Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup October 14 - October 20, 2024

Hallmark v. Jammu & Kashmir GST Department & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 272

Sabahat Sanna Vs Dr Shabir Ahmad 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

Sudhir Power Limited v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 274

Pawan Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 275

Syed Tassadque Hussain Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 276

Oriental Insurance Company Vs M/S Shalimar Wine Shop 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 277

Suraj Prakash Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 278

UT Of J&K Vs Mudasir Farooq Malik 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 279

Mohammad Iqbal Mir and others Vs State of J&K and others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 280

State Of J&K Vs Rakesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281

Judgments/Orders:

Limitation For Refund Of GST Is Determined From Date Of Original Application, Not From Date Of Follow-Up Application: J&K HC Quashes Deficiency Memo

Case title: Hallmark v. Jammu & Kashmir GST Department & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 272

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the time limit for refund of GST is to be determined from the date the original application is filed by an assessee, and not from the date of follow-up application.

Temporary Residence Elsewhere Doesn't Alter Jurisdiction In Guardianship Petitions, It Depends On Ordinary Residence: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sabahat Sanna Vs Dr Shabir Ahmad

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that it is the ordinary place of residence of the minor which determines the jurisdiction of the Court in guardianship matters under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and temporary residence elsewhere at the time of filing the application does not alter this jurisdiction.

HC Upholds J&K Govt's Decision To Withdraw Budgetary Support Scheme 2018 For Reimbursement Of IGST To Manufacturing Units

Case title: Sudhir Power Limited v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 274

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the UT government's decision to withdraw the 'Budgetary Support Scheme', notified in the year 2018 for providing budgetary support to manufacturing units in the UT, by reimbursement of Integrated Goods and Service Tax.

A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Sekhri observed that the Scheme did not create any legitimate expectation in the units nor did it attract promissory estoppel on the government.

Though DNA Report Can Be Considered While Adjudicating Bail, Prosecution Can Contest Its Accuracy In Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 275

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that while the prosecution and complainant retain the right to contest the accuracy of the DNA analysis during the trial, such a report can be considered in the context of a bail petition before the trial fully unfolds.

J&K High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Public Safety Act as Not Maintainable, Cites Ongoing Adjudication On Similar Issue

Case Title: Syed Tassadque Hussain Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 276

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. The court declared the PIL non-maintainable, citing that the issue of detention of citizens under the PSA was already under judicial consideration, making this litigation a parallel and redundant proceeding.

Insurance Company Must Pay Full Insured Amount, Relief From Government Irrelevant: J&K High Court

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Vs M/S Shalimar Wine Shop

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 277

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an insurance company cannot reduce the payout to a claimant based on ex gratia relief received from the government.

Dismissing a Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an Insurance company against an award a bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary emphasized,

"the Insurance Company is bound to pay the claim against the sum insured. It is not the business of the Insurance Company to see whether the person suffering damages has been paid some sort of relief from other sources or not."

Employee Of State Road Transport Corporation Entitled To Pay Revision And Benefits Of 5th And 6th Pay Commissions: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Suraj Prakash Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 278

Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing his entitlement to the pay revisions under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, despite his superannuation.

The court held that since the petitioner had been treated as a government employee for pension purposes, he was also entitled to the pay revisions granted under the relevant Statutory Rules and Orders (SROs).

O.37 R.3 CPC | Courts Can Allow Conditional Leave To Defend Summary Suits, With Terms Tailored To Specific Facts Of Each Case: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Mudasir Farooq Malik

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 279

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that under Order 37 Rule III of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), courts retain the discretion to impose conditions on a defendant seeking leave to defend a summary suit.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani accentuated that this discretion is exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and upon compliance with such terms, the defendant earns the right to defend the suit.

J&K Land Revenue Act | Divisional & Financial Commissioners Hold Concurrent Revision Powers U/S 15 Provided Fair Hearing Is Granted To Parties: HC

Case Title: Mohammad Iqbal Mir and others Vs State of J&K and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 280

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner in a land dispute case, emphasizing the necessity of granting a fair opportunity of hearing to parties affected by revisionary orders under the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996.

Heated Exchange Between Couple/Family Members Over Non-Preparedness Of Food Not Sufficient To Prove Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Rakesh Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a heated exchange between family members over domestic matters such as the preparation of food cannot be construed as abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).