Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest June 2024

Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149

Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150

Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153

SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K iu2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157

AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160

Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161

Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162

Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163

Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164

Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165

State Vs Raj Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170

Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171

NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

Judgments/Orders:

Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Observing that every act prejudicial to state security necessarily disrupts public order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that only acts causing grave disruption to public order qualify as threats to state security.

Unblemished Record Necessary For Promotion, Employee Facing Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Promotion During Pendency: J&K High Court

Case Title: Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a government employee facing criminal charges cannot claim promotion while the proceedings are pending. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that for promotion, an employee must at least have an unblemished record to ensure a clean and efficient administration.

BSF Act 1968 | Commandant Can Dismiss BSF Personnel Without Security Force Court Trial Provided Procedures Outlined In BSF Rules Are Followed: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sita Devi Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that a Commandant's power to dismiss a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) is independent and does not require prior conviction by a Security Force Court, provided that the procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969, are followed.

[S.138 NI Act] Personal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases Limited To Drawer, No Liability Can Be Fastened Against Company For Cheque Not Issued By It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

Quashing a complaint against a company director accused of dishonoring a cheque, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

Death Of Govt Employee Doesn't Guarantee Compassionate Appointment For Family, Financial Hardship Must Be Proven: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the death of an employee while in service doesn't automatically entitle their family to a compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the family must be examined, and jobs should only be offered if the family cannot meet the crisis without it, provided there is a relevant scheme or rule.

Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that given the exclusive privilege of the Government in the sale/manufacture of liquor, the Court, being a constitutional body, should be slow in interfering with executive decisions taken by the State as they are essentially a matter of economic policy.

Prosecutrix's Testimony Concerning Factum Of Occurrence & Persons Involved Ought To Be Scrutinized Before Basing Conviction On It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149

Highlighting the importance of a consistent and credible narrative from the prosecutrix in rape cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must undertake a rigorous scrutiny of a prosecutrix's testimony before reliance can be placed on it.

When Statute Provides For Detention Under Specific Contingency, Detention Under Different Contingency Cannot Be Made Unless Conditions Overlap: J&K High Court

Case Title: Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once a statute provides for the detention of a person under a specific contingency, he cannot be detained under a different contingency outlined by the statute unless both conditions overlap or coexist.

J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On "Habitual" Litigant For Demeaning Language Against Daughter-in-Law

Case Title: Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came down heavily on a father who filed a petition challenging the maintenance proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹1 Lakh to be deposited in the Litigants' Welfare Fund, calling the language used in the petition "demeaning of a woman and totally unacceptable in any civilized society."

'Suppressing Material Facts Is Just Jugglery Not Advocacy': J&K High Court Cancels Reinstatement Order Of Ex-Constable For Hiding Crucial Facts From Court

Case Title: State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

Underlining the criticality of transparency in legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea by a former constable who sought reinstatement in the police force.

The court, in a judgment passed by Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary, observed,

"Suppression of concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction."

Recovery Of Excess Payments Made To Employee Due To Wrong Interpretation Of Rules Not Permissible Post Retirement: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case No. : Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153

A single judge bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Mst. Raja & Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, held that after an employee retires, it is not permissible to recover excess payments made to them due to a mistaken interpretation of rules.

[O.22 R.10 CPC] New Trustee Not Legal Representative But Successor in Interest: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that on the death of a trustee, a newly elected or appointed trustee cannot be considered a legal representative of the deceased trustee. Instead, the interest of the Trust property devolves upon the new trustee, thereby making the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applicable.

Magistrate Not Required To Notify Injured Party Or Deceased's Relative Before Considering Closure Report Unless FIR Filed by Them: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that magistrates are not obligated to notify injured parties or relatives of the deceased when considering police closure reports.

In a judgment passed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, the court stated that there is no obligation on the magistrate to issue notice to the injured or a relative of the deceased for providing such person an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report unless such person is the informant who has lodged the FIR.

“No Reason To Create Impediment For Businesses”: J&K High Court Directs Govt Not To Harass Tea Sellers In Floating Market Inside Dal Lake

Case Title: M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the authorities to refrain from harassing tea sellers operating in the floating market inside Dal Lake, provided they have the necessary licenses. The order, passed by Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, emphasised that no impediment should be created for those running a legitimate business.

[S.340 CrPC] Court Must Be Satisfied That Party Intentionally Committed An Offence Before Recommending Action For Perjury: J&K High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157

Underscoring the necessity for courts to be convinced of intentionality before recommending action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere allegations or attempts to settle personal scores are insufficient grounds for initiating perjury proceedings.

Participation In Nationalistic Activities Can't Serve As License For Criminal Acts: J&K High Court Dismisses Ex-Corporator's Plea Against Preventive Detention

Case Title: AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

Dismissing the petition challenging the preventive detention of former Srinagar Municipal Corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court asserted that involvement in nationalist activities does not grant immunity from legal proceedings for criminal activities prejudicial to public order.

Goodwill, Misrepresentation By Defendant And Subsequent Damage Are Prerequisites To Enforce Passing Off Remedy For Unregistered Trademarks: J&K High Court

Case Title: Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that to claim a passing-off remedy for an unregistered trademark, the following three elements must be established: (a)ownership of business goodwill, (b) misrepresentation by the defendant leading to confusion, and (c) consequent damage to the plaintiff's goodwill.

'State Security' No Longer Valid Ground For Preventive Detention In J&K Since Reorganization As Union Territory: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that the term "security of the State" is obsolete in the context of Jammu and Kashmir since its reorganization as a Union Territory in 2019.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has clarified,

“.. Under the J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, “Security of the State” obtaining in section 8(1)(a)(i) came to be substituted by the statutory ground of “security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir”.. therefore, an order so passed with the said expression “Security of the State” being retained as it is, technically disqualifies to be a valid order of preventive detention against a detenue”

'Unlawful Invasion Of Fundamental Rights': J&K High Court Quashes Illegal Detention, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Union Territory administration to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Aftab Hussain Dar, a 22-year-old student, after quashing his preventive detention, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.

Shortcomings Of Investigative Agency Cannot Hinder Framing Of Charges Based On Evidence Brought On Record: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162

Highlighting the duties of a Court while framing a charge against an accused the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that investigative shortcomings should not prevent the framing of charges based on the evidence presented.

Quashing an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (AD&J) Baramulla, directing framing of charges under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) a bench of Justice Puneet Gupta instead directed framing of charges under Section 302 IPC (murder) against the accused.

Constitutional Courts Are Guardians Of Citizen's Fundamental Rights, Must Be Extra Sensitive When Personal Liberty Is Violated: J&K High Court

Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163

Quashing a preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sounded a note of caution for detaining authorities who assume that their powers under the act are unchecked.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has stated that subjective satisfaction of the authorities for issuing detention orders cannot be construed as a matter of wordplay while assuming that they have an omnipotent power and authority to subject any person to suffer preventive detention at any given point of time.

S. 8(8) PMLA | Bonafide Individuals Suffering Loss Due To Money Laundering Can Approach Special Court To Restore Attached Property: J&K High Court

Case Title: Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164

Reinforcing the protections for individuals who, acting in good faith, suffer losses due to offences of money laundering the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that they are entitled to approach the Special Court to seek restoration of the attached properties.

Citing Sec 8 Sub Sec 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“.. that a person, who has acted in good faith and has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering, despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is otherwise not involved in money laundering, would be a claimant entitled to invoke the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Act of 2002”.

Non-Mention Of Bail Granted To Accused In FIR-Based Detention Order Renders Detention Illegal: J&K High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has declared that once an FIR is the core ground for passing a detention order, the non-mentioning of bail granted in relation to that FIR renders the detention order illegal.

Prosecution Must Prove Continuous Harassment And Proximate Act For Securing Conviction Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: State Vs Raj Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that for a conviction on charges of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish not just continuous harassment but also a clear and proximate act by the accused that demonstrably pushed the victim to take their own life.

Courts Must Examine Circumstances Beyond Allegations In FIR In Potentially Vexatious Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.

A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated that courts have a duty to examine the “attending circumstances” beyond the allegations in the FIR, especially when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings arising from personal disputes.

Specific Allegations Against Husband's Relatives Essential To Warrant Their Prosecution For Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: J&K High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

Emphasising that relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC based on general and vague allegations, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the necessity for specific allegations to warrant their prosecution.

[Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.

Once Complainant's Statement Is Recorded U/S 200 CrPC, Magistrate Can't Pass Directions To Register FIR U/S 156(3): J&K High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170

Reinforcing the distinction between a magistrate's powers under Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3) (pre-cognizance) and 200 (cognizance) when handling complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that recording a complainant's statement under Section 200 prohibits issuing an FIR order under Section 156(3).

[S.33 Insecticides Act] All Those Responsible For Conduct Of Business Liable When Company Commits Offense Under Insecticides Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.

Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Instances Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offense Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Quashing an FIR filed against four brothers for allegedly abetting the suicide of their deceased sibling the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere omnibus allegations of harassment without specific instances wouldn't be sufficient to attract culpability under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide).

Denial Of Leave To Attend To Ailing Mother No Grounds To Skip Duty: J&K High Court Upholds Withholding Of CRPF Personnel's Salary For Unauthorised Absence

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the withholding of salary of a CRPF personnel for unauthorized absence from duty, observing that denial of leave to attend an ailing mother cannot be a ground to leave duty without permission.

Landowner Seeking Enhanced Compensation Must Prove Market Value Of Land Acquired Is Different From The One Assessed By Collector: J&K High Court

Case Title: ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently clarified that the burden to prove that the market value of acquired land is different from the value assessed by the Collector rests on the landowners seeking enhanced compensation.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar maintained that so long as the land owner/ owners fail to discharge the burden cast on them, there is no question of the Reference court granting any enhancement.