Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 10 - June 16, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 Jun 2024 9:05 AM IST

  • Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 10 - June 16, 2024

    Nominal Index:Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs...

    Nominal Index:

    Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

    Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

    Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

    Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

    Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

    Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

    Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

    Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149

    Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150

    Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

    State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

    Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153

    SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154

    Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K iu2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

    M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

    Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157

    AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K

    2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

    Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

    Judgments/Orders:

    Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

    Observing that every act prejudicial to state security necessarily disrupts public order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that only acts causing grave disruption to public order qualify as threats to state security.

    Unblemished Record Necessary For Promotion, Employee Facing Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Promotion During Pendency: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a government employee facing criminal charges cannot claim promotion while the proceedings are pending. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that for promotion, an employee must at least have an unblemished record to ensure a clean and efficient administration.

    BSF Act 1968 | Commandant Can Dismiss BSF Personnel Without Security Force Court Trial Provided Procedures Outlined In BSF Rules Are Followed: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Sita Devi Vs Union Of India

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144

    The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that a Commandant's power to dismiss a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) is independent and does not require prior conviction by a Security Force Court, provided that the procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969, are followed.

    [S.138 NI Act] Personal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases Limited To Drawer, No Liability Can Be Fastened Against Company For Cheque Not Issued By It: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145

    Quashing a complaint against a company director accused of dishonoring a cheque, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

    Death Of Govt Employee Doesn't Guarantee Compassionate Appointment For Family, Financial Hardship Must Be Proven: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the death of an employee while in service doesn't automatically entitle their family to a compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the family must be examined, and jobs should only be offered if the family cannot meet the crisis without it, provided there is a relevant scheme or rule.

    Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147

    The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

    Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that given the exclusive privilege of the Government in the sale/manufacture of liquor, the Court, being a constitutional body, should be slow in interfering with executive decisions taken by the State as they are essentially a matter of economic policy.

    Prosecutrix's Testimony Concerning Factum Of Occurrence & Persons Involved Ought To Be Scrutinized Before Basing Conviction On It: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149

    Highlighting the importance of a consistent and credible narrative from the prosecutrix in rape cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must undertake a rigorous scrutiny of a prosecutrix's testimony before reliance can be placed on it.

    When Statute Provides For Detention Under Specific Contingency, Detention Under Different Contingency Cannot Be Made Unless Conditions Overlap: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once a statute provides for the detention of a person under a specific contingency, he cannot be detained under a different contingency outlined by the statute unless both conditions overlap or coexist.

    J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On "Habitual" Litigant For Demeaning Language Against Daughter-in-Law

    Case Title: Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court came down heavily on a father who filed a petition challenging the maintenance proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law.

    Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹1 Lakh to be deposited in the Litigants' Welfare Fund, calling the language used in the petition "demeaning of a woman and totally unacceptable in any civilized society."

    'Suppressing Material Facts Is Just Jugglery Not Advocacy': J&K High Court Cancels Reinstatement Order Of Ex-Constable For Hiding Crucial Facts From Court

    Case Title: State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

    Underlining the criticality of transparency in legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea by a former constable who sought reinstatement in the police force.

    The court, in a judgment passed by Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary, observed,

    "Suppression of concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction."

    Recovery Of Excess Payments Made To Employee Due To Wrong Interpretation Of Rules Not Permissible Post Retirement: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Case No. : Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153

    A single judge bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Mst. Raja & Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, held that after an employee retires, it is not permissible to recover excess payments made to them due to a mistaken interpretation of rules.

    [O.22 R.10 CPC] New Trustee Not Legal Representative But Successor in Interest: J&K High Court Clarifies

    Case Title: SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHERS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154

    The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that on the death of a trustee, a newly elected or appointed trustee cannot be considered a legal representative of the deceased trustee. Instead, the interest of the Trust property devolves upon the new trustee, thereby making the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applicable.

    Magistrate Not Required To Notify Injured Party Or Deceased's Relative Before Considering Closure Report Unless FIR Filed by Them: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that magistrates are not obligated to notify injured parties or relatives of the deceased when considering police closure reports.

    In a judgment passed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, the court stated that there is no obligation on the magistrate to issue notice to the injured or a relative of the deceased for providing such person an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report unless such person is the informant who has lodged the FIR.

    No Reason To Create Impediment For Businesses”: J&K High Court Directs Govt Not To Harass Tea Sellers In Floating Market Inside Dal Lake

    Case Title: M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156

    The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the authorities to refrain from harassing tea sellers operating in the floating market inside Dal Lake, provided they have the necessary licenses. The order, passed by Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, emphasised that no impediment should be created for those running a legitimate business.

    [S.340 CrPC] Court Must Be Satisfied That Party Intentionally Committed An Offence Before Recommending Action For Perjury: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157

    Underscoring the necessity for courts to be convinced of intentionality before recommending action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere allegations or attempts to settle personal scores are insufficient grounds for initiating perjury proceedings.

    Participation In Nationalistic Activities Can't Serve As License For Criminal Acts: J&K High Court Dismisses Ex-Corporator's Plea Against Preventive Detention

    Case Title: AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

    Dismissing the petition challenging the preventive detention of former Srinagar Municipal Corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court asserted that involvement in nationalist activities does not grant immunity from legal proceedings for criminal activities prejudicial to public order.

    Goodwill, Misrepresentation By Defendant And Subsequent Damage Are Prerequisites To Enforce Passing Off Remedy For Unregistered Trademarks: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

    The Jammu and Kashmir High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that to claim a passing-off remedy for an unregistered trademark, the following three elements must be established: (a)ownership of business goodwill, (b) misrepresentation by the defendant leading to confusion, and (c) consequent damage to the plaintiff's goodwill.

    Next Story