Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup December 4 - December 10, 2023

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Safder Ali 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 305

Subash Choudhary Vs J&K Special Tribunal Jammu 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 306

NADEEM UR REHMAN & OTHERS Vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 307

M/s Oikos India Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s K.C. Hotels Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 308

Zareefa Banoo Vs Manzoor Ahmad Sheergujri 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 309

Mahroz Akhter Vs Dr Azmat Gouhar 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 310

Director Health Services and Another Vs. Iqbal Ahmad Baqal 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 311

Judgments/Orders:

Rigid Constraints Of Formal Pleadings Need Not Be Strictly Adhered To In A Claim Plea Under Motor Vehicles Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Safder Ali

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 305

Dismissing an appeal challenging an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High court reitrated that in a claim petition submitted under the Motor Vehicles Act, the rigid constraints of formal pleadings need not be strictly adhered to.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that it is not mandatory for a claimant to explicitly enumerate all the details in the petition, hence allowing for a more flexible approach in presenting the case.

Merely Affixing Notice On Outer Building Not Substantial Compliance With Service Unless Credible Evidence Shown: J&K High Court

Case Title: Subash Choudhary Vs J&K Special Tribunal Jammu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 306

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that merely affixing a notice on the outer part of a building structure would not be substantial compliance with actual service under Section 7(2) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988.

In allowing the plea, a single bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held:

"No doubt Section 7(2) provides the mode of service of notice upon the violator by affixing the same on the outer door of some conspicuous part of the unauthorizedly raised building providing that such affixing of notice would be deemed to have been duly served upon the violator, yet mere affixing of notice on the outer conspicuous part of the building cannot said to be substantial compliance of the actual service of notice and thus the theory of communication of such a notice cannot, in law, be invoked unless it is by credible evidence shown that the notice was actually affixed at site.".

NEET PG | Special 'Stray Vacancy' Round Not For Upgradation, Only Meant For Candidates Who Were Not Allotted Any Seats: J&K High Court

Case Title: NADEEM UR REHMAN & OTHERS Vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 307

Clarifying the mandate of Stray Round in NEET PG counselling the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the Special Stray Vacancy Round does not function as an upgradation round, and individuals who have already secured seats in prior rounds are ineligible for any upgradation opportunities.

In dismissing the review plea, a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar added that the Special Stray Vacancy Round of counselling comes into play only when certain seats persistently remain unoccupied after the culmination of all preceding counselling rounds and is hence exclusively accessible to candidates who were not allotted any seats, either in the All India Quota or the State Quota.

Territorial Challenges Do Not Undermine Core Jurisdiction: J&K High Court Says Untimely Jurisdictional Objections Cannot Invalidate Decrees

Case Title: M/s Oikos India Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s K.C. Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 308

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that objections on territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, if not raised at the appropriate juncture, cannot be subsequently introduced in proceedings.

In such instances, a decree rendered without timely jurisdictional objections was not deemed null and void since challenges related to the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction were not considered foundational or striking at the Court's core of jurisdiction, Justice Rajesh Sekhri explained.

MV Act | Apportionment Of Compensation Not Guided by Personal Laws, Consideration Of Dependency On Deceased Paramount: J&K High Court

Case Title: Zareefa Banoo Vs Manzoor Ahmad Sheergujri

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 309

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the Court cannot be guided by personal law while deciding on the compensation in a claim petition since it needed to be apportioned by taking into consideration the dependency of the Claimants.

Justice M.A Chowdhary clarified that only if any Claimant dies before being awarded compensation of his share, the same may be released among his legal heirs as per applicable laws of inheritance.

Domestic Violence Act Doesn't Provide Windfalls, Concrete Evidence Regarding Income Needed For Fair Assessment Of Maintenance: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mahroz Akhter Vs Dr Azmat Gouhar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 310

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that concrete evidence regarding the salary amount of the husband must be made known to the trial court so that it can pass a direction for a specific amount of maintenance payable by the husband under the Domestic Violence Act.

Emphasising the need for concrete evidence of the husband's salary before quantifying maintenance, Justice Puneet Gupta observed,

"The court cannot pass in air the direction that the wife shall be entitled to 25% of the gross salary without knowing the actual salary of the husband. The trial court is required to have the income of the husband of the applicant-wife and then pass the order of maintenance as deemed fit in the light of the salary or other income of the husband”.

High Court Slams Kashmir Health Services Director With ₹2 Lakh Fine For 'Frivolous Litigation,' 20 Yr Delay In Executing Decree

Case Title: Director Health Services and Another Vs. Iqbal Ahmad Baqal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 311

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court slapped a fine of Rs. 2 lakh on the Director Health Services Kashmir for indulging in frivolous litigation to stall the execution of a decree passed against them in 2003.

In a scathing order passed by Justice Atul Sreedharan, the court dismissed the plea, imposed costs, and observed that the department's "repeated frivolous litigation" had kept the decree-holder hanging for 20 years and amounted to "abuse of process".