Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: March 4 - March 10, 2024

Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Judgments/Orders:

Co-Sharer of Property Cannot Be Restrained From Raising Construction On Exclusive Portion of Joint Property: J&K High Court

Case Title: Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

Upholding the exclusive construction rights of co-sharers in a joint property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a co-sharer of a property who is in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the joint holding cannot be prevented from constructing on that portion.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “A co-sharer of a property, who is in exclusive possession of a joint holding, cannot be restrained from raising construction on that portion of the joint holding of which he is in exclusive possession”.

Leasehold Interest In Land Is Asset Of Company, Capable Of Valuation: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation. As such, it is to be included in the value of the assets of M/s. Jyoti Private Limited so as to determine the fair market value of shares held by the assessee as well as other shareholders.

The bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta, while upholding the ITAT's order, observed that the fair market value is defined under Section 2(22B) of the Act as the price that such an asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market. Therefore, for the purposes of computation of capital gain, the fair market value has to be determined, not the value of shares; the valuation of shares is to be made under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules.

[Cheque Dishonour] Prioritize Compensation In Sentencing U/S 138: J&K High Court Reiterates Compensatory Aspect Of Negotiable Instruments Act

Case Title: Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that criminal courts must prioritize compensating the complainant when imposing a fine on an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonoring cheques.

A bench comprising Justice M A Chowdhary stressed that for the compensatory aspect to be duly considered, the sentence imposed should align with the cheque amount, if not exceed it. This ensures that any fine imposed can be utilized to compensate the complainant, as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, the bench underscored.

Review Of Judgements Is An Exception To General Rule, Parties Can't Be Permitted To Seek Re-Hearing Under Garb Of Review: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Dismissing a review petition filed by contractors who challenged an earlier order directing them to pay an additional sum for work they had undertaken the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a court's power to review its judgments is not meant to serve as an appeal in disguise.

Clarifying the limitations of the court after the pronouncement of a judgment and its powers to review the same Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“The Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and the doctrine can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on certain grounds only"

Non-Disclosure of Selection Criteria In Advance Doesn't Automatically Disqualify Process, As Long Criteria Is Fair: J&K High Court

Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the non-disclosure of selection criteria in advance does not automatically invalidate a selection process.

The court, however, emphasized the importance of employers disclosing and notifying the selection criteria in advance. This proactive measure ensures that candidates participating in the selection process are fully aware of the yardstick that will be used to make selections.