Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup August 12 To August 18, 2024

Showkat Ali Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

Makhan Din V/s UT of J&K and another 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

ROSHAN LAL TICKOO Vs PREDIMANT KRISHAN TICKOO 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

Mst Hamida Banoo Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

Ahsan Ahmad Mirza Vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 234

SYED TAJAMUL BASHIR Vs MOHAMMAD AYOUB KHAN 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 235

PERVAZ AHMAD PARRA Vs STATE OF J&K & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

Judgments/Orders:

Clear & Unequivocal “Charge” Rather Than Mere Allegations Essential For Sustaining Preventive Detention Orders: J&K High Court

Case Title: Showkat Ali Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised the necessity of a clear and unequivocal charge rather than mere allegations for the sustainability of preventive detention orders.

A bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta underlined that the grounds of detention must lay down the charge against the detinue that is precise, unequivocal and unambiguous.

Communicating Grounds For Detention In A Language Understood By Detenue Is A Constitutional Right: J&K High Court

Case Title: Makhan Din V/s UT of J&K and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a detention order issued by District Magistrate Kathua, citing a failure in procedural compliance, specifically the communication of the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue.

Justice Sindhu Sharma, emphasizing the importance of this requirement, observed that “communication means imparting to the petitioner sufficient and effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is passed and such communication in such language which the petitioner understands.

Preliminary Enquiry U/S 340 CrPC Can Only Be Initiated In Interest Of Justice And In Relation To Court Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: ROSHAN LAL TICKOO Vs PREDIMANT KRISHAN TICKOO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C can only be initiated if it is expedient in the interests of justice, especially when there is an appearance of perjury committed in relation to court proceedings.

Deferring the consideration of an application seeking criminal proceedings for alleged false statements, due to the ongoing arbitration process Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“.. It is not a case where the petitioner is stated to have made any contradictory statements in his pleadings but it is a case where he has made certain allegations, the veracity of which is yet to be determined… this Court feels that the prayer of the respondents/applicants for initiating preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C cannot be considered at this stage”

HC Directs Srinagar Dy Commissioner To Take Over Management Of Raghu Nath Ji Temple Land To 'Demarcate Boundaries' Amidst Claims Of Encroachment

Case Title: Mst Hamida Banoo Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar to take over the management of over 159 kanals of land belonging to the Raghu Nath Ji Temple in Barzulla Srinagar. The court also ordered the demarcation of the temple's land and the removal of any encroachments.

J&K High Court Quashes PMLA Charges Against Dr Farooq Abdullah In Alleged Cricket Association Scam

Case Title: Ahsan Ahmad Mirza Vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 234

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the charge sheet filed against Dr Farooq Abdullah under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) scam.

The Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot act as an appellate authority over the conclusions drawn by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thereby setting a precedent on the limits of the ED's jurisdiction.

Lok Adalat Has No Power To Dismiss Cases for Non-Appearance Of Party: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Case Title: SYED TAJAMUL BASHIR Vs MOHAMMAD AYOUB KHAN.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 235

Reinforcing the role and limitations of Lok Adalats, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that Lok Adalats do not possess the authority to dismiss a case for non-appearance of a party.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while deciding a petition challenging an order of a Lok Adalat that dismissed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observed that such action was beyond the purview of these alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Simply Because Judge Has Gone Wrong In Law No Grounds For Review, May Be A Ground For Appeal: J&K High Court

Case Title: PERVAZ AHMAD PARRA Vs STATE OF J&K & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that an incorrect interpretation of law by a judge may be a ground for appeal but is not sufficient to justify a review of a judgment.

Dismissing a review petition which sought to overturn a previous court decision that upheld a termination from service Justice Sanjay Dhar has observed,

“Simply because a Judge has gone wrong in law, that is not a ground for review, though it may be a ground for appeal. Similarly, an erroneous view of law is no ground for review though it may be a ground for appeal. It seems that the petitioner in the guise of present review petition is trying to persuade this Court to rehear the case as if it is sitting in appeal over its own judgment, which is not permissible in law”