Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up April 8 - April 15, 2024

Bashir Ahmed Naik Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

Hans Raj Vs Dilbagh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

“X” Juvenile Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 82

M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge Vs Union Of India and Other Connected Petitions 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

Vineeta Jamwal Vs Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 84

Judgments/Orders:

District Magistrate Who Is Empowered To Issue Detention Order Can Also Revoke It Before Govt Approval: J&K High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmed Naik Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a District Magistrate has the authority to revoke a detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) until it is approved by the government.

In a Judgment passed by Justice Sanjay Dhar the court observed,

“..An authority which is vested with jurisdiction to make an order is empowered to add to, amend, vary or rescind such an order. Therefore, the District Magistrate, who is empowered to make the order of detention, is also empowered to revoke it till such time it is not approved by the Government”.

[O.14 R.5 CPC] Allowing Court To Amend, Add Or Delete Issues Intended To Conclusively Determine Controversial Points Between Parties: J&K High Court

Case Title: Hans Raj Vs Dilbagh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court shed light on framing issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The court clarified that the said provision is an enabling one intended to effectually and conclusively determine the controversial points between the parties and the power under this provision is exercisable by a Court either suo-moto or an application of a party.

Scrutiny In Proceedings Must Be Avoided To Insulate & Protect Juvenile: J&K High Court Slams Disclosure Of Identity Of Juveniles In Conflict With Law

Case Title: “X” Juvenile Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 82

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came down heavily on courts operating in the Union Territories for routinely disclosing the identities of juveniles in conflict with law in their orders.

While granting bail to a 17-year-old boy accused of attempted murder in Samba district Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“Courts working in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, and, therefore, they are, with impunity, disclosing the full identity of the juvenile in their orders. It is high time that the Courts in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are made aware of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015”.

Easy Access To Justice A Facet Of Right To Life: J&K High Court Allows SARFAESI Actions To Be Challenged Under Article 226 Till Local DRTs Are Established

Case Title: M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge Vs Union Of India and Other Connected Petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the absence of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) within the Union Territories (UTs) of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh violates the fundamental right to easy access to justice enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

In their earnest bid to advance hassle-free access to substantial justice Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal have emphasised that till such a fora or benches are established the litigants can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[S.151 CPC] Inherent Power Of Court To Do Justice Not Affected By Its Power To Recall Witnesses, Elicit Clarifications: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vineeta Jamwal Vs Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 84

Reiterating the importance of the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to ensure a fair trial the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness and elicit clarifications.