Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: March 6 - March 12, 2023

Union Of India Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

Jammu Development Authority Vs Jag Mohan Wazir & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

Syed Shahid Hamdani Vs UT of J&K 2023 (JKL) 45

Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs Shameema & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

Arif Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

J&K Service Selection Board Vs Vinkal Sharma 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs District Magistrate Anantnag & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Rokade Santosh Sandashiv & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

Judgements/Orders:

Creation Of Special Authority No Reason To Condone Delay, Party Must Offer Explanation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner condoning at least 15 years delay by certain persons in seeking compensation under Employees Compensation Act on behalf of their relatives, on the solitary premise that it is a creation of special legislation.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed,

"Creation of an Authority under special legislation cannot be a reason, much less sufficient, to condone the delay and as already explained, it is the applicant who is obliged to explain the delay and not the Authority or the Court, as the case may be, to make out a case for condonation of delay."

Cause Of Action Cannot Be Generated By Repeated Representations, Right To Claim Must Be Established: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Jammu Development Authority Vs Jag Mohan Wazir & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that ‘cause of action’ cannot be generated by making repeated representations and serving legal notices to the concerned authorities as every fact is required to be proved in order to support the right being claimed before the court.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Rape FIR, Says Proposal For Live-In To Ascertain How Relationship Will Work Out Not False Promise To Marry

Case Title: Syed Shahid Hamdani Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 (JKL) 45

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a rape FIR, observing that a proposal made by the accused to prosecutrix for live-In relationship, so as to ascertain how their relationship will work, does not tantamount to false promise to marry.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"He proposed to have live-in-relationship with her, meaning thereby that at the initial stage the petitioner had not indicated his intention to marry the prosecutrix but he only wanted to ascertain as to how their relationship will work out, whereafter he was to make up his mind as to whether or not he would enter into wedlock with the prosecutrix. This goes on to show that there was no promise of marriage from the petitioner at the time of initiation of their relationship".

Party Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree Not Required To Explain Its Absence During Trial: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs Shameema & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the seeker of condonation of delay is not required to explain the period of his absence during the trial, what is required is explanation for period of delay which runs as per the Limitation Act.

Pointing out the perversity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court the bench further added that law provides that delay is to be explained for the period beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the limitation in this case would run from the date of passing of the decree and not from any date prior to passing of the same.

Article 22(5) | Representation Made On Behalf Of Detenu Should Be Considered & Disposed With A Sense Of Urgency: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Arif Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

Quashing a Preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently observed that the words "As soon as may be‟, in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Order For Probe Against J&K SSB, Matter To Be Decided Afresh

Case Title: J&K Service Selection Board Vs Vinkal Sharma.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Setting aside the order of Single bench in terms of which it had ordered a probe into conduct of J&K Service Selection Board after the recruitment body was alleged to have appointed a 'Blacklisted' agency for conducting exam, the Division bench of J&K&L High Court remitted the matter back to the Single Judge with a request to decide the matter afresh.

A bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan and MA Chowdhary observed,

"We are of the view that the Writ Court had no jurisdiction to finally dispose of the petition without first issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the opposite side for filing reply on merits of the case"

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Accepts Unconditional Apology From Sr AAG, DM Anantnag

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs District Magistrate Anantnag & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Observing that the apology tendered by Senior Additional Advocate General Abdul Rashid Malik and District Magistrate Anantnag is accompanied with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance and is not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court accepted their unconditional apology.

Accepting the apology, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"Apology cannot be accepted, in case it is hollow; there is no remorse, no regret, no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigor of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as a “paper apology”.

When Issuing Authority Verifies Experience Certificate, Counter-Signing Authority's Denial Won't Lead To Termination Sans Enquiry: Jammu & Kashmir HC

Case Title: Rokade Santosh Sandashiv & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere denial of counter signature on a certificate in absence of proper enquiry or finding does not warrant major punishment of termination of service, which becomes punitive in nature particularly when the order of termination is not simpliciter but the stigma is attached to the same.

The bar of proving forgery is high and must be supported by sufficient evidence and in absence of any detailed enquiry conducted in this regard, it cannot be assumed that the documents has been forged by the petitioner No.1", the bench explained.