Sanjay Sharma Vs UT ofJ&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

Subash Chander Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S The J&K Bank Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

Khalid Amin Kohli Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Bank of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 195

Mohhamd Rafiq Khan Vs PNB 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

Abdul Rashid Wani Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 197

Raj Ali and Others Vs Union Of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 198

Judgments/Orders

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Aside "Unceremonious Disengagement" Of Special Police Officer For Non-Compliance Of Natural Justice Principles

Case Title: Sanjay Sharma Vs UT ofJ&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed the dismissal of a Special Police Officer (SPO) and reinstated him to his position, reiterating that adherence to the principles of natural justice is nothing but common sense justice.

“…You cannot condemn a person to suffer an adverse consequence in the context of his public position/employment without affording him/her an opportunity of knowing the basis upon which a purported adverse action is aimed to be taken against him/her thereby serve him/her with an opportunity to explain his/her position vis-à-vis the adverse civil consequence conceived to emerge”, Justice Rahul Bharti observed.

Traditional Families Hesitant To Report Crimes Involving Dignity Of Young Woman: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Subash Chander Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the hesitancy of traditional families to report cases concerning the dignity of young women to the police, fearing it might jeopardize their own honour. The court emphasised that a slight delay in lodging an FIR in such cases should not be deemed fatal for the prosecution case.

“…Wherein dignity of a woman that too of a younger age is involved, the traditional families are hesitant to report such matters to the police putting their honour and dignity also at stake, therefore the delay of a single day in lodging of FIR, in the considered opinion of this court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be inordinate delay, so as to be fatal for the prosecution case”, Justice M A Chowdhary observed.

Jammu Development Authority Is Creation Of Statute, Exempt From TDS Deduction On Interest U/S 194A(1) Income Tax Act: High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S The J&K Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) is to be considered a corporation established under the State Act and thus is exempt from the operation of Section 194A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

“...The JDA is not incorporated like the company which is incorporated under the Companies Act or the Cooperative Society which is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The JDA is a statutory body….There can hardly be any dispute that JDA is a corporation constituted under the State Act i.e the Development Act 1970. S.O 3489 of 1970 clearly notifies a corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 194A of the Act’, Justices Sanjeev Kumar & Javed Iqbal Wani observed.

S.482 CrPC Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Proceedings Initiated U/S 12 J&K Domestic Violence Act: High Court

Case Title: Khalid Amin Kohli Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be used to challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2010 or the orders passed thereunder.

S.34 SARFAESI Act Bars Grant Of Injunction By Civil Court For Actions Taken Under The Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Bank of india & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 195

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

“Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act creates a bar and provides that no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the recovery of debts due to the bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993”, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed.

Order XXII CPC For Bringing On Record Legal Heirs Of Deceased Party Apply To Proceedings For Restoration Of Suit: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohhamd Rafiq Khan Vs PNB &

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the applicability of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which govern the procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs/ defendants as also the procedure for setting aside of the abatement, is not limited to suits alone.

Single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the provisions of Order XXII are equally applicable in suits, appeals, and proceedings relating to the restoration of a suit.

Dismissing Plea On Ground Of Laches At Post-Admission Stage Not An Apparent 'Error Of Law' Warranting Review: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Wani Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 197

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court asserted that dismissing a plea on the ground of laches at a post-admission stage does not tantamount to an apparent error of law, and hence, the court cannot invoke its power of review.

“The question of delay and laches could not have been entertained and considered by the court after the admission of the writ petition cannot by any stretch of imagination said to be ground available to the petitioner to seek review of the judgment/order under review either on the ground that the judgments supporting the said contention of the petitioner came to be discovered after the passing of the judgment under review or on the ground that entertaining and accepting the ground of delay and laches at post-admission stage is an apparent error of law”, Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed.

Admin Order To Take Over Madrasas Run By A Particular Trust Cannot Be Universally Applied To Other Madarsas Being Run Legitimately: J&K High Court

Case Title: Raj Ali and Others Vs Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 198

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed the controversial administrative order issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar, whereby it had directed the takeover of Madrasas run by several petitioners.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“…The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 14.06.2023 is very specific and pertains only to the Madarsas being run by Maulana Ali Miyan Educational Trust, Bathindi. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu has not passed any order in respect of other Madarsas which are being run by other Educational Charitable Trusts established for the purpose. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar was, thus, not correct to apply the order of the Divisional Commissioner to close down or take over the Madarsas run by the petitioners’ Trusts, unless he had in possession a substantial proof that the Madarsas of the petitioners are connected or related to the Maulana Ali Miyan Educational Trust, Bathindi”.