Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 15 - July 21, 2024

Shameem Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 185

Mohammad Sultan Najar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 186

Nisar Ahmad Rather Vs Tahir Ahmad Reshi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 187

State through Executive Engineer PHE Division, Doda Vs Sakina Begum 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Din Mohd Vs Shokat Ali 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Ghulam Mohiudin Lone Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 190

Surjeet Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

Union Of India Vs Ravinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

AIJAZ RASHID KHANDAY Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi Vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 195

LAKHBIR SINGH & ORS Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

Judgments/Orders:

Employees Appointed In Violation Of Articles 14 & 16 Can Be Disengaged Without Hearing: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shameem Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 185

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that employees appointed in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be disengaged without the necessity of affording them an opportunity to be heard.

S. 233 CrPC | Denying Accused's Right To Adduce Evidence Amounts To Denial Of Fair Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Sultan Najar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 186

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that denying an accused the right to adduce evidence constitutes a denial of a fair trial. The order overturned an earlier decision by the Fast Track Court POCSO, Srinagar, which had rejected the accused's application to summon defense witnesses.

O.37 R.3 CPC | Defendant Not Obliged To Apply For Leave To Defend Without Service of Summons: J&K High Court

Case Title: Nisar Ahmad Rather Vs Tahir Ahmad Reshi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 187

Quashing an ex parte judgment passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a case where the defendant was not served with a summons for judgment the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a defendant is only obligated to apply for leave to defend a suit after being served with a summons for judgment.

Principal Employer Liable To Compensate For Worker's Death Even If He Is Engaged Through Contractor: J&K High Court

Case Title: State through Executive Engineer PHE Division, Doda Vs Sakina Begum

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Upholding the principles of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the principal employer is liable to compensate the accidental death of a worker engaged by a contractor.

Admissions Of Liability Made Outside Of Court Under Pressure Cannot Be Sole Basis To Determine Fact Of Issue: J&K High Court

Case Title: Din Mohd Vs Shokat Ali

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Shedding light on significant aspects of civil procedure and the burden of proof in civil trials the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that admissions of liability made outside of court under pressure cannot be the sole basis for deciding a civil case.

FIR Not Appropriate Remedy For Addressing Disobedience Of Injunction Order, Recourse Under O.39 R.2A CPC Applicable : J&K High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Mohiudin Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 190

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that the appropriate approach to address the disobedience or breach of an injunction order is through Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC, rather than the registration of an FIR.

J&K High Court Imposes 10K Cost On DM Jammu For 'Unjustifiable' Preventive Detention Order

Case Title: Surjeet Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh sharply criticized a preventive detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, and imposed a ₹10,000 fine on the District Magistrate Jammu, personally, citing "unjustifiable" grounds for the detention.

Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Case Title: M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration.

S. 67 NDPS Act | Additional Evidence Essential Before Acting Upon Co-Accused's Confession: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Ravinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High High Court underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence alongside confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for the prosecution to establish a case against the accused.

Special Police Officers Don't Hold Civil Posts Regulated By Statutory Rules, Not Entitled To Service Conditions Of Regular Officers: J&K High Court

Case Title: AIJAZ RASHID KHANDAY Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Special Police Officers (SPOs) do not hold civil posts regulated by statutory rules and hence are not entitled to the powers, privileges, and protections relating to service conditions extended to regular police officers.

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | No Prosecution For Seeking Information U/S 18-A When It Is Already Available With Drug Inspector: J&K High Court

Case Title: Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 195

Quashing a criminal complaint under Section 18-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the information required under the Section is already available with the Drug Inspector, demanding the same from the non manufacturer/ agent becomes redundant, thereby rendering prosecution legally untenable.

Ocular Witnesses Not Expected to Have Photographic Memory, Minor Inconsistencies Must Be Ignored: J&K High Court

Case Title: LAKHBIR SINGH & ORS Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored that ocular witnesses are not expected to possess photographic memories capable of recalling every detail of an incident.

The court emphasised that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies should be disregarded if they do not affect the material aspects of the case.