Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227

Nominal Index:

Shri Roshan Lal v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220

Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 221

Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. v/s M/s C&C Construction Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 222

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 223

M/s Esteem Industries v/s Chhatisgarh Medical Services Corp. Ltd. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 224

Bhagwan Dutt & others v/s State of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 225

Rakesh Kumar v/s State of H.P. ,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 226

Secretary (IPH) & ors. v/s Mangak Devi (died and deleted) & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227

HP Land Revenue Act | Assistant Collector Must Act As Civil Court When There Is Plea Of Adverse Possession: HP High Court

Case Name: Shri Roshan Lal v/s State of H.P. and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 220

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a person facing eviction under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (which empowers revenue authorities to remove encroachments from Government land) raises a plea of adverse possession, the Assistant Collector must convert himself into a Civil Court as per Section 163(3) of the Act.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “It was incumbent upon the Revenue Authority, i.e. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, to have had converted itself into a Civil Court and proceeded with the matter thereafter, as if it was a Civil Court. Failure on the part of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade to do so, rendered the order passed by him null and void.”

MV Act | Driver Not Jointly Liable For Accident; Owner Of Vehicle Solely Responsible To Pay Interim Compensation: HP High Court

Case Name: Gargesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh v/s Aditya & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 221

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the owner of a vehicle can be held liable to pay interim compensation on the principle of “no fault” and the driver of the vehicle cannot be made jointly liable with the owner.

Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The driver could not have been made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the owner of the offending vehicle. It is the owner of the vehicle alone who shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the MV Act.”

Arbitral Award Without Corroboration Of Claim Certificate Patently Illegal: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. v/s M/s C&C Construction Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 222

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when there is no appearance of a qualified person to corroborate the claim certificate, the arbitral award suffers patent illegality.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “In the absence of corroboration of the certificate… and any qualified person putting in appearance, the award of ₹3.82 crore along with lease money is arbitrary and constitutes patent illegality.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Zydus Interim Relief In 'Glucon-D v Glucose-D' Trademark Case

Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 223

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently refused to grant interim relief to Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., which had sought to restrain Leeford Healthcare Ltd. from using the marks “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” for its glucose-based products.

A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order dated November 11, 2025, held that a company cannot claim exclusive rights over descriptive trade terms such as “glucose.”

Execution Petition Not Maintainable Merely Because Award Debtor's Bank Has Branches In State; Jurisdiction Lies Where Account Is Kept: HP High Court

Case Name: M/s Esteem Industries v/s Chhatisgarh Medical Services Corp. Ltd. and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 224

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an execution petition is not maintainable in any state where the award debtor's bank has branches. The Court remarked that it will only be maintainable in the State where the award debtor maintains a bank account.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Simply because the award debtor has an account in a bank in Chhattisgarh, which bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the same will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court… the act of the Court of conferring jurisdiction upon itself on the analogy that the bank also has its branches in the State of Himachal Pradesh, shall be slightly far-fetched.”

No Cumulative Rate Of Increase In Value Can Be Granted When There Is Short Gap Between Sale Deed & Land Acquisition Notice: HP High Court

Case Name: Bhagwan Dutt & others v/s State of H.P. & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 225

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when the gap between the sale transaction date and the land acquisition notification is short, a cumulative rate of increase cannot be granted while assessing the market value of the land.

The Court remarked that since the sale deed and the acquisition notification were issued within a period of nine months, no cumulative rate of increase could be allowed while assessing the market value.

Mere Possession Of Large Quantity Of Kerosene By Consumer Not An Offence Under Essential Commodities Act: HP High Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 226

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession of kerosene without a permit does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (which prescribes penalties for contravention of orders issued under the Act).

The Court remarked that the Kerosene (Restriction of Use and Fixation of Prices) Order, 1993, only applies to licensed dealers and distributors operating under the Public Distribution System (PDS), not individuals found in mere possession of kerosene.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The learned Courts below did not consider whether the kerosene order applied to a consumer or not. Thus, the judgments passed by the learned Courts below suffer from jurisdictional error.”

Sale Deeds Executed After Acquisition Notice Cannot Be Used To Inflate Land Value: HP High Court

Case Name: Secretary (IPH) & ors. v/s Mangak Devi (died and deleted) & ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 227

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that sale deeds executed after the issuance of the acquisition notification could not be used for determining market value

Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “The documents and exhibited sale deeds… are subsequent to the issuance of notification… the possibility of these sale-deeds being for the purpose of inflating the price cannot be ruled out.”