[Man Bahadur Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh]

Read Order / 3 months ago

Thanush SBookmark

Corporate Insolvency Doesn’t Shield Directors From Cheque-Dishonour Liability : Himachal Pradesh HC:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that personal criminal liability of directors under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act continues even after a company undergoes liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The court clarified that while IBC extinguishes corporate debt, individual criminal liability for cheque dishonour remains enforceable against directors personally involved in the offence.

3 months ago

YashashviBookmark

Mere Kerosene Possession Not an Offence Under the Essential Commodities Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession of kerosene, even in substantial quantities, did not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The Court clarified that the 1993 Kerosene Order governed only licensed PDS dealers and imposed no restriction on ordinary consumers purchasing kerosene for personal use.

Referring to a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, the Court reiterated that statutory limitations applied to sale, not purchase. The Court further observed that the investigation had been conducted by an unauthorised officer.

Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges.

[Rakesh Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh]

Read Order / 3 months ago

MananBookmark