Nominal Index [Citations 256 - 277]:Mridulla Kirti Vs High Court of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 256MAQSOOD AHMAD SHOOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K &OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 257Kirti Mridulla Vs J&K High Court 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258Abdul Majeed Dar alias Madnee Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 259Union Territory of J&K Vs Abdul Qayoom Bhat 2023 LiveLaw (JKL)...
Nominal Index [Citations 256 - 277]:
Mridulla Kirti Vs High Court of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
MAQSOOD AHMAD SHOOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K &OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
Kirti Mridulla Vs J&K High Court 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
Abdul Majeed Dar alias Madnee Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
Union Territory of J&K Vs Abdul Qayoom Bhat 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
Ab. Hamid Bhat Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
Ghulam Din Bhat and another Vs Mst Jana 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
Tabeen Mineral Water Private Limited Vs National Insurance Company Limited 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
Court On Its Own Motion Vs Comm. Secy. Govt. of JK Tourism and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
Nikhat Nabi v M/s Fancy Fabrics & Ors (J&K Bank Ltd) 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
G. M. Bhat v State of JK 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
Chief Engineer PWD Kashmir Vs Fahmeeda Begum 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
Shakeel Ahmad Kuchay Vs. Manmohan Lal 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
Naveen Bhatnagar vs M/s Sudarsham Consolidated Limited 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
CRP FOOD IMPORT-EXPORT v. KASHMIR KESAR MART 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
Rajan Gupta V/s Manoj Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 272
Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273
Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275
FAROOQ AHMAD LONE Vs STATE OF J&K & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 276
Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: Mridulla Kirti Vs High Court of J&K
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition filed by a group of candidates seeking age relaxation for the Kashmir Civil Service (KCS) Judicial Examinations.
The court said that while participating in the recruitment process, a candidate must possess the prescribed eligibility and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, there cannot be any relaxation in the requisite eligibility criteria.
Case Title: MAQSOOD AHMAD SHOOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K &OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court reiterated that a degree issued by a private university through a study centre or off-campus centre that lacks prior approval from the UGC is invalid and cannot be utilised to secure employment within the Government sector.
Justice Sanjay Dhar added that when the petitioner himself was not eligible to be selected, he could not challenge the selection of others who appeared to have obtained their diplomas from recognised institutions.
Case Title: Kirti Mridulla Vs J&K High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
Dismissing a fresh plea seeking deferment of the Civil Judge Exam for more preparation time to aspirants, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that once the candidate is ready to apply for any particular post, he cannot claim a specific period for preparation as he is supposed to be prepared.
“The discretion of the Commission to conduct the examination cannot be normally interfered with by the court unless the Court is of the view that the time period has been scheduled with some malafide purpose or extraneous reasons which of course is conspicuous by absence in the present petition. No such plea is raised”, the court said.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed Dar alias Madnee Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention order passed against Abdul Majeed Dar, a prominent Islamic cleric popularly known as AL Madnee.
Noting that the detaining authority had failed to express any compelling reason for the detention, the bench observed impugned detention order against the detenu and in fact has failed to express any compelling reason thereof. The impugned order, thus, in law, does not sustain on this count alone.
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K Vs Abdul Qayoom Bhat.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that after challenging a detention order before its execution through legal channels, they cannot argue that the order should be quashed due to a lack of live link between the current situation and the one when the detention order was issued.
A division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Rajesh Sekhri reasoned that by preemptively challenging the order, they prevented a proper examination of whether there were adequate grounds or evidence for the detention order in the first place.
Case Title: Ab. Hamid Bhat Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the government to reassess the amount of compensation and improvement charges to be paid to land claimants, emphasizing the need for a fair evaluation of the value of the land involved in the Smart Satellite Township dispute.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the pleas as barred by res subjudice on the issue of tenancy but directed the reassessment of compensation/improvement charges based on current rules and parameters.
Case Title: Ghulam Din Bhat and another Vs Mst Jana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court solely due to the late submission of the certified copy of the order was not legally sustainable and amounted to a failure of justice.
A bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasised that a person's right to appeal cannot be nullified simply because they did not strictly follow procedural rules.
Case Title: Tabeen Mineral Water Private Limited Vs National Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that restoring a case consigned to records without an adverse order or a decision on parties' rights does not qualify as a review and hence such a case could be called back by the Consumer Commissions.
A bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice M. A. Chowdhary however acknowledged that the Consumer Commissions, except for the National Commission, do not have the power to review or recall their own orders on merits.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs Comm. Secy. Govt. of JK Tourism and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court expressed satisfaction with the measures taken by the authorities regarding the maintenance and preservation of green spaces and parks in the region, particularly Srinagar and Jammu.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi after carefully reviewing reports submitted by the concerned authorities, decided to close the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the subject.
Case Title: Nikhat Nabi v M/s Fancy Fabrics & Ors (J&K Bank Ltd)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that although Order 23, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code bars new suits from setting aside a decree based on a lawful compromise, the bar only applies to parties involved in the compromise and does not preclude strangers to the suit from filing independent suits to challenge the compromise decree.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani also added that while the law allows strangers to the compromise to file independent suits, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court was not appropriate for the issues raised in this case.
Case Title: G. M. Bhat v State of JK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the appellate authority recognises the lack of reasoning in the designated authority’s order, it is imperative for the appellate body to either confirm or revoke the order under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act within the time limit specified therein.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal clarified that the appellate authority cannot remand the case potentially extending the statutory time limit beyond the prescribed 60 days for the designated authority to confirm or revoke the order.
Lok Adalat Awards Deemed Decrees, Further Appeals U/S 96 CPC Not Allowed: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Chief Engineer PWD Kashmir Vs Fahmeeda Begum
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that every award issued by the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final and binding, hence closing the door to further appeals under Section 96 of the CPC.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal noted that an award of the Lok Adalat can only be challenged if there is an allegation of fraud or if the agreement forming the basis of the decree is invalid.
Case Title: Shakeel Ahmad Kuchay Vs. Manmohan Lal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a subsequent suit is barred only if the first suit and the second suit are based on the same cause of action under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani added that the court should not prematurely dismiss a suit or an application for an interim injunction if there are triable issues and that issues regarding the cause of action should be fully examined during the trial rather than at the threshold of the case.
Case Title: Naveen Bhatnagar vs M/s Sudarsham Consolidated Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that a Director's resignation is deemed to take immediate effect only in cases where the Articles of Association do not specify the resignation's effect.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
".. if the Articles of Association of a company make a provision for resignation, the same has to be resorted to in accordance with the provisions contained in the Articles of Association. As to when a resignation is to take effect on acceptance, the same would be governed by the Articles of Association. In the absence of any indication as regards the effect of resignation in the Articles of Association, a resignation would take effect immediately."
Case Title: CRP FOOD IMPORT-EXPORT v. KASHMIR KESAR MART,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that filing of an English translated copy certified by an official or sworn translator satisfies the requirement of Section 47(2) of the A&C Act which provides that if an award is in a foreign language, a translated copy of the award is to be filed for the purpose of the enforcement of the foreign award and the same has to be certified by the Consular or Diplomatic agent of the award holder’s country.
Case Title: Rajan Gupta V/s Manoj Gupta
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the primary consideration for the court before allowing an application under Order-XI Rule-12 CPC lies in determining the relevance of the documents, especially when a party seeks a specific document.
Justice Sindhu Sharma clarified that any document shedding light on the proceedings becomes pertinent, contributing to the understanding of the matter in dispute.
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 272
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that including irrelevant or non-existent grounds in a detention order violates the constitutional rights of the detenu, allowing them to seek court relief.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul explained that such inclusions infringe upon two crucial rights: firstly, the inclusion of irrelevant or non-existent grounds infringes upon the primary right, and secondly, incorporating obscure or vague grounds among clear ones infringes upon the secondary right.
Case Title: Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in situations where only one conclusion was possible upon admitted or undisputed facts, a breach of natural justice does not automatically imply prejudice.
Justice Sindhu Sharma thus upheld the cancellation of the allotment of a shop in Jammu to the allotee petitioner.
“Even otherwise, if on undisputed and admitted fact, if only one view is possible, then even if no opportunity of hearing is provided, the impugned notice can[not] be quashed”.
CRPF Act | Commandant Authorised To Dismiss Personnel For Misconduct, Dismissal & Removal Are Minor Penalties: J&K High Court
Case Title: Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act allows the Commandant the discretion to dismiss or remove a member of the force found guilty of misconduct as a penalty.
Justice Sanjay Dhar also clarified that under Section 11, dismissal and removal from service are classified as minor punishments.
"..it is clear that the Commandant is well within his powers to pass an order of dismissal of service of a delinquent CRPF Personnel if he feels that the misconduct is of such a nature as would warrant aforesaid punishment. This can be done by him in exercise of his powers under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Dismissal and removal from service are being considered to be minor punishments as per Section 11 of the CRPF Act. These punishments can be inflicted in addition to or in lieu of punishments provided under Clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act."
Case Title: M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts held that jurisdiction in the case of shawls containing prohibited material lies in Delhi, not Jammu & Kashmir, as the seizure took place in Delhi.
The bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that in the absence of any specific pleadings in the writ petitions as well as memoranda of appeals, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action had accrued to the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar.
Case Title: FAROOQ AHMAD LONE Vs STATE OF J&K & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 276
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the absence of sanction to prosecute a public officer can be challenged at the beginning of a case, but challenges related to the competence of the sanctioning authority and the application of mind can only be raised during the trial.
J&K High Court Orders Thorough Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture, Mutilation Of Police Constable
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted that the police authorities and the court should carefully exercise discretion to determine if a second FIR is warranted based on case-specific considerations.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani thus ordered a thorough investigation into the alleged severe custodial torture and mutilation of a police constable while in the custody of the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara.