Nominal Index Kala Ram & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 228 Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229 M/s Shree Guru Kripa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 230Abass Ali Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 231 Ram Gopal Meena Vs CBI 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 232Rohit Sharma Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL)...
Nominal Index
- Kala Ram & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
- Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
- M/s Shree Guru Kripa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
- Abass Ali Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
- Ram Gopal Meena Vs CBI 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
- Rohit Sharma Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
- Mtr Mehmooda Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
- M/S Doon Caterers Dehradun Uttrakhand Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
- Kamlesh Devi & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
- Ali Mohammad & Ors Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
- Murad Ali Sajan & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
- Abida Afzal Vs State Election Commission & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
- Vinkal Sharma & Ors Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
- S. K. Bakshi Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
- Case Title : Laxman Das Vs Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
- Case Title : Khalid Zahoor Khan Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
- Case Title : Masrat Yousuf Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
- Case Title : Meraj Ud Din Malik Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
- Case Title : Bashir Ahmad Bhat & Ors Vs Syed and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
- Case Title : Aatif Irshad Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
- Case Title : Harvinder Pal Singh alias Rambo Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
- Case Title : Javaid Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Iqbal Thoker 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
- Case Title : Desh Rattan Dubey Vs BCCI 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
- Case Title : Mafooza Bano Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
- Case Title : Javid Ahmad Akhoon & Ors Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
- Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gulshan Kumar and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
- Case Title : Akona Engineering Private Ltd Vs Pal Construction and another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
- Case Title : Royal Singh Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
- Case Title : Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
- Case Title: Mohammad Ayoub Dar Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
- Case Title : Bindu Singh Jamwal Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
- Case Title : M/s S. S. Industries, Shanker Colony, Gangayal Vs UT of J&K and Ors2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
- Case Title : Kanwarjit Singh Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
- Case Title : National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
- Case Title : Yang Burz Home vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
- Case Title: Khalida Salman Vs Sahil Ahmad Dar 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
- Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr Vs Hamida Bano & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
- Case Title: Dr. RK Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
- Case Title : M/S Construction Engineers 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
- Case Title : M/S Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Anr Vs M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
- Case Title : Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
- Case Title : Pooja Sharma & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
- Case Title: Mohd Yousuf Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
- Case Title : Suresh Gyan Vihar University Vs Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
Case Title : Jammu Municipal Corporation Vs Mohd Nadeem & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 272
46.Case Title: United India Insurance Company Vs Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (273)
47.Case Title : Akash Karka Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
Judgements /Orders
Case Title : Kala Ram & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expressed regret over the manner in which the Police establishment had "usurped" a private property for its use back in 2013, "dictated" its rent and continued in illegal occupation till 2018 until it was no longer of use to them.
Single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti remarked,
"J&K Police had lot to explain its conduct, rather misconduct in real terms, and still it has not dawned upon it to reconcile and make amends... on the acts of omission and commission of the erring police officials concerned in literally having acted as medieval time zamindar to overpower a private property."
Case Title : Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court called out the "Quick Fixes" resorted to by the police during criminal investigations, holding that investigations must be conducted within the domain of "Facts in Issue" and "Relevant Facts".
A single bench comprising Justices Rahul Bharti observed,
"Police Investigation acts with relish to exhibit its harassment bearing power of investigation aiming more to quick fix the facts into its view point of accusation but faintly knows the province of investigation out of which the full facts are to be drawn out to prove the script of the crime in all its details...If a given Police Investigation has least bothered to follow the script of said two domains, then in the name of Police Investigation what is taking place would be nothing but paper collection and compilation venture by the Investigation Officer so as to claim the service credit of having prepared and submitted a police report/challan in a court of law unmindful of its soundness and sustainability in a court of law."
Case Title : M/s Shree Guru Kripa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that retrospective operation of a Government Order cannot be permitted particularly where it is merely an executive order, and not a legislation.
A bench comprising Justice Waseem Sadiq Nargal observed,
"As every Government/executive order by virtue of a policy has prospective operation, it can in no way be applied retrospectively by infusing life in a Government order and interpreting differently, when the explicit language leads to an irresistible conclusion".
Borrowing Department Liable To Disburse Salary Of Employee Sent To It On Deputation: JKL High Court
Case Title : Abass Ali Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that an employee sent on deputation from his parent department to the borrowing department at the request of the borrowing department is the liability of the borrowing department and hence they are accountable for salary of the employee.
Case Title : Ram Gopal Meena Vs CBI
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because preliminary enquiry has taken a long time to complete, the same cannot be said to have vitiated the criminal proceedings initiated in a corruption case, particularly when no prejudice has been caused to the accused by such act of the enquiry officer.
Case Title : Rohit Sharma Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is not based on the length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation.
A bench comprising Justice Rahul Bharti observed, "A successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is based upon quality of police investigation with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case attending the commission of offences and not by length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation. An investigation authority is bound to show and demonstrate on factual basis as to how if an accused is admitted to bail in a case before finalization of police investigation and consequent presentation of police report under section 173 Cr. P.C, 1973, the investigation work is likely to suffer hurdles/obstacles to the prejudice of taking the investigation to the truth of the matter".
Case Title : Mtr Mehmooda Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that if an appointment is non-est in the eyes of law or is based upon forgery and fraud, it is not necessary for the employer to hold an enquiry before terminating the services of such an employee.
Case Title : M/S Doon Caterers Dehradun Uttrakhand Vs Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that final relief cannot be granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as proceedings under the said provision are of interim measure and are not meant for enforcement of the conditions of the contract, which can be done only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged or crystallized by the arbitrator.
Explaining the law applicable to the instant subject Justice Nargal observed, "The proceedings of Section 9 of the Act is by way of an interim measure and are not meant for enforcement of the conditions of the contract as it would be done only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged or crystallized by the arbitrator. Section 9 proceedings which are for interim measures cannot be converted into the proceedings where a party may seek indirectly a final relief but nature of the conditions incorporated in the terms and conditions of the agreement, its scope and merit in-law and its applicability, are all questions to be examined by the arbitrator in accordance with law".
Case Title : Kamlesh Devi & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that a judicial magistrate is not competent to order re-investigation in a case nor is he empowered to transfer the case from one investigating agency to another.
Justice M A Chowdhary observed, "No other Court except the Superior /Constitutional Courts is vested with the powers to order reinvestigation or transfer investigation of a case from one agency to another, to secure the ends of justice."
Case Title : Ali Mohammad & Ors Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
While setting aside a series of orders and judgments inadvertently passed against a dead man, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that it is empowered to correct its mistakes, no matter the delay.
"No delay is too long/late for the Court to do course correction for its own wrong/mistake/error so as to undo the effects and restore the justice...Court only enhances its prestige when it acknowledges and amends any wrong/mistake/error, be it advertent/inadvertent on its part in the course of a legal proceedings causing prejudice to a litigant in the lis before it," a Division bench of Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Rahul Bharti said.
Case Title : Murad Ali Sajan & Ors Vs UT of J&K.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; such position can be filled only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Expounding further on the matter Justice Dhar recorded, "It may be correct to say that the petitioners are not entitled to seek extension of their contractual engagement but at the same time the respondents' action of replacing the academic arrangement by another similar arrangement cannot be countenanced in law. The respondents can only replace the petitioners by filling up the vacant posts of Staff Nurses on substantive basis, which they have not chosen to do".
No Blanket Bar On Judicial Review Of Decisions Made By Election Authority: JKL High Court
Case Title : Abida Afzal Vs State Election Commission & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that there is no blanket bar to the judicial review of decisions made by an Election Authority but it is only those decisions which have the effect of retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling the completion of the election process that can be challenged in the writ jurisdiction.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, "Anything done towards completion of election process cannot be challenged before the High Court and it is only if it is shown that the Election Authority has exercised its power arbitrarily and such action has the effect of stalling the election process, the same can be challenged by way of a writ petition".
Case Title : Vinkal Sharma & Ors Vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday quashed the ongoing recruitment process for Junior Engineer-civil (Jal Shakti Department) and Sub Inspector (Home Department) and directed the UT Government to constitute a high level Committee headed by not less than a retired High Court Judge to enquire into the conduct of Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board.
Case Title : S. K. Bakshi Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Bank can auction the property even with encumbrances attached to property under the SARFAESI Act but it is incumbent upon the Bank to disclose the encumbrances and litigations attached to the property to all the persons who want to participate in the same and to the successful bidder.
A bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma observed, "By including a clause of" as is where is‟ it would not be sufficient for respondent bank from disclosing encumbrances or handing over the property to the petitioner".
Case Title : Laxman Das Vs Union of India & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that an enquiry officer cannot return a finding on the allegation which is not part of the chargesheet.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, "The mandate of the enquiry officer holding disciplinary enquiry is to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the delinquent and restrict his finding to the charges framed. He cannot return his findings beyond the terms of his reference i.e., beyond the charges to be investigated or enquired into."
Case Title : Khalid Zahoor Khan Vs UT of J&K & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mere recommendation by the Selection Committee for enlarging the wait list, without there being a decision of the Government in accepting the said recommendation, does not give any right on the concerned candidates to seek enlargement of the waiting list.
Case Title : Masrat Yousuf Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that where a person is engaged in a statutory corporation on the basis of a special contract, Article 311 has no application. The provision relates to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
"The engagement of the petitioner seemingly is an ordinary case of a service contract terminable at any time under the terms provided therein the engagement order. Thus, the case setup by the petitioner and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner urged in this regard in general and the applicability of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in particular therefore, is not entertainable in law", Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held.
Case Title : Meraj Ud Din Malik Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that the exchange of proprietary land in lieu of encroached kahcharai (grazing) land is not permissible anymore.
The clarification was issued by a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had sought directions upon the respondents for grant of permission in his favour for exchange of six marlas land Kahcharai land at Kawarhama Baramulla district in lieu of proprietary land of same area in the vicinity.
Case Title : Bashir Ahmad Bhat & Ors Vs Syed and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector is neither the Government nor the authority competent to record the satisfaction as to whether a particular land is needed for public purpose or not as mandated under Section 6 of J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
Case Title : Aatif Irshad Kumar Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court awarded compensation of Rs 30.2 lakhs to a five-year-old boy disabled for life by 33,000 KV HT line laid by the Power Development Department (PDD). The liability for negligence cast upon the functionaries of the State would lie within the parameters of "strict liability" under law of Torts, the Court reiterated.
Case Title : Harvinder Pal Singh alias Rambo Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a preventive detention order can be challenged at the pre execution stage, provided the petitioner/detenue satisfies the court that the detention order is clearly illegal.
The bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Puneet Gupta, while hearing an appeal against dismissal of plea to quash preventive detention, observed:
"If it is found that it is clearly illegal then certainly he cannot be asked to go to jail and then challenge the detention order. The appellant must be able to demonstrate that the order of detention is ex facie illegal on the grounds as mentioned in the Alka Subash Gadia's case (supra)..."
Case Title : Javaid Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Iqbal Thoker
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that the contention raised by a petitioner, if not specifically denied by the Respondent in his reply, could only draw an inference that the contention of the Petitioner is being admitted by the Respondent.
The bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal wani made the observation while allowing the plea moved by the Petitioner for transfer of a criminal case filed against him under Section 138 of NI Act before Sub Judge at Pulwama, apprehending physical danger from Respondent (complainant).
Case Title : Desh Rattan Dubey Vs Board of Cricket Control In India.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea requiring BCCI to initiate the process of amendment of constitution of J&K Cricket Association and to hold fresh elections of the body.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta dismissed the plea as non-maintainable, stating that it was a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of case. The bench reiterated that when proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application, particularly in respect of a matter, which provide a fresh cause of action.
Case Title : Mafooza Bano Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that as corollary to the restoration of a writ petition, dismissed in default, all orders passed would automatically get revived and restored to the original position.
Case Title : Javid Ahmad Akhoon & Ors Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday observed that the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a particular trade, however, such restrictions must not be unreasonable particularly when the same are aimed to regulate the trade of unemployed skilled youth of a troubled area.
The bench observed,
"Skill cannot be restricted to a particular age especially in today's advanced era and it does not further appear to be achieving any kind of object, not to speak of a reasonable object. The condition in respect of deposition of annual fee of Rs. 10,000/- also appears to be unreasonable as the petitioners are admittedly performing their professional duties in the tourist areas”.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gulshan Kumar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday ruled that compensation paid under the "No Fault liability" provision is adjustable in the compensation claimed for fault liability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Nonetheless, the bench clarified that any compensation made under the No-Fault liability provision is adjustable in the compensation claimed fault liability under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title : Akona Engineering Private Ltd Vs Pal Construction and another.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums are not empowered to exercise powers of review and set aside ex parte orders unless a statute empowers them for the same.
Case Title : Royal Singh Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a District Magistrate while passing the order of detention cannot describe the period of detention of the detenue, because it is the Government which after approving the detention provides the period till the detenue would be detained.
A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,
"Section 17(1) of J & K Public Safety Act empowers the Government to confirm the detention order and may direct the continuation of the detention of a person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. Section 18 of the J&K Public Safety Act states that the maximum period of detention of the detenue is subject to the confirmation of Advisory Board".
Case Title : Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while allowing amendment of a written statement the general principle is that the amendment should be allowed even if it amounts to addition of new grounds of defense, substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar however made it clear that "the same principle cannot be applied while considering an application for amendment of a plaint as the same stands on a different footing. Adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint is certainly objectionable".
Case Title: Mohammad Ayoub Dar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the provisions of the National Investigation Act (NIA Act) Act do not prohibit the investigation of the Scheduled offences which include the offences under the ULA(P) Act, by Local Investigating Agencies.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
"It only provides that when a Scheduled offence is investigated by a local investigating agency, the same has to be tried by a Special Court constituted under Section 22 of the Act".
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Override Efficacious Statutory Dispensation: JKL High Court
Case Title : Bindu Singh Jamwal Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that where statutory remedy is created by law, the writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation, unless it is inefficacious.
A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,
"Where a right or liability is created by a statute, which provides for a speedy remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the said statute alone should be availed of".
Case Title : M/s S. S. Industries, Shanker Colony, Gangayal Vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
Dismissing a plea challenging a closure order of the petitioner's unit/premises by the J&K Pollution Control Board, Justice Rahul Bharti of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed,
"Patience to put up with the violations and the violators of the ecological environment has now run dry. The law needs to take charge, and in fact has taken charge, of the situation to deal with the environment-related violations and violators impatiently and for that the enforcers of the law need to be fast paced as in the present case where the law enforcers have acted with promptness and preemptively and this is what is serving the call of duty to protect the environment".
Case Title : Kanwarjit Singh Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on ruled that a 'Letter of Intent' is only a form of an invitation to offer and does not confer any rights in the favour of the person of whom it is issued.
A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,
"Letter of Intent is only a formality of initiation of process and right to claim grant of lease and execution of formal lease deed would accrue to the concerned person only if the requisite formalities as envisaged under the Mining Rules are completed. Moreover, the recipient of Letter of Intent cannot create prospective/ futuristic right out of his own free will with regard to mining lease".
Case Title : National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu.
Citation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Criminal Court within whose jurisdiction the crime is committed and in respect whereof a production warrant is sought under Section 267 CrPC cannot reject the application for production warrant simply on the ground that no case is pending before it.
JKL High Court Refuses Security To A Man Apprehending Harm Over Rumours Of Being 'BJP Agent'
Case Title : Yang Burz Home vs UT of J&K and Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declined intervention in a plea seeking a direction upon the government to provide security cover to the Petitioner as there are rumors in his locality that he is a 'BJP agent'.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that the authorities had already made a threat assessment and did not find it necessary to provide him personal security.
Case Title: Khalida Salman Vs Sahil Ahmad Dar.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which permits a party beginning to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue, the onus of proof of which lies on it.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
"If out of several issues, burden to prove some of the issues lies on the other party, then the party can begin, at his option and either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. In the latter case, the party beginning may produce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the other party only on those issues the burden of proof whereof lies on it"
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr Vs Hamida Bano & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld a Consumer Commission order wherein it was held that in cases where the death of the insured has occurred due to injuries suffered from a fall, the registration of FIR may not be required for processing the life insurance claim.
"We are entirely in agreement with the Commission that in the case of this nature, the registration of FIR is not a sin qua non for processing the case under the policy of life insurance. Moreso, when there is other evidence in abundance to demonstrate that the deceased insured had died in an accident," said the court.
Case Title: Dr. RK Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a person who participates in enquiry proceedings without any demur and later on challenges the constitution of the enquiry committee after finding that the result of the enquiry has gone against him, is not entitled to do so.
Case Title : M/S Construction Engineers
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a challenge to the notices issued by the Assessing authority under Section 226 (3), without challenging the intimation of demand made by the Assessing authority under Section 200A of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable.
Case Title: M/S Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Anr Vs M/S Jindal Saw Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
Reiterating that powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised with great amount of caution the J&K&L High court held that under the said provision the Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in a compliant except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence.
Case Title : Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by ex-minister Chaudhary Lal Singh against evicting him from the government-allotted bungalow in Jammu's Gandhi Nagar.
Adjudicating upon the matter Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that security assessment and entitlement to government accommodation are two different issues and cannot be intermingled to defeat the process of law.
Settled Legal Position That Medical Negligence Can Only Be Gauged By Field Experts: J&K&L High Court
Case Title : Pooja Sharma & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court while answering a question as to how the negligence of a professional doctor is to be gauged, maintained that only experts can certify negligence on the part of the doctor.
Case Title: Mohd Yousuf Vs UT of J&K.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
Setting aside an order directing Anti Corruption Bureau to inquire how a litigant managed to get hold of the detention order and certain official communication prior to execution of the order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday said such documents issued by a public servant are supposed to be in a public domain and they were neither classified nor relating to official secrets.
Case Title : Suresh Gyan Vihar University Vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a Jaipur-based University's plea for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by it with regard to tuition fee, hostel fee and cost of books after admitting the students from Jammu & Kashmir under the Prime Minister's Special Scholarship Scheme for J&K Students.
Justice M A Chowdhary said merely because the students are from J&K, will not give any cause of action to file the writ petition before the high court.J&K
Case Title:Jammu Municipal Corporation Vs Mohd Nadeem & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 272
Taking serious note of the increasing encroachments of public roads and streets in Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court on Tuesday directed the J&K Government and Jammu Municipal Corporation to ensure that no structure of any kind is allowed or permitted to be raised on public road, street, pathway and lane.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri said if any such structure has been erected or re-erected within a period of last five years, the same shall be removed forthwith and in case of any fresh encroachments, the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of that area shall be held responsible.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Vs Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (273)
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Friday clarified that 'cause of action' in an insurance case can also accrue on the date the claim lodged by the insured is repudiated by the insurance company.
The court said the Supreme Court in Kendimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V.s Nationa Insurance Co. and ors has held that with reference to a fire insurance policy, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out. However, it added that the apex court has not adverted to the fact that the cause of action may in some cases accrue on more than one occasion and on different date.
Case Title : Akash Karka Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
Dismissing a plea of habeas corpus petition, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Friday observed that failure on the part of detaining authority to supply a translated copy of detention order does not vitiate the detention.
A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said:
"From a bare perusal of the provisions of the Public Safety Act, 1978 dealing with preventive detention, read with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, I do not find that such requirement is mandatory and failure on part of detaining authority to supply translated copies in all cases vitiates the detention."