Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Round Up: July 18 To July 24, 2022
Judgements/Orders1. Temporary Employees Also Protected Under Article 311 Of Constitution, Cannot Be Terminated Without Conducting Proper Enquiry: J&K&L High Court Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today ruled that a temporary employee also stands protected under the provisions...
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today ruled that a temporary employee also stands protected under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and cannot be terminated without conducting proper enquiry.
Observing that this court is within its powers to go beyond the orders the court held that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order.
Case Title: Ghulam Ahmad Naikoo vs Abdul Qayoom Wani.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 76
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held a distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating and it depends upon the intention of the accused at time of inducement while the subsequent conduct is not the sole test.
The bench observed in order to commit an act of deception of fraud, which is gist of the offence under Section 420 of the RPC, the complainant must have been dishonestly inducted to deliver the property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true, which is false and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false. This intention of deception or fraud must be existent at the time of commission of the offence, the bench underscored.
Case Title: State of J&K through P/S Bandipora Vs Hilal Ahmad Parray
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 77
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that only the Special Court or in the absence of a Special Court, a Sessions Court exercising powers of a Special Court, can entertain and grant/refuse bail to a person accused of an offence under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevent Prevention Act. It further observed that a Judicial Magistrate has neither the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the said Act nor he is vested wit with jurisdiction to try such offences or grant/refuse bail.
Sec 22 of the NIA Act is clear that the State Government has power to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for trial of offences and sub-section (3) of Section 22 takes care of a situation by prescribing that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government, such powers be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed, the bench recorded.
Case Title: Raisa Banoo vs Mst. Shameema & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 78
A bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul held that in case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave to file suit without issuing notice has been granted to the plaintiff under Section 80(3) of Civil Procedure Code, that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction.
"So, refusal to grant relief or to grant relief is to be considered at the stage when suit is sought to be filed without issuance of notice as required under Section 80 of CPC. The plaint would be returned in case, at that stage, the Court finds that there is no urgency in the suit or in passing an urgent relief. In case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave has been granted to the plaintiff that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction"the bench recorded.
News Updates :
A division bench of J&K&L High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani disposed off a PIL filed by Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti (KPSS), wherein they had stated that the religious minorities in the valley were under direct threat from terrorists and must be relocated to safer locations outside.
The bench observed that it is in common knowledge that the administration is making all efforts to provide security and protection to the religious minorities in J&K and a robust mechanism is being deployed to avoid targeted killings and to investigate the incidents of all targeted killings. It said that the petitioner Samiti is at liberty to submit a fresh representation highlighting its grievances before the Secretary, Home, UT J&K who may take appropriate remedial steps that may be considered necessary in the overall interest of the Union Territory and the members of the minority community.