- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- High Court of J & K and Ladakh
- /
- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High...
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest June 2024
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
6 July 2024 11:02 AM IST
Nominal Index:Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs...
Nominal Index:
Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142
Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143
Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144
Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145
Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146
Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147
Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148
Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149
Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150
Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151
State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152
Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153
SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154
Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K iu2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155
M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156
Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157
AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158
Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159
Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160
Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161
Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162
Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163
Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164
Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165
State Vs Raj Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166
Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167
Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168
ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169
Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170
Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171
NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172
Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173
ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174
Judgments/Orders:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.