HPHC Today 27-30.05.2026

Añadido: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Hello friends, I am Shikh Rajta and you are most welcome to our YouTube channel Legal Point. Today I have brought for you very important judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court.

[00:00:10]First judgment just compensation determined successfully. This case relates to compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident.

[00:00:19]In which the learned Tribunal had accepted the claims. The insurance company had challenged this compensation amount, saying it was excessive. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering the arguments of both the parties and the guiding principles of the Supreme Court, observed that the objective of the law is to provide just and full compensation to the victims. The court revised the compensation amount determined by the tribunal to ₹146285 and reduced the interest rate to 7.5% per annum. The compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and commensurate with the actual loss suffered which would restore the victim to his pre-accident position. Case Details Manmohan Sharma & Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Limited Case No. FO MV No. 99 of 2018 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This case relates to the compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident where in the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim The insurance company challenged the award on the grounds that the compensation amount was exorbitant. The Honourable High Court, after considering the arguments of both parties and the guiding principles of the Supreme Court, observed that providing just and fair compensation to the victims is the objective of the law. The court modified the compensation amount determined by the tribunal assessing it at ₹146285 and reduced the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum. Law point: Compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and commensurate with the actual loss to adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. Second Judgment Rent Proceedings Discovery Maintainability This petition was filed against the order dismissing an application filed by the tenant seeking cross-examination of the landlord and discovery of documents. The tenant argued that the landlord's son was not unemployed and was running a business. The Hon'ble High Court, after analysing various legal precedents and the provisions of the Urban Rent Control Act, clarified that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority is not a civil court in the strict sense but is a person designated as persona designata.

[00:03:08]Thus, the provisions of inquiry, discovery and inspection under Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to rent petitions. The court found that the tenant was making such applications to prolong the case.

[00:03:23]Therefore this petition was dismissed. The Rent Controller is a special tribunal and the standing rules of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to discovery and inspection are not automatically applicable to the proceedings in rent petitions.

[00:03:38]Case Details Jatinder Singh Kukreja vs Narendra Singh Sood & Ors Case Number CMPMO No. 53 Year 2025 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This petition was filed against an order dismissing an application moved by the tenant seeking directions for answering interrogatories and discovery of documents from the land lord The tenant contended that land lord's son was not unemployed and was running a business. The Honourable High Court after analysing various legal precedents and the Urban Rent Control Act clarified that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not civil courts in the strict sense but are persona designata.

[00:04:30]Ten The provisions of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding interrogatories, discovery and inspection are not applicable to rent petitions. The court observes that the tenant was moving such applications merely to drag the litigation and consequently dismiss the petition.

[00:04:49]Law point: A Rent Controller is a specialized tribunal and the strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to discovery and inspection do not automatically apply to the proceedings of rent petitions. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel.

[00:05:07]Third Judgment Criminal Appeal Acquittal Apt. The appeal was filed by the State against the decision of the Sessions Court in which the accused were acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

[00:05:26]According to the prosecution, the accused had stabbed the victim to death during a quarrel.

[00:05:32]However, the main witnesses in the case changed their statements from time to time and other witnesses turned hostile before the court. The High Court, after carefully reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution had completely failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

[00:05:53]Therefore, no interference was found necessary in the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed. An appeal against a judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with unless the finding of the trial court is perverse, illegal or wholly contrary to the evidence.

[00:06:16]Case Details State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Hansraj & Others Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 10/49 of 2010 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This appeal was preferred by the State against the judgment of the trial court quashing the response of the charges of murder under Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code.

[00:06:51]According to the prosecution's case, the accused stopped the disease during a physical altercation. However, the key eye witnesses turned around and changed their stances over time and other witnesses turned hostile before the court. The High Court, upon a motu review of the evidence, found that the prosecution completely failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. There for the order of a quatl recorded by the trial court warranted no interference and the appeal was dismissed.

[00:07:21]Point of Law: An order of a quitclaim cannot be interfered with in an appeal unless the findings of the trial court are perversely illegal and completely contrarian to the evidence on record. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. Fourth Judgment Land Acquisition Appellant Maintainability. This first appeal was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector against the decision of the Reference Court challenging a portion of the interest paid to the landowners. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the Collector himself had acted as a quasi-judicial authority in fixing the compensation. Therefore, he is not competent to challenge the decision of the court reviewing his own order. The Hon'ble High Court accepted the legal point that the statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot become a judge in his own case nor can he have any personal litigation interest.

[00:08:32]Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Collector as non-maintainable. A statutory officer acting as a quasi-judicial authority has no legal right to challenge the decision of the High Court or the Reference Court modifying or confirming its own order.

[00:08:53]Case Details Collector Land Acquisition vs Shri Bachit Singh Deceased through Legal Representatives and Others Case Number RFA No. Three 10042 Year 2007 Name of Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kukreja Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This Regular First Appeal was preferred by the Land Acquisition Collector against the Award of the Reference Court challenging a portion of the interest allowed to the land owners. The response raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that since the Collector had passed the initial award acting as a quasi-judicial authority. He was in contention to maintain the appeal against the order of the Reference Court which reviewed his own order. The Honourable High Court upheld the legal point that a statutory authority discharging quasi-judicial powers cannot claim a locus standi and litigant interest to challenge the order of a higher court reviewing its decision as it cannot be a judge in its own right. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Law Point: A Statutory Officer acting as a quasi- judicial authority has no legal standing and litigative interest to challenge the decision of a reference court that sets aside and modify its award. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. Fifth Judgment Abatement to Suicide Acquittal. This criminal appeal was filed by the State. In which the decision to acquit the accused from sections 489A and 306 IPC for allegedly harassing his wife and abetting her suicide was challenged. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had consumed poison due to the continuous beating by the accused. The Hon'ble High Court, citing the decisions of the Supreme Court, clarified that for conviction under Section 306, direct or indirect positive act of incitement or abetment and clear mens rea criminal intention on the part of the accused is mandatory.

[00:11:09]Mere allegations of harassment or expression of anger cannot be considered as abetment of suicide unless the victim is left with no option but to end his life. Due to lack of evidence, the court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

[00:11:32]To prove the offence of abetment of suicide, a positive act of instigating the deceased by the accused and a direct connection of the same at a very close time is a necessary legal condition. Case Details State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surendra Pal.

[00:11:47]Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 10047 of the Year 2014 Name of Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjan Sharma Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This criminal appeal was preferred by the State challenging the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of the offences under sections 498A and 36 of the IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and abetting her suicide. The prosecution alleges that the diseased consumed poison due to physical harassment by the accused. The Honourable High Court relying on Supreme Court's Precedence clarified that to sustain a conviction under Section 36 there must be clear proof of direct and indirect acts of incitement and instigation coupled with a distinct mens rea. Mere allegations of harassment and verbal anger do not amount to abetment unless a continuing situation is created leaving the victim with no other alternative but to end life finding no cogent evidence the court appeals the acquittal and dismisses the appeal Law point To attract the offence of abetment to suicide it is imperative to establish a positive act of instigation and incitement by the accused in close proximity to the time of the incident. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel.

[00:13:15]Sixth Judgment Anticipatory Bail in PMLA. The application was filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the applicant, in connivance with a public servant, played an active role as the main front in money laundering to legalise the illegal money earned through corrupt activities. The Hon'ble High Court clarified that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA are also fully applicable to anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code. Extraordinary relief cannot be granted unless the court is prima facie satisfied that the accused is innocent and will not commit any crime while on bail. The court rejected the anticipatory bail application in view of the applicant's non-cooperation in the investigation and the need for custodial interrogation.

[00:14:30]Fulfillment of the statutory twin conditions of Section 45 is a mandatory legal requirement for grant of anticipatory bail in Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases. Case Details Dr. Komal Khanna vs Enforcement Directorate Office. Case No. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Main No. 2899 of the year 2025. Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2018 This application was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the plea contending that the applicant played a pivotal role as a nominal face to facilitate the laundering of illicit proceeds generated through corrupt activities of a public servant. The Honourable High Court clarified that the mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA are fully applicable to anticipatory bail petitions.

[00:15:34]Unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. True extraordinary relief cannot be granted. Observing non-consensual operations in the investigation and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The court dismissed the application. Law Point: The fulfillment of the statutory twin conditions enshrined under Section 45 is a mandatory prerequisite for granting anticipatory bail in offences covered under the PMLA. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. Seventh judgment property oral gift rested. These regular second appeals were filed against the judgment of the first appellate court which had reversed the order of declaration and permanent injunction passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was a 1/3rd shareholder of the land and his brothers had transferred the land without his consent during his absence and when he was a minor. The defendants had put forward conflicting claims of oral sale and adverse possession. The Hon'ble High Court held that claiming oral sale and simultaneously pleading adverse possession are completely contradictory and both cannot be accepted together in law. On the basis of the evidence, the court held that the plaintiff's ownership rights were safe and hence the order of the appellate court was quashed and the lower court's order of permanent injunction was restored. It is legally contradictory to claim a valid oral purchase of a property and simultaneously plead adverse possession against the plaintiff over the same property. Case Details Preet alias Pritam Singh Deceased through Legal Representatives Versus Balwant Singh and Others Case Number RSA No. 347 & 348 of 2005 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma Judge Date of Judgment 29th May 2026 The Regular Second Appeals were preferred against the First Appellate Court's Judgment which had reversed the Trial Court's decision passed in favour of the Platform for Declaration and Permanent Injunction The Platform claims to be a one third co-owner of the suit property asserting that his brothers alienated his share during his minority and without authorization The Respondent set up a defence based on an oral sale and alternative adverse possession The Hon'ble High Court held that the plea of ​​an oral sale and the plea of adverse possession are entirely contradictory and cannot stand together in the eyes of law based on the evidence the Court Found the plaintiff's title intact; set aside the first appellate court's degree and restore the trial court's judgment for a permanent injunction; law point setting up a claim of ownership based on a valid oral purchase and simultaneously pleading alternative ownership by way of adverse possession are legally incompatible and contradictory defenses.

[00:18:52]Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel.

[00:18:57]Nth Commission Compassionate Appointment Daily Wages This writ petition was filed by the widow of an employee.

[00:19:03]Whose husband died during his service. He was appointed as a daily wage peon on compassionate grounds in the year 2010 and was later regularized in the year 2017. The petitioner demanded that his appointment be considered regular from the initial date. The Hon'ble High Court examined the Compassionate Appointment Policy of the year 1990 and found that at that time there was no rule or instruction for appointment on daily wage basis to Class IV posts. The act of the government in giving appointment on daily wages, going against the policy, was completely illegal. The court directed that the initial appointment of the petitioner be treated as on contract basis and accordingly he be given seniority and actual financial benefits for the last 3 years.

[00:20:03]Appointments made on compassionate grounds must be strictly in accordance with the government policies and directives in force at the time and appointments made as daily wage earners contrary to them are illegal.

[00:20:14]Case Details Smt. Kusumlata vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Case Number CVWP No. 8854 of the year 2022 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel Judge Date of Judgment 27th May 2026 This writ petition was preferred by the widow of a regular employee who died in harm's way. She was offered a compassionate appointment as a daily wage period in the year 2010 and was regularized later in 2017. The petitioner prayed for a direction to treat her appointment as regular from her initial date of birth. The Hon'ble High Court scrutinized the Compassionate Employment Policy enacted in the year 1990 and observed that there was no instruction or provision to offer appointments on a daily wage basis for Class IV posts. The action of the respondent department in offering a daily wage appointment contrary to the prevailing instructions was bad in law. The court directed that her initial service be construed on a contractual basis with all consequential benefits restricting actual monetary arrears to three years prior to the filing of the petition. The law points out that compassionate appointments must be strictly adhered to the government policies and instructions enforced at the relevant time and offering daily wage employment in complete variance with the policy is unsustainable. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. Ninth Judgment Vehicle Conf NDPSACT.

[00:21:52]This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Sessions Court convicting the accused under the NDPS Act and ordering confiscation of the Alto car used in the crime. The petitioner, who was the actual owner of the vehicle, contended that his driver had illegally transported the contraband without his knowledge and consent and the court had simply passed the order of seizure without giving him any prior notice or opportunity of being heard. The Hon'ble High Court observed on perusal of the records that the vehicle owner was never made an accused in the case and before initiating prosecution proceedings under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory to give the affected person a reasonable opportunity of being heard under the principle of odi ultram partem hear the other party. The High Court set aside the lower court's confiscation order for violation of principles of natural justice. It is a mandatory statutory procedure to give notice and provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the actual owner of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act before seizing it.

[00:23:10]Case Details Hemraj Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Case Number Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2025 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma Judge Date of Judgment 27th May 2026 This Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging and order passed by the Special Judge ordering the confiscation of an Alto car allegedly used in the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, who was the registered owner of the vehicle, contended that his driver had illegally transported the contraband without his prior consent and knowledge. He further argued that the trial court ordered the confiscation in hotse without giving any prior notice and opportunity of being heard to him. The Honourable High Court observed that the petitioner was never accused in the case and held that before ordering confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. Providing a prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the owner is a mandatory requirement under the principles of natural justice. Consequently the confiscation order was quashed. Law Point Before ordering the confiscation of a vehicle allegedly involved in an offence under the NDPS Act it is a mandatory statutory obligation to issue a prior notice and afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the registered owner of the vehicle Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel 10th Judgment Motor Vehicle Lite Motors This appeal was filed by the insurance company against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MAT) directing it to pay compensation to the injured person. The main argument of the insurance company was that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not a valid driving license holder as he only had a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). while he was driving a commercial slash transport vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court completely rejected this argument. Citing the latest judgments of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court clearly laid down that if the gross weight of a transport vehicle is less than 7500 kg then the person holding LMV license is legally entitled to drive that vehicle without any additional endorsement. The technical objection of the insurance company was rejected as the gross weight of the vehicle was within the limit and the order of the tribunal was upheld.

[00:26:05]LMV Driving License is fully valid and legally effective for driving any transport or commercial vehicle with gross weight less than 7500 kg. Case Details Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Santosh Kumar & Others Case No. FAO MV No. 41 Year 2020 Name of Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh Judge Date of Judgment 30th May 2026 This appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding compensation to the injured claimant.

[00:26:42]The primary contention of the appellant was that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident because he held only a light motor vehicle licence while operating a transport vehicle. The Honourable High Court rejected this contention and relying upon the authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court held that a driver holding a licence for the LMV class is fully permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation provided the gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 kgs since the weight of the offending vehicle was within the prescribed limit. The technical plea of ​​the insurer was dismissed at the point that a driving licence for a light motor vehicle class is completely valid and effective to operate a transport and commercial vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. Please like, share, comment on this video and subscribe to the channel.