- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- High Court of J & K and Ladakh
- /
- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High...
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 6 - May 12, 2024
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
13 May 2024 6:35 PM IST
Nominal Index:Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 106Jaswant Singh Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 107Mysar Jan Vs J & K HANDICRAFTS & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 108Gulshan Kumar Vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 109Naseer Ahmad Vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 110Mst Khalida Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 111Jasvinder...
Nominal Index:
Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
Jaswant Singh Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 107
Mysar Jan Vs J & K HANDICRAFTS & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
Gulshan Kumar Vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 109
Naseer Ahmad Vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
Mst Khalida Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
Jasvinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Rehmatullah Naik Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
Suhaib Sahil Vs UT th. J&K Sports Council and ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 114
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K and Anr. held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations.
Case Title: Jaswant Singh Vs State Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 107
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that stones used for pelting cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as a 'dangerous weapon' or 'an instrument' used for shooting to bring an accused within the meaning of section 326 Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) which deals with causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.
Case Title: Mysar Jan Vs J & K HANDICRAFTS & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that when an employee faces the penalty of withholding or postponement of increments with cumulative effect, it permanently affects their salary structure and impacts pension benefits even after retirement.
Case Title: Gulshan Kumar Vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 109
Reaffirming the rights of aggrieved parties to appeal against court decisions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court established that a technical deficiency in an appeal, such as the absence of an application for condonation of delay, can be cured.
Case Title: Naseer Ahmad Vs Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
Emphasising the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, particularly in cases concerning the dismissal of personnel from the Border Security Force (BSF) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated the necessity of recording a satisfaction by the competent authority before resorting to Rule 22(2).
Case Title: Mst Khalida Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
Underlining the Financial Commissioner's power to exercise suo-moto revision in a land dispute case under the J&K Land Revenue Act 1996 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while the Commissioner has this authority, it cannot be used to bypass the principles of natural justice, which require a party to be heard before an order affecting their rights is reversed or modified.
Case Title: Jasvinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Quashing departmental proceedings initiated against an employee, Jasvinder Singh Dua, Ex Managing Director (Under Suspension) of J&K Handicrafts (S&E) Corporation the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once an FIR against an employee is quashed by the court, departmental inquiries based on the same set of allegations cannot be pursued.
Case Title: Rehmatullah Naik Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
Underscoring the expansive jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the jurisdiction granted to Courts under the said Article is not restricted only to the review of the administrative actions and executive decisions of the State in the light of the extended applicability of the "doctrine of promissory estoppels".
Case Title: Suhaib Sahil Vs UT th. J&K Sports Council and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 114
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that simply participating in National or International level sports competitions doesn't entitle a person to reservation under the J&K Sports Policy.
Citing various provisions of J&K Sports policy a bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri clarified,
“A plain reading of clause 6.3.4, on first blush would indicate that mere participation or representation of a sportsperson at a National or International level shall make him entitled to reservation in University Academic/technical courses”.