Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: July 2024

MOHAMMAD SHAHBAZ MIR VS UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 175

Gorav Sayal Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 176

Ramtech Software Private Limited Vs Ut Of J&K And Another 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 177

Manzoor Ahmad Yatoo Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 178

Bansi Lal Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 179

Mehraj ud din Andrabi Vs Zia Darakshan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 180

Yawar Ahmad Malik Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 181

Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182

MAHANT GANESH DASS JI V/s STATE OF JK AND ANOTHER (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 183

Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184

Shameem Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 185

Mohammad Sultan Najar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 186

Nisar Ahmad Rather Vs Tahir Ahmad Reshi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 187

State through Executive Engineer PHE Division, Doda Vs Sakina Begum 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Din Mohd Vs Shokat Ali 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Ghulam Mohiudin Lone Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 190

Surjeet Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

Union Of India Vs Ravinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

AIJAZ RASHID KHANDAY Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi Vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 195

LAKHBIR SINGH & ORS Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

MUJEEB UL ASHRAF DAR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 197

ABDUL MAJID KIRMANI & ANR. Vs BILAL AHMAD KIRMANI 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 198

Kamran Ali Khan Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 199

National Insurance Company Vs Zahoor Ahmad Sofi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 200

JAVAID AHMAD KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 201

Union Of India Vs M/s Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons Contractor Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 202

UT of J&K Vs M/s Hindustan Constructions Co. Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 203

KAMRAN KHAN AND & ORS. Vs BILKEES KHANAM 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 204

Mubashir Manzoor Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Wani 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 205

Sandeep Vijh Vs State through Drug Inspector Baramulla 2024 (JKL) 206

Mehrajud Din Ganie and others Vs Mst. Mymoona and others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 207

Judgments/Orders:

Employer Not Obligated To 'Launch Manhunt Across Globe For Absconding Employees': J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CRPF Constable

Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHBAZ MIR VS UNION OF INDIA.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 175

Emphasising that an employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee across the globe the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had challenged his termination from service.

Case Diaries Must Be Made Available Immediately After Filing Bail Application To Facilitate Decisions From First Hearing Itself: J&K High Court

Case Title: Gorav Sayal Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 176

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that case diaries should be promptly available following the filing of bail applications to facilitate decisions on the first hearing itself.

Observing that bail applications should ideally be decided on the first date of hearing by this Court a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan underscored,

“The same is possible only if the case diary is made available for the scrutiny by the Court on the very first date of hearing”.

Non-Response To Demands Invalidates Invocation of Mutual Negotiations Clause in Arbitration Agreements: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Ramtech Software Private Limited Vs Ut Of J&K And Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 177

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that if a party didn't respond to the demands and requests made by the other party, it can't invoke the part of the arbitration clause that such disputes and differences shall be an endeavoured to be resolved by mutual negotiations as a condition precedent for invoking the arbitration clause.

Authorities Obligated To Promptly Consider Detenu's Right To Representation Under Article 22 Of Indian Constitution: J&K High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Yatoo Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 178

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted that the right to representation for a detenu is a guaranteed right under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution which imposes an obligation on authorities for its prompt consideration.

Delayed Trial, Violation Of Article 21 Rights: J&K High Court Grants Bail To Ex-Cop Accused Of Killing Man Falsely Projected As Terrorist

Case Title: Bansi Lal Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 179

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to Bansi Lal, a 56-year-old former police officer, who had been in judicial custody for almost 18 years.

The order, passed by Justice Atul Sreedharan, highlighted the prolonged delay in the trial, describing it as a clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

Dismissal Of Complaint For Non-Prosecution Is Final Order, Magistrates Lack Inherent Powers To Restore Such Cases: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mehraj ud din Andrabi Vs Zia Darakshan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 180

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh asserted that a Magistrate cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to restore a complaint once dismissed due to the complainant's non-appearance.

A bench comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul has declared that such dismissals are final orders, emphasizing the absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that confers this power on the Trial Court.

Using “Security Of State” As Grounds To Detain Person In A Union Territory Is Valid Exercise Of Detaining Authority's Power: J&K High Court

Case Title: Yawar Ahmad Malik Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 181

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that using "Security of State" as a ground for detaining a person in a Union Territory is a valid exercise of the detaining authority's power.

Dismissing an appeal against a single bench judgment that dismissed a habeas corpus plea a bench comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi explained,

“There is no doubt that the definition of State as contained in [Section 3 (58) of General Clauses Act, 1897] includes Union Territory. The term, “all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India” comprises States and Union Territories”.

Comprehensive Proof Of Talak By Husband With Efforts For Reconciliation Is Essential To Avoid Maintenance Obligations: J&K High Court

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife merely by claiming to have divorced her.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the husband must not only prove the pronouncement of Talaak or the execution of a divorce deed but must also demonstrate that sincere efforts were made by both parties' representatives to reconcile their disputes. Failure of such efforts, without any fault of the husband, must be convincingly established.

Temple Properties Vest In The Deity: J&K High Court Directs Anantnag Deputy Commissioner To Take Over Management Of Two Temples

Case Title: MAHANT GANESH DASS JI V/s STATE OF JK AND ANOTHER (REVENUE DEPARTMENT)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 183

Aiming to ensure an effective and peaceful management of Shri Raghu Nath Mandir and Nagbal Gautam Nag Temple in Anantnag, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (District Magistrate) of Anantnag to assume control over the management of these temples and their properties.

The directions to this effect were passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M.A. Chowdhary, while addressing conflicting claims of management of these temples.

J&K High Court Cautions Against Routine Quashing Of FIRs On Settlement Between Parties, Cites Larger Effect On Society

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar and others Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 184

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court cautioned that an FIR and the consequent charge-report resulting from an investigation cannot be quashed routinely under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the parties have settled their differences.

Raising an alarm of watchfulness Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani reasoned,

“In case the FIRs and the criminal cases culminating from the investigations are allowed to be quashed at the wish of the complainants and/or accused, the criminal justice system is likely to become a causality and the society at large will have to bear the consequences”.

Employees Appointed In Violation Of Articles 14 & 16 Can Be Disengaged Without Hearing: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shameem Ahmad Shah Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 185

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that employees appointed in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be disengaged without the necessity of affording them an opportunity to be heard.

S. 233 CrPC | Denying Accused's Right To Adduce Evidence Amounts To Denial Of Fair Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Sultan Najar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 186

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that denying an accused the right to adduce evidence constitutes a denial of a fair trial. The order overturned an earlier decision by the Fast Track Court POCSO, Srinagar, which had rejected the accused's application to summon defense witnesses.

O.37 R.3 CPC | Defendant Not Obliged To Apply For Leave To Defend Without Service of Summons: J&K High Court

Case Title: Nisar Ahmad Rather Vs Tahir Ahmad Reshi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 187

Quashing an ex parte judgment passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a case where the defendant was not served with a summons for judgment the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a defendant is only obligated to apply for leave to defend a suit after being served with a summons for judgment.

Principal Employer Liable To Compensate For Worker's Death Even If He Is Engaged Through Contractor: J&K High Court

Case Title: State through Executive Engineer PHE Division, Doda Vs Sakina Begum

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Upholding the principles of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the principal employer is liable to compensate the accidental death of a worker engaged by a contractor.

Admissions Of Liability Made Outside Of Court Under Pressure Cannot Be Sole Basis To Determine Fact Of Issue: J&K High Court

Case Title: Din Mohd Vs Shokat Ali

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Shedding light on significant aspects of civil procedure and the burden of proof in civil trials the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that admissions of liability made outside of court under pressure cannot be the sole basis for deciding a civil case.

FIR Not Appropriate Remedy For Addressing Disobedience Of Injunction Order, Recourse Under O.39 R.2A CPC Applicable : J&K High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Mohiudin Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 190

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that the appropriate approach to address the disobedience or breach of an injunction order is through Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC, rather than the registration of an FIR.

J&K High Court Imposes 10K Cost On DM Jammu For 'Unjustifiable' Preventive Detention Order

Case Title: Surjeet Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 191

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh sharply criticized a preventive detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, and imposed a ₹10,000 fine on the District Magistrate Jammu, personally, citing "unjustifiable" grounds for the detention.

Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Case Title: M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 192

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration.

S. 67 NDPS Act | Additional Evidence Essential Before Acting Upon Co-Accused's Confession: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Ravinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High High Court underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence alongside confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for the prosecution to establish a case against the accused.

Special Police Officers Don't Hold Civil Posts Regulated By Statutory Rules, Not Entitled To Service Conditions Of Regular Officers: J&K High Court

Case Title: AIJAZ RASHID KHANDAY Vs STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 194

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Special Police Officers (SPOs) do not hold civil posts regulated by statutory rules and hence are not entitled to the powers, privileges, and protections relating to service conditions extended to regular police officers.

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | No Prosecution For Seeking Information U/S 18-A When It Is Already Available With Drug Inspector: J&K High Court

Case Title: Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 195

Quashing a criminal complaint under Section 18-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the information required under the Section is already available with the Drug Inspector, demanding the same from the non manufacturer/ agent becomes redundant, thereby rendering prosecution legally untenable.

Ocular Witnesses Not Expected to Have Photographic Memory, Minor Inconsistencies Must Be Ignored: J&K High Court

Case Title: LAKHBIR SINGH & ORS Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 196

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored that ocular witnesses are not expected to possess photographic memories capable of recalling every detail of an incident.

The court emphasised that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies should be disregarded if they do not affect the material aspects of the case.

S.143A NI Act | Application Of Mind, Consideration Of Certain Factors By Magistrate Essential To Decide Quantum Of Interim Compensation: J&K High Court

Case Title: MUJEEB UL ASHRAF DAR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 197

Quashing an order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1st Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, for granting interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised on the proper application of mind on part of the Magistrate to decide the interim compensation.

CPC | Nature Of Issues Crucial To Attract Applicability Of Section 10, Not Nature Of Relief Sought: J&K High Court

Case Title: ABDUL MAJID KIRMANI & ANR. Vs BILAL AHMAD KIRMANI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 198

Emphasising the importance of the nature of issues in civil suits the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that its not the nature of relief being sought but the nature of issues which are involved in the two suits that are crucial to attract applicability of Section 10 of the CPC.

Writ Petitions Do Not Lie Against Show Cause Notices Unless It Transcends Jurisdiction, Is Issued With Premeditated Mind: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kamran Ali Khan Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 199

Quashing an order of cancellation of a lease deed after issuing a premeditated show cause notice the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that a writ petition does not ordinarily lie against a show cause notice unless it is issued with a premeditated mind.

Employees Compensation Act | Admission Of Appeal Challenging Compensation Award Subject To Raising Substantial Questions Of Law: J&K High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Company Vs Zahoor Ahmad Sofi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 200

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the scope of an appeal against an award passed under the Employees Compensation Act is significantly limited, being permissible only if a substantial question of law is involved.

CRPF Rules | Essential To Establish Actual Service Of Notice To Delinquent Personnel Before Ordering Dismissal From Force: J&K High Court

Case Title: JAVAID AHMAD KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 201

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it is essential to establish proof of “actual service of notice” to delinquent personnel before ordering their dismissal from the force.

Arbitration Award Attains Status Of Civil Court Decree After Three Months If No Challenge Is Posed: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs M/s Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 202

Emphasising the significance of the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which allows for the enforceability of non-stayed awards the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an arbitration award attains the status of a civil court decree after three months if no challenge is posed.

Any attempt To Modify Award Under Section 34 is not permissible: J&K High Court

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs M/s Hindustan Constructions Co. Limited and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 203

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside a judgment from a subordinate court modifying an arbitral award while underscoring that under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, courts lack the authority to modify arbitral awards and can only either uphold or set aside the awards.

[DV Act] Arrest Warrants Unjustified In Domestic Violence Cases Since Proceedings Are Civil In Nature: J&K High Court

Case Title: KAMRAN KHAN AND & ORS. Vs BILKEES KHANAM

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 204

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a petition challenging the issuance of such warrants, observed that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) are inherently civil in nature and not criminal.

NI Act | Unless Accused Pleads Not Guilty, Interim Compensation U/S 143-A Cannot Be Granted: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mubashir Manzoor Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Wani

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 205

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed three orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, awarding interim compensation to a complainant under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Court held that interim compensation can be granted only after the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation and the Magistrate applies his mind to relevant factors.

S.34 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Proof Of Actual Responsibility Of Company At Time Of Offence Crucial To Attract Culpability: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Vijh Vs State through Drug Inspector Baramulla

Citation: 2024 (JKL) 206

Quashing a criminal complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that not every person connected with the company may fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 34 of the Act of 1940.

Court Can Invoke Power Of Review To Correct Inadvertent Errors, Misrepresentation Even After Judgement Is Pronounced: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mehrajud Din Ganie and others Vs Mst. Mymoona and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 207

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once a judgment is pronounced or an order is made, the court becomes “functus officio”, meaning it loses control over the matter, and the judgment or order becomes final, however, with the doctrine of review standing as an exception to this rule.