Nominal Index :Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Vs Drug Inspector 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 122Union of India Vs M/S D. Khosla Co & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 123 National Highway Authority of India Vs Ali Mohammad Dar & 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 124 Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125 M/S JK Stationers Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 126 Farooq...
Nominal Index :
Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Vs Drug Inspector 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 122
Union of India Vs M/S D. Khosla Co & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 123
National Highway Authority of India Vs Ali Mohammad Dar & 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 124
Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
M/S JK Stationers Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 127
Altaf Ahmad Zargar Vs Mst Sana & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 128
New India Assurance Co Vs Mehra Begum 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 129
Muzamil Ahmad Dar V/s High Court of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 130
Bashir Ahmad Wani v J&K Grameen Bank and Another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 131
Aijaz Ahmad Sofi v. UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 132
Liaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 133
Mst Hameeda Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 134
Naseer Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Sultan Bhat 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 135
Mushtaq Ahmad Peer v/s State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 136
Judgements/Orders :
Case Title :Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Vs Drug Inspector
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 122
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that under the section 32-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 it is only after trial has commenced and the evidence has been led, power to implead manufacturer or any other person who appears to be involved in the offence can be exercised and prior to that, no such power can be exercised.
"One of the differences between Section 319 of the Code and Section 20-A of the Act is that, while in the former even if it appears to the court from the evidence (either during inquiry or trial of the offence), that another person is to be tried along with the already arraigned accused, then the court can proceed against that other person, while in the latter the satisfaction of the court that such manufacturer (distributor or dealer) is also concerned with that offence must be gathered from "the evidence adduced before it during the trial". In other words, the power under Section 20-A cannot be invoked until the trial begins and after the trial ends." Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.
Arbitrator Is A Creature Of Contract & Hence Cannot Supercede It By Any Means : J&K&L High Court
Case Title :Union of India Vs M/S D. Khosla Co & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 123
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an arbitrator is creature of the contract between the parties and, therefore, if he ignores the specific terms of the contract, it would be a question of jurisdictional error, which could be corrected by the Court under Section 30 of J&K Arbitration Act, 2002 and for that limited purpose the agreement is required to be looked into.
"The award can be interfered with by the Court, if it is found that the arbitrator has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and has awarded claims which would be beyond the scope of submission. The award will also be bad, if the arbitrator, who himself is a creature of the contract agreement travels beyond the terms and conditions of the contract and awards claims on the excepted items. Such award would be invalid and can very well be interfered with by the Court", Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed.
Case Title :National Highway Authority of India Vs Ali Mohammad Dar & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 124
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that in the event of enhancement of compensation for land acquisition by the reference court, if the Government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court only after obtaining leave of the court as prescribed u/s 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Title : Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the expression "possession" used in the provisions contained in Section 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act clearly specify that the standard of conscious possession would be different in case of public transport as opposed to a private vehicle with few persons known to one another.
"The term "conscious possession" is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statute and the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be ascertained from the fact and circumstances of the case", Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.
Case Title :M/S JK Stationers Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that only the material collected by the court during the course of inquiry or trial and not the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case can be used, while arraigning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Of course, the evidence would also include the evidence led during the trial of the case after framing of charges. The Supreme Court has, while answering the aforequoted question framed by it, laid down that besides the evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C", Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded.
Case Title :Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 127
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that before prosecuting medical professionals for the offence of criminal negligence, a Criminal Court should obtain opinion of the medical expert and if from such opinion, a prima facie case of criminal negligence is made out against a medical professional, only then the machinery of criminal law should be set into motion.
Case Title :Altaf Ahmad Zargar Vs Mst Sana & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 128
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and therefore a Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings.
Case Title :New India Assurance Co Vs Mehra Begum
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 129
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that In a claim with regard to death or disability of a person travelling by a goods vehicle /goods carriage, as gratuitous or non-gratuitous does not, by the application of statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, fasten the liability on the insurer, except an owner of the load /goods travelling in the vehicle having such load /goods.
Case Title : Muzamil Ahmad Dar V/s High Court of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 130
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that unless a recruitment advertisement specifically mentions that the experience gained in a skill/ trade should be after the candidate has obtained a Diploma in that course, the prior experience can be considered for the purpose of selection and appointment.
Case Title :Bashir Ahmad Wani v J&K Grameen Bank and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 131
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that an employee who is removed from service for misconduct is not at par with those who retire on superannuation.
Case Title :Aijaz Ahmad Sofi v. UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 132
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that non-consideration by the detaining authority, a detenu's representation against an order for his preventive detention, violates such detenu's rights under Article 22 of the Constitution.
"I am of the considered view that the impugned order of detention does not sustain in the eye of law, in that, the representation made on his behalf by his mother has not been considered by the respondents. Right of the detenue to make a representation and to have the same considered by the competent authority is a fundamental right guaranteed to a person under detention under Article 22 of the Constitution and the infraction of such a right renders the detention illegal and unconstitutional." the court recorded.
Case Title :Liaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 133
The bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohan Lal observed that in rape cases, the victim loses her face, and her value as a person. The Court further emphasized that in our conservative society, a woman and more so a young unmarried woman will not put her reputation in peril by falsely alleging forcible sexual assault.
Case Title : Mst Hameeda Vs State of J&K.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 134
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made it clear that a person exercising his or her rights that are ordained by the law cannot be said to have deterred the official duty of a public servant, who under a mistaken belief, tried to stop such exercise of rights.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:
"It can never be the duty of a public official to prevent a person from exercising his/her right which is sanctioned by law.
NI Act | Joint Petition In Respect Of Different Causes Of Action Not Maintainable: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : Naseer Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Sultan Bhat.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 135
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a joint petition in respect of different causes of action is not maintainable.
"The instant petition is not otherwise maintainable as through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged as many as four complaints and four separate orders directing issuance of process against him by the trial court. A joint petition in respect of different causes of action is not maintainable. On this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed." Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.
Case Title :Mushtaq Ahmad Peer v/s State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 136
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court made it clear an appeal against conviction by Sessions Court would lie before a Division Bench of the High Court, where the sentence of imprisonment awarded exceeds 10 years. However, the appeal would be heard and decided by a Single Judge, if the sentence is less than 10 years.