Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: October 23 - October 29, 2023

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

Judgments/Orders:

Director's Resignation Has Immediate Effect Only In Absence Of Explicit Provision In Articles Of Association: J&K High Court

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."

English Translated Copy Certified By A Sworn Or Official Translator Is Sufficient Compliance Of Section 47(2) Of The A&C Act: J&K High Court

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.

CPC | Relevance Of Documents Primary Consideration Before Allowing Order XI Rule 12 Application: J&K High Court

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.

Detention Orders With Irrelevant Grounds Violate Constitutional Rights, Grants Detenu Right To Seek Relief From Court: J&K High Court

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

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.

If Only One Conclusion Possible From Undisputed Facts, Possible Breach Of Natural Justice Does Not Automatically Imply Prejudice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274

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”.