Labour Commissioner Competent To Review Ex-Parte Awards Passed Under Workmen's Compensation Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sahil Gupta Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Labour Commissioner is competent to review his ex-parte orders, while hearing an application to set aside such ex-parte award.

A bench of Justice M.A Chowdhary clarified that given the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC), as provided under Rule 31 of the J&K Workmen's Compensation Rules of 1972, the Labor Commissioner is competent to review ex-parte awards.

Treating Employee's Absence As 'Dies-Non' A Penalty Measure, Cannot Be Imposed Without Affording Hearing: J&K High Court

Case Title:Abdul Rahim Ganai V/s State of JK and others (SRTC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a period of willful absence from duty can be treated as 'Dies-Non', but such a measure of penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a fair enquiry and affording the concerned employee an opportunity to be heard.

For the period declared as 'Dies Non', an employee would not be eligible for allowance nor would it be counted for retiral benefits.

Justice Sindhu Sharma said,

“The order adverse to the employee for willfully remaining absent after expiry leave cannot be passed without initiated any disciplinary proceedings. The respondent is competent to direct the period of willful absence be treated as Dies Non but it would be as a measure of penalty and such order cannot be passed without holding enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner”.

Subjective Satisfaction Under Preventive Detention Jurisdiction Cannot Rule Out Objectivity: J&K HC Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Waqas Riyaz Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention order of a detenue citing serious concerns about the grounds of detention being based on a "caricatured" opinion instead of an objective assessment.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has observed,

“If taken as it is, then any law abiding citizen can be stereotyped at the hands of law and enforcement agency/authority for the sake of being put behind the bars not for any penal act of omission and commission on his/her part amounting to violation of law but just for the reason that law and enforcement agency/authority is so profiling a person to be a bad person”.

J&K HC Allows Minors Plea For Passport Rectification Upon Attaining Majority, Directs Adherence To Ministry of External Affairs Guidelines

Case Title: MOHAMMAD BIN SHORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JK) 4

Allowing a plea seeking directions to effect changes in the date of birth in the passport the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that an applicant seeking a change in the date of birth in their passport must do so within a reasonable time, specifically within five years from the date of the passport's issuance, with certain exceptions for minors.

Press Should Refrain From Publishing Defamatory Content Against Private Citizen If It Serves No Public Interest: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh Vs Dr. Kamal Saini.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Cautioning the press from publishing contents that are manifestly defamatory against an individual, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that content published by the press should be duly verified and there should be sufficient reason to believe that it is true and serves the public good.

Debunking “Truth” as a defence for publishing defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved, Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul remarked,

“...The press has the right to expose cases of corruption and irregularities in public bodies as a custodian of public interest but such reporting should be based on irrefutable evidence, published after due inquiry and verification from the concerned sources and should include the version of the person or authority being commented upon”.

O.6 R.17 CPC | Adopt Liberal Approach To Amendments Before Trial Unless It Causes Irreparable Prejudice To Opposite Party: J&K High Court

Case Title: Haja @ Hajira Bano Vs Gh. Mohammad Ahangar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must adopt a liberal approach and allow amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) unless they cause irreparable prejudice to the other party or change the very nature of the suit.

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary added that whenever an amendment is sought before the commencement of a trial, a lenient view may be taken keeping in mind that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up by amendment.

LOCs Are Coercive Measures Interfering With Liberty, To Be Used Exceptionally Only When Accused Deliberately Evades Justice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Aman Gehlot Vs V/s Anti-Corruption Bureau (Central Kashmir) & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

While quashing a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a businessman facing corruption charges, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that LOCs are not routine measures but exceptional tools used only when an accused deliberately evades justice or poses a flight risk.

A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma observed,

“An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant”.

Expedited Resolution In Summary Suits Cannot Come At The Cost Of Defendant's Fair Opportunity To Defend Himself: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Altaf Mir V/ S Firdous Ahmad Mir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

Shedding light on the principles governing the grant of leave to defend a summary suit, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while the objective of summary suits is to expedite commercial disputes, this cannot come at the cost of denying the defendant a fair opportunity to defend himself.

No Amount Of Delay Can Extinguish Constitutional Right To Property: J&K High Court Upholds Compensation For Claimants Dispossessed 45 Yrs Ago

Case Title: GHULAM AHMAD BHAT & OTHERS Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the state to compensate landowners whose property was arbitrarily seized 45 years ago. The court declared that no amount of delay can extinguish the fundamental right to property, granting long-awaited relief to the petitioners.

"Singh" Or "Kour" Surnames Not Mandatory For Sikh Identity: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Gurudwara Committee Election

Case Title: Sukhjit Singh Vs UT of J & K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court made it clear that having "Singh" or "Kour" as surnames is not mandatory to be recognized as a Sikh person.

“There are many people, who do not have “Sikh or Kour” their Sir names, but still they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism. This aspect of the matter has gone in detail by the appellate authority and this Court concur with the finding recorded by the appellate authority and do not find any legal infirmity with the same”, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal recorded.

Powers U/S 482 CrPC Not Revisional/Appellate, Terms Like "Abuse Of Process" Or "Securing Ends Of Justice" Don't Grant Unfettered Discretion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Iftikar Ahmad Vs Abdul Majeed

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Reiterating the restricted nature of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing criminal complaints the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that this exceptional power cannot be used for detailed evidence evaluation or as a substitute for appeals or revisions.

Person Not Possessing Prescribed Qualifications Can't Be Appointed Even If They Qualify All Tests Laid Down For Recruitment: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vishal Khajuria V/s Staff Selection Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that even if a candidate scores well in recruitment tests, they cannot be appointed if they lack the basic eligibility criteria.

“The eligibility for recruitment goes to the root of selection and the person, who does not possess the prescribed qualification, cannot be appointed against the post even if he has qualified all the tests laid down for such recruitment”, the court said.

Private Law Remedies Against Public Bodies Not Enforceable Through Writ Jurisdiction Unless Their Functions Had Public Element: J&K High Court

Case Title: Maheen Showkat Vs UT of J&K

Citation; 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Distinguishing between public and private law matters and their redressal mechanisms the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that private remedies cannot be enforced through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even against public authorities.

A bench of Justice Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that even if a body performing a duty makes it amenable to writ jurisdiction, all its functions are not subject to judicial review except those with a public element therein.

“Witnesses Being Threatened To Depose In Accused's Favour, Counsels Unwilling To Take Case": J&K High Court Transfers Advocate Babar Qadri's Murder Trial From Srinagar To Jammu

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the transfer of the trial in the murder case of Advocate Babar Qadri from Srinagar to the court of Special Judge Designated under NIA Act in Jammu. The decision comes in response to concerns over witness safety and the need for a fair and impartial trial.

Qadri, a prominent lawyer was fatally attacked at his residence in Srinagar, on September 24, 2020. The attack, carried out by unknown terrorists, involved firing upon Qadri, leaving him dead.

Determinable Contracts Not Specifically Enforceable, Injunction Cannot Be Granted To Prevent Breach: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Vs IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Shedding light on the nature of determinable contracts, their enforcement under the Specific Relief Act, and the applicability of injunctions on them, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that when a contract is determinable and cannot be specifically enforced, no injunction against termination and enforcement of the contract can be issued.

Judgments/Orders:

Court's Observations In Interim Relief Applications Are Tentative & Temporary, Not Final Opinion On Merits Of Case: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kaka Ram Vs Mangat Ram

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Clarifying that observations made by a court while considering an application for interim relief are tentative and temporary, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the character of these observations is not to be construed as a final expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case.

“While considering an application for interim relief, be it the trial court or an appellate court, while making any observation or recording any findings qua the controversy involved in the case, such observations or findings recorded are always tentative and temporary in nature and character being not final expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case”, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani recorded.

[Payment Of Wages Act] Employer Responsible For Wage Payment If Contractor Fails To Make Such Payment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Bandipora Vs Nazir Ahmad Teli

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Reaffirming the employer's primary responsibility for wage payment under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to make payment of all wages required to be made under the Act in case the contractor or the person designated by the employer fails to make such payment.

[O.7 R.14 CPC] Failure to Produce Necessary Document Doesn't Automatically Lead To Rejection Of Suit, Court Holds Discretion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Daljit Singh Vs Dhanwant Kour

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that failing to produce documents during a proceeding under Rule 14(3) of Order 7 CPC doesn't lead to automatic rejection of the suit. It noted that the Court under this provision, holds the authority to permit the submission of these documents at a subsequent stage.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “..It can be said that the failure to produce the documents as required by Rule 14 does not entail either rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit, but the only penalty for failure to produce the documents is laid down in Sub-rule (3), which envisages that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to produce such documents without the leave of the Court”.

Likelihood Of Getting Bail No Ground To Invoke Public Safety Act, Authority Must Challenge Bail Order Before Higher Forum: J&K High Court

Case Title: Muyeeb Shafi Ganie Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Quashing a public detention order under the Public Safety Act (PSA), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the importance of due process and criticized authorities for resorting to preventive detention instead of challenging bail.

If authorities fear a released individual might resume criminal activities, they should oppose their bail application or challenge a potential bail grant in higher courts. Preventive detention, the court emphasized, should not be a knee-jerk reaction based solely on the possibility of bail.

High Court At Designated 'Venue' Has Jurisdiction, J&K High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

Case Title: Babu Ram vs Tata Project Ltd. Residential Manager and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench comprising Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh affirmed that when parties specify a particular location as the venue for arbitration proceedings, that location effectively becomes the seat of arbitration. Consequently, only courts with jurisdiction over that designated venue possess the authority to hear and decide on matters pertaining to the arbitration agreement, the court said.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail To State Cooperative Bank's Ex-Chairman In Alleged 233 Crore Money Laundering Scam

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Dar Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to former J&K State Cooperative Bank Chairman Muhammad Shafi Dar, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an alleged Rs 233 crore money laundering scam.

Allowing Dar's bail petition a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“The petitioner is well within his right to say and agitate that so long as the decision to grant loan on behalf of the J&K State Cooperative Bank, Kashmir, Srinagar is to be reckoned as having been taken by the Board of Management then the liability and the responsibility for the said decision cannot be individualized to the petitioner alone and absolving the rest of the board members”.

Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Court Can Add Or Remove Parties For Determination Of Dispute Without Protraction Or Inconvenience: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mangal Singh Vs Balbir Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Highlighting the court's mandate under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the court has the power to bring all interested parties into a lawsuit for a comprehensive and conclusive resolution.

Clarifying the position on Order 1 Rule(2) Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“That though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on an application or without application of either party, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of such a party would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and conclusively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit”.

"Timely Administration Necessary To Promote Rule Of Law": J&K High Court Directs SKIMS To Resume Associate Prof Selection Stalled Since 2022

Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Riyaz Latoo and another Vs SKIMS & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) to resume the selection process for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, which has been stalled since September 2022.

Emphasising the crucial role of timely administrative decision-making in upholding the Rule of Law, a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“ A timely administrative decision making/taking serves to promote the Rule of Law whereas a procrastination and avoidance of the administrative decision making/taking demotes the Rule of Law”.

Doctrine Of Estoppel Can Be Viewed As Substantive Rule Of Law Since It Helps Create Or Deny Rights Which Would Not Exist Without It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jaswant Singh Vs J&K State Road Transport Corporation,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Underscoring the significance of estoppel in safeguarding individual's rights against arbitrary actions by employers, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that in cases where statutory denial of rights does not occur, estoppel can validate claims and bar parties from denying previously affirmed facts.

A bench of Justice MA Chowdhary observed,

“Estoppel though a branch of the law of evidence is also capable of being viewed as a substantive rule of law in so far as it helps to create or defeat rights, which would not exist or be taken away but for that doctrine. Of course, an estoppel cannot have the effect of conferring upon a person a legal status expressly denied to him by a statute. But where such is not the case a right may be claimed as having come into existence on the basis of estoppel and it is capable of being enforced or defended as against the person precluded from denying it.”

Payment Of Gratuity Act | Statutory Remedy Of Appeal Against Award Can't Be Circumvented To Escape Pre-Deposit Requirement: J&K High Court

Case Title: The Cooperative Market Society Limited Bishnah Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the statutory remedy of appeal against an award passed by a Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, cannot be bypassed by approaching the High Court directly.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar clarified that the remedy of appeal against awards passed by Controlling Authorities, as prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be circumvented to avoid the essential pre-deposit requirement, crucial for the admission of appeals by the Appellate Authority.

J&K HC Orders Fresh Probe In Decade-Old Corruption Case Due To Flawed Investigation, Says No Legal Provision Prohibited IO From Reviewing Material

Case Title: Kewal Krishan Vs Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Ordering a fresh investigation into a decade old corruption case due to a flawed initial probe by the investigating agency, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said it is extremely unreasonable on the part of the investigating agency to ignore examination of any evidence that is presented by the complainant to supported his accusations.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

“if any evidence is sought to be presented by the complainant, which may or may not assist the investigating agency, but it is entirely unreasonable on part of the investigating agency to ignore its examination during investigation process. There is no legal provision that prohibits the investigating officer from reviewing the material if it is essential for uncovering the truth”.

[S.47 CPC] Power Of Executing Court Limited To Specific Questions On Execution, Discharge, Or Satisfaction Of Decree: J&K High Court

Case Title: Virender Kumar Chawla Vs Neha Chalwa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Highlighting the limitations on the powers of an executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the powers of executing courts are confined to resolving issues directly related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decrees.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has clarified,

“The scope of Section 47 is that it empowers the Executing Court to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and not the questions which ought to have been raised during trial, at the time of filing of written statement, framing of issues or arguments”.

Court Must Curb Down On Parties Attempts To Take Different Stands Before Different Forums, Perjury Must Be Nipped In The Bud: J&K High Court

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a landowner claiming compensation for land acquired for highway expansion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that legal forums must not devolve into battlegrounds for tactical maneuvers.

Underscoring the Judiciary's duty to curb perjury and false statements a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,

“The Courts must effectively intervene and nip the evil of perjury and false statements in the bud. Where a party takes different stand in different Courts and/or say at different stages/places to defeat the effort of other party to get benefit therefrom such an effort must be curbed down by the Courts effectively by binding him with his earlier statement(s) and his plea of raising a dispute should not be heard nor entertained”.

[S.97 CrPC] Father's Custody of Minor Child No Ground To Issue Search Warrant Unless Confinement Proven Illegal: J&K High Court

Case Title: SHOWKAT AHMAD MIR Vs NIGHAT BEGUM

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Clarifying that a father's custody of his child cannot be considered illegal confinement under Section 97 of the Cr. P. C the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the father of minor children having their custody cannot be per se said to be an offence for which the said provision could be invoked.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored,

“Unless it is shown from the material on record that confinement of a person is illegal in nature and it amounts to an offence, a Magistrate cannot exercise his powers under Section 97 of the Cr. P. C and issue a search warrant for production of such person”.

S.50 Wildlife Protection Act | Police Empowered to Tackle Wildlife Crimes, Investigation & Seizure Powers Granted: J&K High Court

Case Title: Arjun Balraj Mehta Vs UT of Ladakh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Affirming the authority of police officers to investigate offenses under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a Police officer is sufficiently empowered to investigate the offenses committed under the Act and is hence equally competent to search and seize the offending articles in such matters.

Co-Sharer of Property Cannot Be Restrained From Raising Construction On Exclusive Portion of Joint Property: J&K High Court

Case Title: Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

Upholding the exclusive construction rights of co-sharers in a joint property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a co-sharer of a property who is in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the joint holding cannot be prevented from constructing on that portion.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “A co-sharer of a property, who is in exclusive possession of a joint holding, cannot be restrained from raising construction on that portion of the joint holding of which he is in exclusive possession”.

Leasehold Interest In Land Is Asset Of Company, Capable Of Valuation: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation. As such, it is to be included in the value of the assets of M/s. Jyoti Private Limited so as to determine the fair market value of shares held by the assessee as well as other shareholders.

The bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta, while upholding the ITAT's order, observed that the fair market value is defined under Section 2(22B) of the Act as the price that such an asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market. Therefore, for the purposes of computation of capital gain, the fair market value has to be determined, not the value of shares; the valuation of shares is to be made under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules.

[Cheque Dishonour] Prioritize Compensation In Sentencing U/S 138: J&K High Court Reiterates Compensatory Aspect Of Negotiable Instruments Act

Case Title: Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that criminal courts must prioritize compensating the complainant when imposing a fine on an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonoring cheques.

A bench comprising Justice M A Chowdhary stressed that for the compensatory aspect to be duly considered, the sentence imposed should align with the cheque amount, if not exceed it. This ensures that any fine imposed can be utilized to compensate the complainant, as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, the bench underscored.

Review Of Judgements Is An Exception To General Rule, Parties Can't Be Permitted To Seek Re-Hearing Under Garb Of Review: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Dismissing a review petition filed by contractors who challenged an earlier order directing them to pay an additional sum for work they had undertaken the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a court's power to review its judgments is not meant to serve as an appeal in disguise.

Clarifying the limitations of the court after the pronouncement of a judgment and its powers to review the same Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“The Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and the doctrine can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on certain grounds only"

Non-Disclosure of Selection Criteria In Advance Doesn't Automatically Disqualify Process, As Long Criteria Is Fair: J&K High Court

Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the non-disclosure of selection criteria in advance does not automatically invalidate a selection process.

The court, however, emphasized the importance of employers disclosing and notifying the selection criteria in advance. This proactive measure ensures that candidates participating in the selection process are fully aware of the yardstick that will be used to make selections.

O.47 R.27 CPC | While Court Can't Usually Record Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage, Ceratin Exceptions Are Carved Out For Doing So: J&K High Court

Case Title: Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court said that ordinarily the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court.

However clarifying the circumstances under which an appellate court can allow parties to introduce new evidence during an appeal Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“Normally an appellate court should not allow additional evidence to be produced and decide an appeal on the basis of the material on record…yet said Order 47 Rule (27) proceeds to carve out an exceptions and enumerates the circumstances in which an appellate court can permit leading of additional evidence under clause (a), (aa) or (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27”

Dossier Seeking Preventive Detention By 'Name-Calling' Without Supporting Facts Leads To Fragile Detention Order Which Can Be Quashed: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a preventive detention order based on mere hunches and speculations from law enforcement authorities cannot be justified.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti emphasized,

“A dossier by the sponsoring authority for seeking preventive detention of a person if obtaining in the form of just name-calling against a given person without bearing supporting factual inputs will only lead to a detention order, if passed by the detention authority, against a person a very fragile detention order amenable to suffer quashment”.

ID Act | Nexus Between Services Of Employee & Services Of Institute Essential To Bring Organization Within Scope “Industry”: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to Govt Industries Department.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

Shedding light on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the essential criterion for an organisation to be considered an 'industry' is the nexus between the services provided by an employee and those rendered by the institute.

Explaining the contours of the term “Industry” used in the Act Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“The nexus, direct or indirect between the services provided by an employee and the services rendered by the Institute is sine qua non to bring an organization within the scope of the term „industry‟ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act”.

S. 57 J&K Housing Board Act | Provision Of Prior Notice Never To Non-Suit Litigant, But To Allow For Settlement & Avoid Unnecessary Litigation: High Court

Case Title: J&K Housing Board Vs Smt Harbans Kour.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the purpose of a notice provision in the J&K Housing Board Act is not to dismiss lawsuits on technical grounds.

Expounding on the mandate of Section 57 of the Housing Board Act which provides for notice Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“The purpose of giving prior notice for filing of the suit under Section 57 of the Act can never be to non-suit a litigant on technical grounds. Its purpose is only to give the Housing Board and its officers an opportunity to re-consider the legal position and to make amends and settle the claim of the proposed plaintiff so that public money and time is not wasted on unnecessary litigation”.

CPC | Power Of Court To Preserve Existing Condition Of Property Distinct From Power To Ascertain, Collect Or Elucidate Facts In Dispute: J&K HC

Case Title: Smt. Rachna Gupta Vs Dr. Parmodh Baru.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Making a crucial distinction between two key provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 39 Rule (7) and Order 26 Rule (9) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted that Order 39 Rule (7) primarily aims to record the existing condition of property to monitor changes or interference by parties, while Order 26 Rule (9) focuses on elucidating facts relevant to the dispute without collecting evidence for any party.

Clarifying the purpose of each provision and how it prevents misuse by parties in a lawsuit Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“It is pertinent to note here that the provisions of Order 39 Rule (7) of CPC are applicable for the disposal of an interlocutory application, whereas the provisions of Order 26 Rule (9) has its relevance on determination of the lis between the parties”

[S.438 CrPC] Approaching Sessions Court First For Anticipatory Bail Serves Both Ends & Administration Of Justice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Shafi Masi Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that it is advisable for individuals seeking anticipatory bail to first approach their local Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

This principle ensures both justice and efficient administration of justice, a bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri emphasised.

[S. 27 Evidence Act] BSF Didn't Act As "Police Officer" When Recovering Arms & Ammunition From Accused During Search & Cordon Operation: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Jameel Vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the recovery of arms and ammunition from an accused at his instance by the Border Security Force (BSF) during a search and cordon operation does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Clarifying the scope of "police officer" under the Evidence Act and its application to the BSF's powers under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“In such situation when an armed force of the Union exercising power under the Special Powers Act, 1990 in respect of disturbed area arrests a person or makes recovery of any arms and ammunition from him does not strictly act as a police officer, a term used in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act”.

[J&K Wakfs Act 1978] Act Overrides All Other Laws, Any Sales Of Wakf Properties Inconsistent With It Are Legally Insignificant & Inoperative: High Court

Case Title: Baldev Singh Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the Jammu and Kashmir Wakfs Act, 1978 overrides all other laws when it comes to Wakf properties.

Shedding light on the status of Acts which are inconsistent with the Waqf Act Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“The Act of 1978 and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law”.

[PMLA] Charges Can't Proceed If Investigation Into Predicate Offence Is Stalled: J&K High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Aggarwal V/s Enforcement Directorate th. its Assistant Director, Jammu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot proceed if the investigation into the original crime (known as the predicate offence) is stalled.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified,

“Offences under PMLA are stand alone offences, yet their origin is the Scheduled offences. Once the Scheduled offence ceases to exist or is extinguished, an accused cannot be proceeded against in respect of offences under PMLA”.

Two Conflicting Decrees Not Permissible In Same Appeal Against Deceased & Surviving Respondents, Appeal Liable To Be Abated As A Whole: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union of India Vs Chain Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 45

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while addressing the ramifications of the abatement of an appeal due to the demise of certain respondents, ruled that proceeding with an appeal against the surviving respondent(s) is untenable hence leading to a dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.

Spelling out the reasons for the same Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

“..The basic reason being that in the absence of the legal representatives of deceased respondent, the appellate Court cannot determine between appellant and the legal representatives anything which may affect the rights of the legal representatives”.

S. 91 CrPC | Accused Can Seek Production Of Document Withheld By Investigator During Charge Framing If It Is Found To Be Of Sterling Quality: J&K HC

Case Title: Amit Kumar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified the legal position regarding an accused's right to produce evidence at the stage of framing charges and ruled that an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be made by the accused even during the framing of charges if certain conditions are met.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar had said,

“An application under Section 91 CrPC at the instance of the accused would lie even at the stage of framing of charge if the accused makes out a case that there is a document or material of sterling quality lying with the I.O, but has not been submitted to the Court along with the charge-sheet and such document or material is necessary and desirable for the purposes of framing of charge”.

J&K Land Revenue Act | Power To Set Aside Mutation Quasi-Judicial In Nature, No Such Administrative Power Vested With Dy Commissioner: J&K High Court

Case Title: Om Prakash Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Deputy Commissioner has no power to set aside mutation orders passed by a Tehsildar, highlighting that such power is quasi-judicial and requires adherence to principles of natural justice.

Citing various provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“I am afraid, there is no such administrative power vested with the Deputy Commissioner that would give him jurisdiction to set aside the mutation orders passed by the Tehsildar. The power to attest a mutation as also the power to set aside the mutation, is quasi judicial in nature. The said power can never be termed as an administrative power of the Revenue Officer”.

J&K Transfer Of Property Act | Buyer's Possession Only Permissive, Doesn't Convert To Ownership Till Property Is Registered: High Court

Case Title: Shani Devi Vs Fr. Tomi Principal Christ School

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court clarified that under the J&K Transfer of Property Act 1977, the execution of a contract for sale or agreement to sell does not automatically transfer ownership rights to the buyer. Instead, the title remains with the seller, even if the buyer has taken possession of the property, it emphasised.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani highlighted that possession by the buyer under such agreements is permissive and does not constitute a transfer of an interest in the property. This means that until the property is registered under the Registration Act, the buyer does not acquire ownership rights, he underscored.

Preventive Detention Can't Be Used As Substitute For Punitive Detention Which Follows Regular Course Of Law: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Quashing the preventive detention orders against an individual accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme targeting students the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that alleged offences of cheating under Sec 420 read with section 120-B of the IPC cannot be read to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

When Raising Plea Of "Equal Pay For Equal Work" Onus Falls Upon Employee To Prove Substantial Similarity In Nature Of Work: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jagdish Kumar Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

While reaffirming the fundamental principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined under Article 16(1) read with Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the onus falls upon the employee seeking parity under the "equal pay for equal work" principle to prove substantial similarity in the nature of work performed.

[S.31 POCSO Act] No Jurisdiction Conferred On Special Court To Independently Try Other Offences Without There Being Any POCSO Offence: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Rahul Kumar.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

Making a significant clarification regarding the jurisdiction of Special Courts designated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court explained that Section 31 of the POCSO Act regulates the procedure followed in Special Courts but doesn't grant them independent authority to try offences not covered under the Act.

Awarding Govt Jobs Without Following Proper Advertisement & Selection Process Violates Article 16 Of Constitution: J&K High Court

Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

Emphasising the paramount importance of adhering to the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution regarding public employment the jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that regular appointments to government posts cannot be made without following the proper procedure of issuing advertisements inviting applications from eligible candidates and conducting a fair selection process.

Contract To Refer Disputes To Director Of Social Forestry Department Whose Finding Is Final And Binding Constitutes Valid Arbitration Agreement: J&K High Court

Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Lone vs Director Social Forestry And Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court held that a contract to refer disputes to the Director of the Social Forestry Department, whose findings would be final and binding constituted a valid arbitration agreement.

“A perusal of the said Clause 18, would show that it does not specifically mention that the dispute between the parties shall be referred to an arbitrator. What the aforesaid clause mentions is that the dispute shall be referred to the Director, Social Forestry Department Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar Kashmir, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.”

S.452 CrPC | Futile To Keep Seized Vehicles At Police Stations For Long Periods, Courts Can Pass Appropriate Orders By Taking Bond, Security: J&K High Court

Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

Clarifying the process of disposing of case property under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that the authority vested in the court under this section is judicial in nature and should be exercised for valid reasons, considering the nature of the property and the evidence before the court.

[UAPA] Framing Charges By Itself Is Not Sufficient To Deny Bail: J&K High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Harboring Terrorist

Case Title: Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Granting bail to a woman accused of harbouring a terrorist the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that framing charges under stringent anti-terror laws is not enough to deny bail if the accused presents a case for release.

In allowing her plea for bail a Division bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan & Puneet Gupta observed,

“The framing of charge against the accused under Section 18 & 19 of the Act by itself shall not be sufficient to reject the bail to the appellant if, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the accused has otherwise made out a case for grant of bail”.

Daily-Wager Rendering Continuous Service For Seven Years Cannot Be Classified As "Casual Labor" To Deny Regularization: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a daily wage worker who renders continuous service for more than seven years cannot be classified as "casual labour" and is entitled to benefits like regularization.

Clarifying the fine between distinction between the two Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“Casual Labour‟ refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period or continued from one work to another, whereas a “daily rated worker” or “daily wager” is a person, who is engaged for rendering continuous nature of service and is paid wages on daily basis”.

Mere Assertion That Property Is Undivided Doesn't Restrict Co-Sharer From Making Construction On Their Portion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

Clarifying property rights of co-sharers, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mere assertion that the property is undivided doesn't restrict a co-sharer from construction on their portion.

A bench of Justice Puneet Gupta maintained that mere raising of construction by one co-sharer in the property does not mean that the other co-sharer will lose his interest in the same because of the aforesaid fact if the property where the construction has been raised on partition otherwise falls in his share.

Heinousness Of Crime No Consideration For Granting Bail To Juvenile Must Consider Risk Of Association With Criminals, Juvenile's Safety: J&K High Court

Case Title: X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Reaffirming the paramount importance of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the heinousness of the crime or other considerations, typically weighed in adult bail matters, should not influence decisions regarding juvenile bail pleas.

[Industrial Disputes Act] Labour Tribunal Competent To Order Reinstatement Of Workman If Order Of Dismissal Found Unjustified: J&K High Court

Case Title: Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Emphasising the authority of labour courts and tribunals to order reinstatement the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that when a worker's dismissal is deemed unjustified the Tribunal may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman.

Courts Should Meticulously Scrutinise Procedural Norms In Preventive Detention Cases, Any Deviation From Procedure Should Favour Detenue: J&K High Court

Case Title: Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

Safeguarding civil liberties by quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it is imperative for the Courts to meticulously scrutinize cases involving detention laws, ensuring strict adherence to procedural norms and safeguarding against governmental overreach.

Employee Not Approaching Court During Active Service Can't Be A Premise To Treat Similarly Situated Employees Differently, Deny Promotion: J&K High Court

Case Title: University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Upholding the principle of equality in a promotion case, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High ruled that an employee cannot be denied promotion benefits solely because they did not approach the court while in active service.

“Fraud Vitiates Everything”: J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CRPF Personnel For Fabricated Documents Despite 16 Yrs Service

Case Title: Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) constable who secured appointment in the force using fabricated documents. The court ruled that even though the constable had served for 16 years, "fraud vitiates everything," and the principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases.

Court Is Considered Place Where Truth, Justice Are Solemn Pursuits: J&K High Court Slams Litigant For Contradictory Statements, Imposes 20K Costs

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Upholding the sanctity and solemnity of legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Jammu regarding a land mutation.

Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, a Division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits”.

[O.6 R.17 CPC] Amendment Of Pleadings Are Intended To Promote Ends Of Justice, Not Defeat Them: J&K High Court

Case Title: Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

Upholding the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that amendments to pleadings are meant to promote justice, not hinder it.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has emphasised,

“The object of the Rule is that the courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side as ultimately”.

Backdoor Appointment Made On Minister's Recommendation: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea For Regularisation Of Employment

Case Title: TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Underscoring procedural integrity in public employment and the repercussions of backdoor appointments on the wider pool of eligible candidates the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the initial engagement of a candidate is not by the competent authority, his services cannot be regularized.

'Unexpected, Amounts To Professional Misconduct': J&K High Court Reprimands Lawyer For Seeking Share From Client's Compensation Amount

Case Title: Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sternly reprimanded a lawyer for attempting to claim a share of his client's compensation amount.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar emphatically stated,

“..The counsel cannot claim any share out of the fruits of litigation from his/her client as fee and if at all such a thing has happened, it is a case of professional misconduct on the part of the counsel. Such like conduct is not expected of a person belonging to legal profession”.

Govt Must Enquire Whether Representation Has Been Made Against Detention By Detenue, Any Omissions Fatal For Detention Order's Validity: J&K High Court

Case Title: Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court released a young woman detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) emphasising the "onus" on the government to ensure a detenue's representation reaches the Advisory Board before it confirms the detention order.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“Onus is equally upon the Government to enquire from the Divisional Commissioner/District Magistrate passing the detention order as the case may, as to whether any representation has been submitted by a detenue against his/her detention..the omission is going to be very fatal to the very validity of the preventive order even if approved and/or confirmed by the Government and/or the Advisory Board”

Cannot Utilise Previously Invalidated Grounds To Detain Individual For Issuance Of Fresh Detention Order: J&K High Court

Case Title: Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the inherent challenge of segregating the grounds of a quashed detention order from fresh grounds without delving into the subjective considerations of the Detaining Authority.

J&K High Court Slams Govt For Delay In Releasing Detenues Despite Court Orders, Urges Swift Release Of Detainees In Future

Case Title: Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sharply criticized the UT administration for its unreasonable delay in releasing a detenu whose preventive detention order was quashed by the court in December 2023.

Expressing serious concern about the loss of personal liberty suffered by Shenwari the bench emphasised that the Jammu and Kashmir government must ensure "reasonable dispatch" to release detainees whose preventive detention is deemed illegal.

Before Solely Relying On Statement Of Prosecutrix, Court Must Ensure Other Supporting Evidence Consistently Matches With Statement: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Shabir Ahmad Dar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 70

Highlighting the stricter criteria for relying solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix (victim) in rape cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that before reliance can be placed upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, it must be ensured that her statement leaves no room for doubt regarding the factum of occurrence.

Workmen's Compensation Act | Eligibility For Claim In Case Of Death Depends On Ability To Prove Accident Arose Out Of & In Course Of Employment: J&K High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 71

Delineating the critical importance of establishing a causal connection between accidents and employment in workmen's compensation claims the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in case of an employee's death, claimants must demonstrate a clear link between the accident and the course of employment to be eligible for compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act 1997 | Possession Must Be Surrendered Before Appealing Eviction Order: High Court

Case Title: LYCEUM PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 72

Underscoring the critical requirement of surrendering possession in appeals related to the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that surrendering possession of disputed properties is indispensable for appealing eviction orders.

Citing Sec 7 of the Act Justice Rajnesh Oswal emphasised,

“The perusal of Section 7 (supra), would reveal that surrender of possession of the property, which is the subject matter of appeal, is sine quo non for the purpose of entertaining an appeal against an order of eviction”.

Leasehold Interest In Land Is An Asset Of Company And Is Capable Of Valuation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 73

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation.

The bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta has upheld the order of the Tribunal in which it was held that leasehold interest is to be included in the value of assets of M/s. Jyoti Private Limited so as to determine the fair market value of shares held by the assessee as well as other shareholders.

Not Detenue's Burden To Correct Typographical Error In FIR: J&K High Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Lapses By Authorities

Case Title: Abdul Qayoom Ganaie Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 74

Highlighting the importance of due diligence by authorities, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention order of a resident of Baramulla, Kashmir. A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti found several lapses by the authorities, including a critical mistake in the FIR reference, which rendered the detention order unsustainable.

Casual Labourers Have Intermittent And Sporadic Employment Whereas Daily Wagers Render Continuous Service: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Ghar Singh vs University of Jammu & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 75

A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Ghar Singh vs University of Jammu & Ors held that a Casual Labourer is labour whose employment is intermittent and sporadic, where as a Daily Wager renders continuous service and is paid on a daily basis.

"Reasons Are Heartbeat Of Every Conclusion": J&K High Court Quashes Order Lacking Reasons For Condonement Of Delay

Case Title: Balbir Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 76

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated the fundamental principle that reasons form the bedrock of sound judicial decisions.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasised that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and struck down an order that failed to explain the rationale behind condoning a significant delay in an appeal.

Inquiry Not A Choice, Authorities Must Record Reasons For Skipping It Before Dismissing Employees: J&K High Court

Case Title: Abdul Hamid Sheikh Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 77

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that authorities cannot dismiss a government employee without recording valid reasons for bypassing a departmental inquiry.

In allowing an appeal from a cop against his orders of termination without due process Justices Rajnesh Oswal & Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed,

“..the competent authority can dispense with the inquiry but after recording satisfaction that there are sufficient reasons which make the holding of an enquiry not practicable. So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.3 has miserably failed to record its satisfaction that holding of an enquiry is not practicable due to certain circumstances”.

Right To Sue For Malicious Prosecution Is Personal Injury, Cannot Be Enforced By Person's Legal Heirs: J&K High Court

Case Title: Krishan Gupta and others Vs D. D. Sadhotra and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 78

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the right to sue for damages for malicious prosecution is a personal injury and cannot be enforced by a person's legal heirs against the representatives of the one who initiated the malicious prosecution.

[O.38 R.5 CPC] Plaintiff Can't Use Provision As Tool For Coercion Or Easy Execution Of Decrees: J&K High Court

Case Title: The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd Vs Golden Globe Impex Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 79

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently cautioned against using Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as a tool to coerce defendants or convert unsecured debts into secured ones.

In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the court emphasized that this provision is an extraordinary remedy that should be exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with the law.

District Magistrate Who Is Empowered To Issue Detention Order Can Also Revoke It Before Govt Approval: J&K High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmed Naik Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a District Magistrate has the authority to revoke a detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) until it is approved by the government.

[O.14 R.5 CPC] Allowing Court To Amend, Add Or Delete Issues Intended To Conclusively Determine Controversial Points Between Parties: J&K High Court

Case Title: Hans Raj Vs Dilbagh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court shed light on framing issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The court clarified that the said provision is an enabling one intended to effectually and conclusively determine the controversial points between the parties and the power under this provision is exercisable by a Court either suo-moto or an application of a party.

Scrutiny In Proceedings Must Be Avoided To Insulate & Protect Juvenile: J&K High Court Slams Disclosure Of Identity Of Juveniles In Conflict With Law

Case Title: “X” Juvenile Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 82

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came down heavily on courts operating in the Union Territories for routinely disclosing the identities of juveniles in conflict with law in their orders.

While granting bail to a 17-year-old boy accused of attempted murder in Samba district Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“Courts working in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, and, therefore, they are, with impunity, disclosing the full identity of the juvenile in their orders. It is high time that the Courts in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are made aware of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015”.

Easy Access To Justice A Facet Of Right To Life: J&K High Court Allows SARFAESI Actions To Be Challenged Under Article 226 Till Local DRTs Are Established

Case Title: M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge Vs Union Of India and Other Connected Petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the absence of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) within the Union Territories (UTs) of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh violates the fundamental right to easy access to justice enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

In their earnest bid to advance hassle-free access to substantial justice Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal have emphasised that till such a fora or benches are established the litigants can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[S.151 CPC] Inherent Power Of Court To Do Justice Not Affected By Its Power To Recall Witnesses, Elicit Clarifications: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vineeta Jamwal Vs Col (Retd.) Vijay Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 84

Reiterating the importance of the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to ensure a fair trial the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness and elicit clarifications.

Court Can Examine Whether Enquiry Officer Has Taken Into Account Relevant Material: J&K High Court Overturns Dismissal Order Due To 'Perverse' Enquiry Findings

Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 85

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the dismissal order of a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) trooper citing perversity in the enquiry findings.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, in his judgment held that the Enquiry Officer had failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding his illness.

Manufacturing Defect From Day One Entitles Customer To New Car, Not Repairs: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Ramesh Chander Sharma and anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 86

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a customer is entitled to replacement of vehicle if the car suffers from a manufacturing defect from the very beginning.

Highlighting the distinction between repair for wear-and-tear issues and replacements for inherent manufacturing flaws Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed,

“Repairs may be called for if the vehicles purchased during the course of its use suffers from a technical defect and not where the vehicle has manufacturing defect”.

Magistrate Using Expression "To Ascertain Truth Or Falsehood Of Complaint" Indicates Intent To Proceed Under Chapter XVI Of CrPC: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kamal Nain Singh Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 87

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the use of the expression "to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint in terms of Section 202 of the Code" in a Magistrate's order indicates the intent to proceed under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with inquiries and investigations into complaints.

S.15 BOCA Act | Orders Passed By Authority Are Final, Can't Be Questioned In Any Suit, Application Or Execution Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: Building Operation Controlling Authority Vs S. Gurmeet Singh.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 88

Dismissing a petition challenging an order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised the Tribunal's final authority in matters under the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 and the limited scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in disputes involving questions of fact.

No Provisions Can Limit Or Effect Court's Inherent Powers U/S 151 CPC To Do Complete Justice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Veena Gurtoo vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 89

Reaffirming the mandate of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that courts possess the authority, even under this provision, to exercise the powers delineated in Section 144.

J&K High Court Closes Plea Against Alleged Pollution Caused By Kishan Ganga Hydroelectric Project Due To No Evidence Indicating Breach Of Environmental Safeguards

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Pandit and Ors Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 90

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged environmental pollution caused by the construction of the Kishan Ganga Hydroelectric Project (KGHP).

In an order passed by Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi the court said,

“..in the absence of any specific denial or material indicating a breach of environmental safeguards, we do not deem it necessary to continue with this PIL and accordingly, the same is closed”.

Delinquent Employees Entitled To Copy Of Enquiry Report Even In Cases Where Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings Are Silent: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Vs Jammu Municipal Corporation and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 91

Reaffirming the rights of government employees facing disciplinary actions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that delinquent employees are entitled to a copy of the enquiry report, even in cases where rules governing disciplinary proceedings do not expressly provide for the same.

BSF Act | Offence under S. 354 RPC Excluded From Purview Of “Civil Offence”, Cannot Be Tried By Summary Security Force Court

Case Title: Sumanta Dutta Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 92

Nullifying the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an offence under Section 354 RPC cannot be tried by a Summary Security Force Court owing to the fact that the said offence is excluded from the purview of the meaning of Section 46 of “civil offence” under the Scheme of BSF Act.

Stalling Whole Recruitment Process Antithetical To Public Interest: J&K High Court Lifts Freeze On Recruitment To 1395 Posts Of Panchayat Secretary

Case Title: Shafket Ali and ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 93

Prioritising public interest over the petitioner's claims based on a draft proposal yet to be approved the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court vacated the status quo order that stalled the recruitment process for 1395 Panchayat Secretary posts.

J&K Agrarian Reforms Act | Land Ownership Entry In Khasra Girdawari Can't Be Unilaterally Changed Or Altered Without Hearing: High Court

Case Title: Ali Mohammad Mir and Ors Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 94

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that land ownership entries in the Khasra Girdawari record cannot be changed without providing a proper hearing to the person named in the record.

J&K High Court Distinguishes Between Plaintiff & Defendant's Death During Pendency Of Suit, Says Injunction Right Survives Plaintiff's Death

Case Title: Vasundhara Mittra and another Vs Aseem Tiwari

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 95

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has made a crucial distinction between the death of a plaintiff and a defendant in an injunction suit and clarified that the right to injunction survives the death of the plaintiff and can be enforced by their legal heirs.

However, in the case of the defendant, the injunction is operative solely against the defendant and upon his death, the question of binding his legal representatives by injunction would not arise, a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar explained.

J&K High Court Closes Plea On Allegations Of Religious Interference & Maladministration At Machail Mata Shrine

Case Title: M/s Sarv Shakti Sewak Sanstha, J&K Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 96

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court brought closure to a case concerning alleged religious interference and financial irregularities at Machail Mata Shrine.

Taking note of the statement of the petitioners that they were satisfied with respect to the steps being taken by respondents on the issue the bench closed the plea.

J&K High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Alleged Jamat-E-Islami Member, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation For Violating Right To Personal Liberty

Case Title: Advocate Ali Mohammad Lone alias Zahid Vs Govt Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed a preventive detention order, the fourth in a row, slapped on Advocate Ali Mohammad Lone, allegedly a member of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami.

In a scathing judgment penned by Justice Rahul Bharti, the court found "nothing in the name of reasonableness and rationality" in the detention order and imposed a compensation of ₹5 lakh on the authorities for violating Lone's fundamental right to personal liberty.

[Preventive Detention] Courts Should Respect Subjective Satisfaction Of Detaining Authority To Release Accused On Bail If Backed By Cogent Material: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jahangir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 98

Clarifying the scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court acknowledged that courts generally should respect the "subjective satisfaction" of the detaining authority and its apprehension that the person might get bail, however, this immunity is not absolute.

The court stressed that this immunity applies only when the said subjective satisfaction is based on strong and cogent material.

J&K HC Dismisses Plea By Greater Kashmir Newspaper To Quash Defamation Proceedings For Publications Against DAV's Management Committee

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo Vs Tej Krishan Ganjoo

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 99

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition filed by Greater Kashmir, a J&K based newspaper, seeking to quash defamation proceedings initiated against the publication for allegedly defamatory news articles concerning the DAV Management Committee.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti thus vacated its interim freeze order on the proceedings that had been in force since 2019.

J&K Shariat Act, 2007 Paramount In Nature, Overrides All Customary Laws Within Domain Of Personal Law Matters: High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Bhat Alias Gull Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 100

Underscoring the paramount nature of the J&K Shariat Act 2007, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the J&K Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007 overrides all customary laws in personal law matters.

Upholding the order of a lower forum in terms of which it has set aside a mutation done in contravention to the Act Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“Section 2 manifestly postulate that the Act of 2007 is enjoined upon to apply the Muslim Personal Law in all cases relating to the matters specified therein notwithstanding any customs or usages to the contrary”.

Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify If Vehicle Owner Fails To Discharge Initial Onus Regarding Validity Of Driver's License: J&K High Court

Case Title: Abdul Hamid Khandey Vs United India Insurance Company Limited and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 101

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an insurance company cannot be held liable to compensate an insured unless the vehicle owner discharges the initial burden of proving the driver's license validity.

Economic & Public Interest Valid Grounds For Initiating LOCs Provided They Are Founded On Substantial Material: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rupen Patel Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 102

Clarifying the scope under which Look Out Circulars (LOCs) can be issued, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that LOCs can be used against individuals if their departure from the country would be detrimental to the economic or public interests, provided the decision is based on substantial material.

Unregistered Agreement To Sell Doesn't Grant Ownership Rights, No Suit For Declaration Can Be Filed Based On Such Agreements: J&K High Court

Case Title: GHULAM QADIR MIR & OTHERS Vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 103

Reinforcing the legal principle that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that such agreements do not grant ownership rights.

Benefits Under Central Assistance Scheme Can't Be Denied To Victims Of Terrorism Solely Because Incident Occurred Before Its Official Launch: J&K High Court

Case Title: Yaar Mohammad Kataria & anr V/s Union of India & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that victims of terrorist violence, communal clashes, left-wing extremism, cross-border firing, and mine/IED blasts cannot be denied benefits under the Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian Victims (CSACV) solely because the incident occurred before the scheme's official launch.

Wife Attending Midnight Calls Despite Husband's Repeated Objections, Doesn't Amount to Abetment of Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kunti Devi Vs Neelam Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 105

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a wife attending calls from unknown numbers during the dead of night wouldn't constitute abetment of suicide under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Sanjeev Kumar made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Kunti Devi, the mother of the deceased, Surinder Kumar, against the discharge of her daughter-in-law Neelam Devi from the case.

Mere Filing Of Representation Doesn't Extend Period Of Limitation Unless Any Action Is Taken : Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 106

A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K and Anr. held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations.

Stones Used For Pelting Can't Be Termed As “Dangerous Weapons” To Attract Culpability U/S 326 RPC: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jaswant Singh Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 107

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that stones used for pelting cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as a 'dangerous weapon' or 'an instrument' used for shooting to bring an accused within the meaning of section 326 Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) which deals with causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.

Withholding Increments With Cumulative Effect Not Only Permanently Affects Salary Structure But Also Impacts Pension: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mysar Jan Vs J & K HANDICRAFTS & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 108

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that when an employee faces the penalty of withholding or postponement of increments with cumulative effect, it permanently affects their salary structure and impacts pension benefits even after retirement.

Deficiency Of Not Submitting Application For Condonation Of Delay While Filing Appeal Is Curable, Such Application Can Be Made Subsequently: J&K High Court

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar Vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 109

Reaffirming the rights of aggrieved parties to appeal against court decisions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court established that a technical deficiency in an appeal, such as the absence of an application for condonation of delay, can be cured.

[BSF Rules 1969] Necessary For Competent Authority To Record Satisfaction Before Ordering Dismissal By Resorting To Rule 22(2)

Case Title: Naseer Ahmad Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

Emphasising the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, particularly in cases concerning the dismissal of personnel from the Border Security Force (BSF) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated the necessity of recording a satisfaction by the competent authority before resorting to Rule 22(2).

J&K Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner's Suo-Moto Power Conditional On Hearing, Can't Modify Orders Without Giving Opportunity To Parties: High Court

Case Title: Mst Khalida Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 111

Underlining the Financial Commissioner's power to exercise suo-moto revision in a land dispute case under the J&K Land Revenue Act 1996 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while the Commissioner has this authority, it cannot be used to bypass the principles of natural justice, which require a party to be heard before an order affecting their rights is reversed or modified.

Departmental Enquiry Can't Be Sustained Against Employee Once FIR On Same Set Of Allegations Already Stands Quashed: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jasvinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 112

Quashing departmental proceedings initiated against an employee, Jasvinder Singh Dua, Ex Managing Director (Under Suspension) of J&K Handicrafts (S&E) Corporation the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once an FIR against an employee is quashed by the court, departmental inquiries based on the same set of allegations cannot be pursued.

High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Of Constitution Much Beyond Confines Of Mere Administrative & Executive Review: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rehmatullah Naik Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 113

Underscoring the expansive jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the jurisdiction granted to Courts under the said Article is not restricted only to the review of the administrative actions and executive decisions of the State in the light of the extended applicability of the "doctrine of promissory estoppels".

Mere Participation In National Games, Regardless Of Position & Performance Does Not Guarantee Sports Quota In Educational Institutions: J&K High Court

Case Title: Suhaib Sahil Vs UT th. J&K Sports Council and ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 114

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that simply participating in National or International level sports competitions doesn't entitle a person to reservation under the J&K Sports Policy.

Citing various provisions of J&K Sports policy a bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri clarified,

“A plain reading of clause 6.3.4, on first blush would indicate that mere participation or representation of a sportsperson at a National or International level shall make him entitled to reservation in University Academic/technical courses”.

Courts Have Discretion To Condone Delay Even Without Formal Application Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sheikh Mohammad Sadiq (deceased) Through his Legal Representatives Vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank

Citation; 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 115

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court established that courts have the discretion to condone delay in bringing legal heirs on record, even without a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In upholding a trial court order of condoning delay without a formal application to that effect Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

“Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal, of its discretion, to condone delay in the absence of a formal application”.

'Antithetical To Public Interest': J&K High Court Modifies Interim Order Which Halted Construction Projects Having Implications On National Security

Case Title: M/s A L Construction Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 116

Vacating an interim order that had stalled key construction projects, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that judicial intervention in government contracts should be limited, prioritizing public interest.

The projects, including the construction of the IRP Battalion Headquarters in Kishtwar and the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office in Doda, were held up due to a dispute over the petitioner M/s A L Construction's work completion certificates.

Excess Salary Paid Due To Wrong Interpretation Of Rules Can't Be Taken Back From Retd Employee: J&K High Court Quashes Recovery Order

Case Title: Mst. Raja Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 117

Quashing a recovery order passed by the Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) directing a retired employee, Mohammad Ramzan Tantray, to return the excess amount paid due to a mistake in his pay scale upgrade the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that recovery of excess amount paid to an employee due to a mistake or wrong interpretation of rules cannot be made.

Pension Is A Property Under Article 31(1), Any Interference With It Violative Of The Constitution: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 118

Protecting the pension rights of a retired Sanitary Inspector the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that pension a hard-earned benefit which accrues to an employee, constitutes “property” under Article 31(1) and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution.

S.311 CrPC | Broad Wording Of Section Allowing "Any Court To Summon Witnesses At Any Stage" Of Proceedings, Should Not Be Restricted: J&K High Court

Case Title: FAROOQ AHMAD WANI Vs TARIQ AHMAD KHAN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 119

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated the wide discretion a court has under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to ensure a just decision.

In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the court emphasized that the broad wording of the section, allowing "any court" to summon witnesses "at any stage" of the proceedings, should not be restricted.

Section 313 CrPC Is A Safeguard In The Trial Process, Court Must Present Each Material Circumstance Separately To Accused: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Vs State.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Reiterated the importance of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as a vital safeguard for the accused in a fair trial the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the trial court's duty to ensure the accused is informed of all incriminating evidence against them and is provided an opportunity to explain themselves.

“The purpose of putting material evidence distinctively and separately to the accused is to enable the accused to tender his explanation and if the incriminating evidence is not put in the manner aforesaid, then it amounts to condemning the accused unheard”, the bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.

Detailed Examination & Analysis Of Witness Statements Not Appropriate To Determine Merits Of Bail Application: J&K High Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a detailed examination of witness statements is not permissible at the bail stage, especially when the charges involve serious offenses with severe punishments.

Rejecting the bail pleas of two men accused in the 2017 killing of two Special Police Officers (SPOs) in Doda district a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“There may be some contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements made during cross-examination, but it is not open to this Court to minutely examine and analyze their statements at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioners”.

Detaining Authority Not Precluded From Issuing Preventive Detention Order Merely Because Individual Is Already Undergoing Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rafaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 122

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a detaining authority is not precluded from issuing a preventive detention order merely because the individual is already undergoing trial for substantive offenses.

Dismissing the habeas corpus petition filed by Rafaqat Ali challenging his preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“.. merely because a person is undergoing trial in substantive offences, the detaining authority cannot be debarred from passing an order of preventive detention against him, if it is satisfied that such person is indulging in illicit traffic of drugs”.

J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty On Kashmir University For Wrongful Application Of Evaluation Statute

Case Title: Abdul Basit Vs University of Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on the University of Kashmir for wrongly and arbitrarily applying a statute, forcing a student to reappear for an examination he had already passed.

Invoking the Public Law Doctrine a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“.. the illegality and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is manifest and writ large, besides being patently wrongful, undoubtedly constituting a fit case for grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner and the Court being conscious of the fact that there is no quantification based on actual loss, but then the award of damages to the petitioner payable by the Respondent-University is in Public Law”.

Concept Of “Necessary Party” In Writ Petition Is Far Broader Than In A Purely Civil Suit: J&K High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad Malik

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 124

Setting a precedent regarding who can be considered a "necessary party" in writ petitions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the concept of a necessary party in a writ petition is far broader than in a purely civil suit.

Shedding light on a much broader application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) concerning writ petitions a bench of Justices Tashi Rabstan & M A Chowdhary observed,

“The Writ Court cannot keep itself confined merely to the litigants appearing before it or on the record available nor will it keep itself confined only to the lis before it, but will also take into account the consequences or the effect which the decision will have or is likely to have on the interests of others who may not be wholly necessary for decision of the issue at hand…Viewed from this angle, the concept of necessary party in a purely Civil Suit and a Writ Petition cannot be one and the same”

Civil Courts Must Notify Custodian Evacuees Property When Dealing With Evacuee Land Disputes: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs Syed Mohsin Abbas

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 125

Clarifying the legal procedure for disputes concerning evacuee property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that civil courts must notify the Custodian Evacuees Property when taking cognizance of a civil suit regarding evacuee property.

Not Mentioning Grant Of Bail In Detention Order Is Serious Lapse, Gives Rise To Inference Of Non-Application Of Mind: J&K High Court

Case Title: Owais Naseer Sheikh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 126

Quashing a detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has highlighted that the non-mention of the petitioner's bail status indicates a clear non-application of mind, rendering the detention order unsustainable in the eyes of law.

[S.126(1)(b) CrPC] Liberal Interpretation Of Term "Resides" Is Essential To Realise Its Legislative Objective: J&K High Court

Case Title: Masarat Jan Vs Fayaz Ahmad Parray

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 127

Prioritizing the legal convenience of destitute wives, neglected children, and abandoned parents in legal proceedings for maintenance the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised a liberal interpretation of the term "resides" in Section 126 Clause (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

J&K High Court Directs Dept Action Against Commissioner Secretary For Barring Contractors Whose Relatives Were Involved In Anti-National Activities In Past

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Malik Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 128

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a communication issued by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, which barred contractors from participating in tenders if their relatives were involved in anti-national activities in the past.

Absence Of Motive Becomes Less Significant When Prosecution Relies On Strong Eyewitness Account: J&K High Court

Case Title: Bhajan Singh Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 129

Underscoring the principle that the absence of a proven motive can be inconsequential if the eyewitness testimony is credible the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the absence of motive becomes less significant when the prosecution relies on a strong eyewitness account.

First Court Holds Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Subsequent Arbitral Proceedings Under S.40 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: ABDUL QADIR BHAT AND ANOTHER Vs M/S SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE Co.Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 130

Clarifying the scope of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once an application concerning an arbitration agreement under Part I of the Act has been submitted before a court, that court exclusively possesses jurisdiction over all ensuing arbitral proceedings and related applications.

Lessee Cannot Be Allowed To Accept Beneficial Terms & Conditions Of Lease While Avoiding Terms Which Are Against His Interests: J&K High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Zargar Vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 131

Ruling against the selective acceptance of lease conditions by lessees the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a lessee cannot selectively accept only the favourable terms and conditions of a lease while rejecting the unfavorable ones.

“No Justification In Withholding Any Part Of Salary”: J&K High Court Directs Release Of Withheld Salaries For EDI Employees

Case Title: WASEEM AHAD AND OTHERS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 132

Directing the release of withheld salaries of employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Entrepreneurship Development Institute (JKEDI) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that allegations of irregularities in appointment or promotion cannot be a reason for withholding salaries of employees.

Every Erroneous Decision By Lower Court Not Amenable To Writ Of Certiorari, Only Patent Errors Can Be Corrected: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Rafiq Rather Vs Sara Banoo

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 133

Underscoring the principle that every erroneous decision by a lower court cannot be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that this provision is meant to rectify only glaring errors apparent on the face of the record, not mistakes in factual assessment or legal interpretation.

FIR Can Be Elaborated Upon By Informant But Cannot Be Used To Create Fresh Charges Against Accused: J&K High Court Grants Bail To In-Laws Accused Of Gang Rape

Case Title: WASEEM AKRAM & ANR Vs UT OF J&K AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 134

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to two men accused of gangrape, observing that the initial complaint in the First Information Report (FIR) can be elaborated upon by the informant, but this cannot be used to introduce new accusations or entirely new offenses against the accused.

Criminal Court Can Review Its Own Order At Notice Stage Under Domestic Violence Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: MUDASIR AHMAD DAR Vs. MST.MASHOOKA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 135

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that the bar on a criminal court to review its own order does not apply at the stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

J&K Land Revenue Act | Special Remedy U/S 121 Doesn't Extinguish Financial Commissioner's Power To Correct Mutation Errors Under Section 15: High Court

Case Title: Updesh Kour Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 136

Affirming the broad revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner under Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act 1996 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the existence of a special remedy under Section 121 does not exclude the general revisional powers under Section 15.

Courts Can Scrutinise Grounds Of Detention To Ascertain Prima Facie Connection Between Grounds & Purpose Of Detention Order: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 137

Asserting that Courts are not barred from examining the grounds of detention, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the Court has the authority to examine the grounds for detention and ensure a prima facie connection between the grounds and the purpose of the detention order.

O.8 R.1 CPC | Right Accruing In Favor Of Plaintiff Due To Non-Filing Of Written Statement Within Stipulated Time Can Be Waived: J&K High Court

Case Title: Chaman Lal Vs Sh. Mohd Sharief

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 138

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a plaintiff can waive the right to take advantage of a defendant's failure to file a written statement within the stipulated time.

Claimant Must Prove Subsisting Pre-Emption Right Until Passing Of Decree, In Any Other Cases Such Right Cannot Be Said To Subsist: J&K High Court

Case Title: Roop Singh Vs Pritam Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

Dismissing an appeal filed by a co-owner of land seeking pre-emption rights over the sale of the property by another co-owner the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a claimant must possess a subsisting pre-emption right not only at the time of sale but also at the time of filing the suit and the passing of the decree by the trial court.

Prosecution Makes “Copy Paste” Arguments About National Security In UAPA Cases To Psychologically Influence Court: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title - Khursheed Ahmad Lone v. Union Territory

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 140

Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court cautioned against being unduly influenced by forceful submissions regarding internal security in the absence of judicially cognizable material against the accused.

“Voluntarily Participated In Selection Process”: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Of Candidate Seeking Appointment Due To Lesser Applicants Than Advertised Posts

Case Title: Qurat-ul-ain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 141

Dismissing an appeal by a candidate who sought a direct appointment to the post of despite fewer applicants than advertised posts the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that since she gladly and voluntarily participated in the selection process, hence estopped from challenging the selection procedure.

Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Observing that every act prejudicial to state security necessarily disrupts public order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that only acts causing grave disruption to public order qualify as threats to state security.

Unblemished Record Necessary For Promotion, Employee Facing Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Promotion During Pendency: J&K High Court

Case Title: Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a government employee facing criminal charges cannot claim promotion while the proceedings are pending. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that for promotion, an employee must at least have an unblemished record to ensure a clean and efficient administration.

BSF Act 1968 | Commandant Can Dismiss BSF Personnel Without Security Force Court Trial Provided Procedures Outlined In BSF Rules Are Followed: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sita Devi Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that a Commandant's power to dismiss a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) is independent and does not require prior conviction by a Security Force Court, provided that the procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969, are followed.

[S.138 NI Act] Personal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases Limited To Drawer, No Liability Can Be Fastened Against Company For Cheque Not Issued By It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

Quashing a complaint against a company director accused of dishonoring a cheque, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

Death Of Govt Employee Doesn't Guarantee Compassionate Appointment For Family, Financial Hardship Must Be Proven: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the death of an employee while in service doesn't automatically entitle their family to a compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the family must be examined, and jobs should only be offered if the family cannot meet the crisis without it, provided there is a relevant scheme or rule.

Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that given the exclusive privilege of the Government in the sale/manufacture of liquor, the Court, being a constitutional body, should be slow in interfering with executive decisions taken by the State as they are essentially a matter of economic policy.

Prosecutrix's Testimony Concerning Factum Of Occurrence & Persons Involved Ought To Be Scrutinized Before Basing Conviction On It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149

Highlighting the importance of a consistent and credible narrative from the prosecutrix in rape cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must undertake a rigorous scrutiny of a prosecutrix's testimony before reliance can be placed on it.

When Statute Provides For Detention Under Specific Contingency, Detention Under Different Contingency Cannot Be Made Unless Conditions Overlap: J&K High Court

Case Title: Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once a statute provides for the detention of a person under a specific contingency, he cannot be detained under a different contingency outlined by the statute unless both conditions overlap or coexist.

J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On "Habitual" Litigant For Demeaning Language Against Daughter-in-Law

Case Title: Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came down heavily on a father who filed a petition challenging the maintenance proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹1 Lakh to be deposited in the Litigants' Welfare Fund, calling the language used in the petition "demeaning of a woman and totally unacceptable in any civilized society."

'Suppressing Material Facts Is Just Jugglery Not Advocacy': J&K High Court Cancels Reinstatement Order Of Ex-Constable For Hiding Crucial Facts From Court

Case Title: State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

Underlining the criticality of transparency in legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea by a former constable who sought reinstatement in the police force.

The court, in a judgment passed by Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary, observed,

"Suppression of concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction."

Recovery Of Excess Payments Made To Employee Due To Wrong Interpretation Of Rules Not Permissible Post Retirement: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case No. : Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153

A single judge bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Mst. Raja & Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, held that after an employee retires, it is not permissible to recover excess payments made to them due to a mistaken interpretation of rules.

[O.22 R.10 CPC] New Trustee Not Legal Representative But Successor in Interest: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that on the death of a trustee, a newly elected or appointed trustee cannot be considered a legal representative of the deceased trustee. Instead, the interest of the Trust property devolves upon the new trustee, thereby making the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applicable.

Magistrate Not Required To Notify Injured Party Or Deceased's Relative Before Considering Closure Report Unless FIR Filed by Them: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that magistrates are not obligated to notify injured parties or relatives of the deceased when considering police closure reports.

In a judgment passed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, the court stated that there is no obligation on the magistrate to issue notice to the injured or a relative of the deceased for providing such person an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report unless such person is the informant who has lodged the FIR.

“No Reason To Create Impediment For Businesses”: J&K High Court Directs Govt Not To Harass Tea Sellers In Floating Market Inside Dal Lake

Case Title: M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the authorities to refrain from harassing tea sellers operating in the floating market inside Dal Lake, provided they have the necessary licenses. The order, passed by Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, emphasised that no impediment should be created for those running a legitimate business.

[S.340 CrPC] Court Must Be Satisfied That Party Intentionally Committed An Offence Before Recommending Action For Perjury: J&K High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157

Underscoring the necessity for courts to be convinced of intentionality before recommending action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere allegations or attempts to settle personal scores are insufficient grounds for initiating perjury proceedings.

Participation In Nationalistic Activities Can't Serve As License For Criminal Acts: J&K High Court Dismisses Ex-Corporator's Plea Against Preventive Detention

Case Title: AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

Dismissing the petition challenging the preventive detention of former Srinagar Municipal Corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court asserted that involvement in nationalist activities does not grant immunity from legal proceedings for criminal activities prejudicial to public order.

Goodwill, Misrepresentation By Defendant And Subsequent Damage Are Prerequisites To Enforce Passing Off Remedy For Unregistered Trademarks: J&K High Court

Case Title: Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that to claim a passing-off remedy for an unregistered trademark, the following three elements must be established: (a)ownership of business goodwill, (b) misrepresentation by the defendant leading to confusion, and (c) consequent damage to the plaintiff's goodwill.

'State Security' No Longer Valid Ground For Preventive Detention In J&K Since Reorganization As Union Territory: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that the term "security of the State" is obsolete in the context of Jammu and Kashmir since its reorganization as a Union Territory in 2019.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has clarified,

“.. Under the J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, “Security of the State” obtaining in section 8(1)(a)(i) came to be substituted by the statutory ground of “security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir”.. therefore, an order so passed with the said expression “Security of the State” being retained as it is, technically disqualifies to be a valid order of preventive detention against a detenue”

'Unlawful Invasion Of Fundamental Rights': J&K High Court Quashes Illegal Detention, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Union Territory administration to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Aftab Hussain Dar, a 22-year-old student, after quashing his preventive detention, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.

Shortcomings Of Investigative Agency Cannot Hinder Framing Of Charges Based On Evidence Brought On Record: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162

Highlighting the duties of a Court while framing a charge against an accused the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that investigative shortcomings should not prevent the framing of charges based on the evidence presented.

Quashing an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (AD&J) Baramulla, directing framing of charges under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) a bench of Justice Puneet Gupta instead directed framing of charges under Section 302 IPC (murder) against the accused.

Constitutional Courts Are Guardians Of Citizen's Fundamental Rights, Must Be Extra Sensitive When Personal Liberty Is Violated: J&K High Court

Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163

Quashing a preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sounded a note of caution for detaining authorities who assume that their powers under the act are unchecked.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has stated that subjective satisfaction of the authorities for issuing detention orders cannot be construed as a matter of wordplay while assuming that they have an omnipotent power and authority to subject any person to suffer preventive detention at any given point of time.

S. 8(8) PMLA | Bonafide Individuals Suffering Loss Due To Money Laundering Can Approach Special Court To Restore Attached Property: J&K High Court

Case Title: Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164

Reinforcing the protections for individuals who, acting in good faith, suffer losses due to offences of money laundering the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that they are entitled to approach the Special Court to seek restoration of the attached properties.

Citing Sec 8 Sub Sec 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“.. that a person, who has acted in good faith and has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering, despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is otherwise not involved in money laundering, would be a claimant entitled to invoke the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Act of 2002”.

Non-Mention Of Bail Granted To Accused In FIR-Based Detention Order Renders Detention Illegal: J&K High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has declared that once an FIR is the core ground for passing a detention order, the non-mentioning of bail granted in relation to that FIR renders the detention order illegal.

Prosecution Must Prove Continuous Harassment And Proximate Act For Securing Conviction Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: State Vs Raj Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that for a conviction on charges of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish not just continuous harassment but also a clear and proximate act by the accused that demonstrably pushed the victim to take their own life.

Courts Must Examine Circumstances Beyond Allegations In FIR In Potentially Vexatious Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167

Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.

A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated that courts have a duty to examine the “attending circumstances” beyond the allegations in the FIR, especially when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings arising from personal disputes.

Specific Allegations Against Husband's Relatives Essential To Warrant Their Prosecution For Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: J&K High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168

Emphasising that relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC based on general and vague allegations, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the necessity for specific allegations to warrant their prosecution.

[Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.

Once Complainant's Statement Is Recorded U/S 200 CrPC, Magistrate Can't Pass Directions To Register FIR U/S 156(3): J&K High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170

Reinforcing the distinction between a magistrate's powers under Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3) (pre-cognizance) and 200 (cognizance) when handling complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that recording a complainant's statement under Section 200 prohibits issuing an FIR order under Section 156(3).

[S.33 Insecticides Act] All Those Responsible For Conduct Of Business Liable When Company Commits Offense Under Insecticides Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.

Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Instances Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offense Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Quashing an FIR filed against four brothers for allegedly abetting the suicide of their deceased sibling the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere omnibus allegations of harassment without specific instances wouldn't be sufficient to attract culpability under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide).

Denial Of Leave To Attend To Ailing Mother No Grounds To Skip Duty: J&K High Court Upholds Withholding Of CRPF Personnel's Salary For Unauthorised Absence

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the withholding of salary of a CRPF personnel for unauthorized absence from duty, observing that denial of leave to attend an ailing mother cannot be a ground to leave duty without permission.

Landowner Seeking Enhanced Compensation Must Prove Market Value Of Land Acquired Is Different From The One Assessed By Collector: J&K High Court

Case Title: ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently clarified that the burden to prove that the market value of acquired land is different from the value assessed by the Collector rests on the landowners seeking enhanced compensation.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar maintained that so long as the land owner/ owners fail to discharge the burden cast on them, there is no question of the Reference court granting any enhancement.