Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 18 - November 24, 2024

Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Satvinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 311

Joginder Singh Vs State & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 312

M/s Mir Associates Construction Company Vs. Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Doda and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 313

M/s Pardeep Electricals and Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314

Mohd Azam Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 315

Sardul Singh Vs Davinder Kour 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 316

Judgments/Orders:

Govt Recognised Private Schools May Fall Under Writ Jurisdiction, But Writ Of Mandamus Limited To Public Law Actions: J&K High Court

Case Title: Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Satvinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 311

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that while unaided private educational institutions recognized by the government or affiliated to statutory boards may qualify as “public authorities” amenable to writ jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus can only be issued if the actions of such institutions fall within the domain of public law rather than private law.

J&K High Court Directs Govt To Create 334 Judicial Posts Within 60 Days, Emphasises Binding Nature Of Directive

Case Title: Joginder Singh Vs State & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 312

Asserting that recommendations by the High Court or its Chief Justice regarding the creation of posts are binding on the government the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Union Territory (UT) of J&K to create 334 posts in various judicial categories within 60 days, emphasizing the judiciary's autonomy and the government's obligation to comply.

Fresh Arbitrator Can Be Appointed By Court U/S 14 Of Arbitration Act If Proposed Arbitrator Is Ineligible U/S 12(5): J&K And Ladakh HC

Case Title: M/s Mir Associates Construction Company Vs. Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Doda and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 313

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan affirmed that when the arbitration clause is found to be foul with the amended section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, the appointment of the arbitrator would be beyond the pale of the arbitration agreement. In such eventuality, the court can be approached under section 14 of the Arbitration Act for seeking substitution of the arbitrator.

Petition U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Is Maintainable If Statutory Remedy Before Invoking Arbitration Clause Is Exhausted: J&K And Ladakh HC

Case Title: M/s Pardeep Electricals and Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that once the statutory remedy under contract is exhausted, arbitration clause can be invoked and appointment of the arbitrator can be sought under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.In this case, the respondent had to constitute Dispute resolution Board (DRB) within 30 days after execution of the contract for resolving any dispute arising between the parties but no DRB was constituted.

Preventive Detention Must Be Invoked With All Due Care And Circumspection: J&K High Court Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Mohd Azam Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 315

Underscoring the sacrosanct nature of personal liberty, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed a preventive detention order, terming it as a product of non-application of mind and procedural lapses.

The Court emphasized that preventive detention, an extraordinary measure, requires meticulous care and caution as it involves the deprivation of an individual's most cherished rights.

Res Judicata Not Applicable To Domestic Violence Proceedings Where Circumstances Justify Filing Second Petition: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sardul Singh Vs Davinder Kour

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 316

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the principles of res judicata or analogous provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot restrict proceedings under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act if the aggrieved person provides valid reasons for filing a second petition after withdrawing the earlier one.