(241) RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 300A — Land Acquisition — Deprivation of property without due process — Predecessor's land utilized by State for road construction without acquiring it or paying compensation, followed decades later by mutation attested in State's favor without notice — Held, right to property, though not a fundamental right, is a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right — State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen of private property without authority of la India Law Library Docid # 2456104
(242) LAL CHANDRAN AND ANOTHER Vs. LEKH RAJ AND ORS.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 Proviso — Amendment of pleadings post-commencement of trial — Mandatory requirement of due diligence — Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction instituted in 2013, issues framed in 2014, and plaintiffs closed evidence in 2022 — Defendants filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 in 2023 to amend written statement — Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 bars amendments after commencement of trial unless court concludes that despite due diligence, party coul India Law Library Docid # 2456105
(243) UIIC LTD. Vs. RADHA DEVI & ORS.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 163-A and 166 — Distinction between claims — Applicability of structured formula — Claim petition filed under Section 163-A — Tribunal awarded compensation applying principles under Section 166 — Held, compensation under Section 163-A must be assessed strictly according to the structured formula under Schedule-II — Principles established under Section 166, including addition of future prospects as enunciated in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, cannot be applied a India Law Library Docid # 2456106
(244) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I & PH DIVISION, DALHOUSIE AND ANOTHER Vs. SH. AMAR SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33-C(2) — Maintainability of application for wages — Pre-existing right — Reinstatement award passed by Labour Court became final after dismissal of State's challenges up to Supreme Court — Employer delayed reinstatement despite no stay operating — Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is akin to an executing court — Where entitlement to money or benefit flows from an already adjudicated award, it constitutes an enforceable pre-existing benefit India Law Library Docid # 2456107
(245) SHER SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Property Law — Partition — Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction — Right of Alienation after Partition — Plaintiff sought an injunction restraining defendants from alienating suit land, alleging partition proceedings were pending — Plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that revenue partition had attained finality, separate khasra numbers were allotted, and mutation was attested — Held, once joint property is partitioned and mutation is attested, a co-sharer becomes absolute owner of their India Law Library Docid # 2456109
(246) KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Service Law — Daily Wager — Entitlement to Work-Charge Status — Effect of subsequent regularization — Petitioner rendered continuous daily-wage service from February 1993, completing ten years on 31.12.2002, and was later regularized in 2006 — Claim for work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 was denied — Held, daily-wage workers who completed at least one year of service prior to 31.12.1993 and subsequently completed ten years of continuous service are entitled to work-charge status in the applica India Law Library Docid # 2456110
(247) TOTA RAM Vs. KANCHAN LATA AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 468 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 506 — Criminal breach of trust — Limitation for taking cognizance — The period of limitation for taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506 IPC is three years, as the maximum punishment does not exceed three years. When an accused faces multiple charges, limitation is reckoned on the basis of the major offence. Where the complainant demanded the return of Istridhan in 2011 but India Law Library Docid # 2456111
(248) STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Principles reiterated — An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused — Appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court merely because an alternative view is possible on the evidence — Interference is warranted only when the judgment of acquittal is perverse, wholly unsustainable, manifestly illegal, or impossible — Where the trial cou India Law Library Docid # 2456112
(249) STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS Vs. LABH SINGH AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 29 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Conspiracy and illicit supply — Proof required — Co-accused implicated solely based on alleged disclosure statement and call records — Investigating Officer admitted no disclosure statement under Section 27 was recorded or proved — Ownership of mobile SIMs not linked to accused persons — Search of alleged supplier's premises yielded no contraband and lacked compliance with Section 42 of N India Law Library Docid # 2456113
(250) SALEEM KHAN Vs. SABRI BEGUM[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 401(3) — Revisional jurisdiction — Revision against acquittal — Bar on converting acquittal into conviction — High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401(3) CrPC — Revisional court will not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases involving manifest error of law or gross miscarriage of justice — Interference is not warranted merely India Law Library Docid # 2456114
(251) KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. VIJENDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 438) — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope and limits — Held, a Revisional Court does not act as an Appellate Court and should not re-examine evidence or substitute its own factual conclusions — The Revisional Court considers the record only to satisfy itself regarding the correctness, legality, and propriety of findings or orders — In the absence of perversity, jurisdictional error, India Law Library Docid # 2456115
(252) PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HP[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 438 — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope — Revisional court does not act as an appellate court and cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions merely because an alternative view is possible — High Court interferes only where findings are perverse, grossly erroneous, based on no material, or marked by non-consideration of relevant evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2456116
(253) SUNIL RAWAT @ CHERRY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 21, 35 and 54 — Conscious possession of contraband — Recovery from private vehicle — Contraband (5.920 grams of heroin) recovered from a vehicle occupied by petitioner and co-accused — Plea that petitioner was merely a passenger — Held, occupants travelling together in a private vehicle are presumed to be in conscious possession of contraband recovered from it — Under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, once possession is established India Law Library Docid # 2456117
(254) ESHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 25 and 29 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 161 and 162 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25 — Bail — Evidentiary value of confession of co-accused — Petitioners were implicated solely on disclosure statements made by co-accused — Held, confessions made to police officers during investigation are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. — Prosecution cannot derive advantage India Law Library Docid # 2456118
(255) SADIQ @ CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 5(j)(ii), 6 and 17 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 506 and 120B — Appreciation of evidence — Sole testimony of victim — Credibility of prosecutrix — Conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it inspires absolute confidence and is of sterling quality. Where the testimony is marred by material inconsistencies between the FIR, medical history, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court deposition reg India Law Library Docid # 2456131
(256) TRIPTA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDER PRAKASH VERMA AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Execution and Compliance — Time-bound implementation — Writ court directed respondents to modify petitioners' appointment orders from contract basis to regular basis with all consequential benefits — Alleging non-compliance, petitioners invoked contempt jurisdiction seeking implementation in a time-bound manner — State counsel raised no opposition to the prayer — High Court closed the contempt petition with a direction to respondents to implement the judgment withi India Law Library Docid # 2456154
(257) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. KARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A(4) & (5) — National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 3G(5) — Extension of time for arbitral award — Statutory duty of Arbitrator — Reference petition filed by NHAI challenging compensation award remained undecided within statutory period — Arbitrator closed proceedings after completion of pleadings merely because time limit elapsed — Held, when a statute envisages an authority or Arbitrator to act within a prescribed time schedule, the onus is on India Law Library Docid # 2456155
(258) MANOJ RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 — Maintenance to wife — Entitlement to live separately — Sufficient reason — Husband contended that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily without justifiable cause — Record revealed that wife had instituted criminal proceedings against husband under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging harassment, physical assault, and dowry demands — Held, facing cruelty, physical abuse, and dowry India Law Library Docid # 2456163
(259) SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 329 and 273 — Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 — Section 105 — Accused of unsound mind — Procedure during trial — Accused diagnosed with Psychosis NOS and Schizophrenia — Trial court proceeded with trial and adopted previous examination-in-chief of witnesses from an earlier vitiated trial — Accused failed to answer Section 313 examination due to mental incapacity — Held, physical presence without mental comprehension violates Section 273 — Failure to st India Law Library Docid # 2456165
(260) MOHD RIZWAN ALI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 14-10-2026 Service Law — Recruitment Process — Primary School Teachers — Inordinate delay in concluding selection — Pursuant to High Court directions, State advertised 451 vacancies for Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools in 2021 — Selection process stalled indefinitely following Supreme Court judgment in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India declaring B.Ed. holders ineligible — Petitioners possessing D.El.Ed qualifications claimed non-applicability of said judgment — Held, recruitment process cannot India Law Library Docid # 2456166