Sahil Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

Abdul Rahim Ganai V/s State of JK and others (SRTC) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

Waqas Riyaz Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

MOHAMMAD BIN SHORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JK) 4

Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh Vs Dr. Kamal Saini 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Haja @ Hajira Bano Vs Gh. Mohammad Ahangar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Aman Gehlot Vs V/s Anti-Corruption Bureau (Central Kashmir) & ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Mohammad Altaf Mir V/ S Firdous Ahmad Mir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

GHULAM AHMAD BHAT & OTHERS Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

Sukhjit Singh Vs UT of J & K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

Iftikar Ahmad Vs Abdul Majeed 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Vishal Khajuria V/s Staff Selection Commission 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Maheen Showkat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Vs IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Kaka Ram Vs Mangat Ram 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Bandipora Vs Nazir Ahmad Teli 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Daljit Singh Vs Dhanwant Kour 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Muyeeb Shafi Ganie Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Babu Ram vs Tata Project Ltd. Residential Manager and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Mohammad Shafi Dar Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Mangal Singh Vs Balbir Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Dr. Mohammad Riyaz Latoo and another Vs SKIMS & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Jaswant Singh Vs J&K State Road Transport Corporation, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

The Cooperative Market Society Limited Bishnah Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Kewal Krishan Vs Union Territory of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Virender Kumar Chawla Vs Neha Chalwa 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

SHOWKAT AHMAD MIR Vs NIGHAT BEGUM 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Arjun Balraj Mehta Vs UT of Ladakh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to Govt Industries Department 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

J&K Housing Board Vs Smt Harbans Kour 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

Smt. Rachna Gupta Vs Dr. Parmodh Baru 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Mohd. Shafi Masi Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

Mohd. Jameel Vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

Baldev Singh Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

Anil Kumar Aggarwal V/s Enforcement Directorate th. its Assistant Director, Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

Union of India Vs Chain Singh & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 45

Amit Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

Om Prakash Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

Shani Devi Vs Fr. Tomi Principal Christ School 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Shabir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

UT of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Rahul Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

Khursheed Ahmad Lone vs Director Social Forestry And Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

Judgments/Orders:

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.

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.