Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: January 6 - January 12, 2025

M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

M/S SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTU TVIKLING AS (“SPAS") Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

Syed Tajamul Bashir Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Judgments/Orders:

Judicial Review Can Be Resorted To When Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Alleged To Be "Tailor-Made" To Suit Certain Participants: J&K High Court

Case Title: M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

Underlining that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide or procedural irregularities the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that Court can show its indulgence in tender matters, particularly when the terms of an invitation to tender are alleged to be "tailor-made" to suit certain participants.

“.. it is made clear that the scope of judicial review is very limited and is available in cases, where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process”, observed Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Law Firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas For Misquoting Judgment

Case Title: M/S SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTUTVIKLING AS (“SPAS") Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

Taking suo motu cognizance of misquotations of its 2010 judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the prominent law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

Noting misquotations made by the law firm in a legal notice concerning a hydroelectric project, Sawalkote Hydroelectric Power Project (HEP) Justice Rahul Bharti ordered,

“...this Court suo-moto takes cognizance of the contents of the said legal notice issued by Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi for the sake of proceeding against it for the contempt of Court, for which purpose a notice is directed to be issued to Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi to appear and explain its position in the context of legal notice dated 18.04.2022 issued by it to Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), NHPC Ltd on behalf of Sawalkote Consortium”

Piece-Rate Workers Not Entitled To Pension Benefits Granted To Regular Staff: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed petitions seeking pensionary benefits filed by former piece-rate workers of J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court distinguished between piece-rate workers and regular employees, and held that workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.

Existence Of "Proceeds Of Crime" Is Pre-Condition For Money-Laundering: J&K High Court Quashes PMLA Complaints In Alleged ₹250 Cr Scam

Case Title: Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

Underscoring the necessity of the existence of "proceeds of crime" for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in the absence of such proceeds, no money-laundering offence could arise.

Quashing complaints filed under the PMLA in an alleged 250 crore scam Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as the admitted facts noticed in the preceding paras, the alleged offence manifestly has not resulted in any “proceed of crime” in favour of the petitioners herein. A-fortiori, it cannot be said that the petitioners have indulged in any activity connected with the “proceeds of crime” for unless there are “proceeds of crime”, there cannot be any activity about the “proceeds of crime”.

J&K High Court Raises Concerns Over Improper Lok Adalat Award, Seeks Explanation From Judicial Officer

Case Title: Syed Tajamul Bashir Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sought an explanation from a judicial officer and an advocate involved in a Lok Adalat settlement after it took note of allegations of forgery and improper conduct in the recording of a settlement.

While setting aside the award passed by the forum Justice Sanjay Dhar ordered,

“.. it is directed that an explanation shall be called by the Registrar General from the concerned Judicial Officer and the Advocate who were members of the Lok Adalat for explaining their conduct. The response shall be placed before this Court for further directions”.