J&K&L High Court Weekly Roundup December 19 To December 25, 2022

J&K&L High Court Weekly Roundup

December 19 To December 25, 2022

Nominal Index :

1. Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gulshan Kumar and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
2. Case Title : Akona Engineering Private Ltd Vs Pal Construction and another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
3. Case Title : Royal Singh Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
4. Case Title : Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
5. Case Title: Mohammad Ayoub Dar Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
6. Case Title : Bindu Singh Jamwal Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
7. Case Title : M/s S. S. Industries, Shanker Colony, Gangayal Vs UT of J&K and Ors2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
8. Case Title : Kanwarjit Singh Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
9. Case Title : National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
10. Case Title : Yang Burz Home vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
11. Case Title: Khalida Salman Vs Sahil Ahmad Dar 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
12. Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr Vs Hamida Bano & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 264

Judgements/Orders :

Compensation For "No Fault Liability" U/S 140 MV Act Is Adjustable In Claims Of Compensation For Fault Liability: JKL High Court

Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gulshan Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 253

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday ruled that compensation paid under the "No Fault liability" provision is adjustable in the compensation claimed for fault liability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Nonetheless, the bench clarified that any compensation made under the No-Fault liability provision is adjustable in the compensation claimed fault liability under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

State Consumer Commission Not Empowered To Exercise Powers Of Review And Set Aside An Ex-Parte Order: JKL HC Reiterates

Case Title : Akona Engineering Private Ltd Vs Pal Construction and another.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 254

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums are not empowered to exercise powers of review and set aside ex parte orders unless a statute empowers them for the same.

District Magistrate Cannot Describe Period Of Preventive Detention, Govt's Prerogative To Do The Same : JKL High Court

Case Title : Royal Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 255

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a District Magistrate while passing the order of detention cannot describe the period of detention of the detenue, because it is the Government which after approving the detention provides the period till the detenue would be detained.

A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"Section 17(1) of J & K Public Safety Act empowers the Government to confirm the detention order and may direct the continuation of the detention of a person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. Section 18 of the J&K Public Safety Act states that the maximum period of detention of the detenue is subject to the confirmation of Advisory Board".

Amendments To A Written Statement Can Be Allowed Even If It Amounts To Addition Of New Grounds Of Defence : JKL High Court

Case Title : Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 256

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while allowing amendment of a written statement the general principle is that the amendment should be allowed even if it amounts to addition of new grounds of defense, substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar however made it clear that "the same principle cannot be applied while considering an application for amendment of a plaint as the same stands on a different footing. Adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint is certainly objectionable".

NIA Act | Scheduled UAPA Offences Can Be Probed By Investigating Agency Of State Govt: JKL High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Ayoub Dar Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 257

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the provisions of the National Investigation Act (NIA Act) Act do not prohibit the investigation of the Scheduled offences which include the offences under the ULA(P) Act, by Local Investigating Agencies.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"It only provides that when a Scheduled offence is investigated by a local investigating agency, the same has to be tried by a Special Court constituted under Section 22 of the Act".

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Override Efficacious Statutory Dispensation: JKL High Court

Case Title : Bindu Singh Jamwal Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 258

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that where statutory remedy is created by law, the writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation, unless it is inefficacious.

A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"Where a right or liability is created by a statute, which provides for a speedy remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the said statute alone should be availed of".

'Patience To Put Up With Environmental Violations Has Run Dry': JKL High Court Denies Relief To MSME Unit Shut Over Seizure Of 1350Kg Banned Plastic

Case Title : M/s S. S. Industries, Shanker Colony, Gangayal Vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 259

Dismissing a plea challenging a closure order of the petitioner's unit/premises by the J&K Pollution Control Board, Justice Rahul Bharti of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed,

"Patience to put up with the violations and the violators of the ecological environment has now run dry. The law needs to take charge, and in fact has taken charge, of the situation to deal with the environment-related violations and violators impatiently and for that the enforcers of the law need to be fast paced as in the present case where the law enforcers have acted with promptness and preemptively and this is what is serving the call of duty to protect the environment".

[Mining Rules] Letter Of Intent Is An Invitation To Offer, Cannot Create Futuristic / Prospective Rights: JKL High Court

Case Title : Kanwarjit Singh Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 260

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on ruled that a 'Letter of Intent' is only a form of an invitation to offer and does not confer any rights in the favour of the person of whom it is issued.

A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"Letter of Intent is only a formality of initiation of process and right to claim grant of lease and execution of formal lease deed would accrue to the concerned person only if the requisite formalities as envisaged under the Mining Rules are completed. Moreover, the recipient of Letter of Intent cannot create prospective/ futuristic right out of his own free will with regard to mining lease".

S.267 CrPC | Criminal Court Can Be Approached For Issue Of Production Warrant During Investigation: JKL High Court

Case Title : National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu.

Citation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 261

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Criminal Court within whose jurisdiction the crime is committed and in respect whereof a production warrant is sought under Section 267 CrPC cannot reject the application for production warrant simply on the ground that no case is pending before it.

JKL High Court Refuses Security To A Man Apprehending Harm Over Rumours Of Being 'BJP Agent'

Case Title : Yang Burz Home vs UT of J&K and Ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 262

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declined intervention in a plea seeking a direction upon the government to provide security cover to the Petitioner as there are rumors in his locality that he is a 'BJP agent'.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that the authorities had already made a threat assessment and did not find it necessary to provide him personal security.

No Provision In CPC Permits A Party To Lead Evidence In Rebuttal On An Issue, The Onus Of Proof Of Which Lies On It: JKL High Court

Case Title: Khalida Salman Vs Sahil Ahmad Dar.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 263

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which permits a party beginning to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue, the onus of proof of which lies on it.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"If out of several issues, burden to prove some of the issues lies on the other party, then the party can begin, at his option and either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. In the latter case, the party beginning may produce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the other party only on those issues the burden of proof whereof lies on it"

Registration Of FIR Not Sine Qua Non For Processing Life Insurance Policy Claim In Cases Of Accidental Fall Deaths: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr Vs Hamida Bano & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 264

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld a Consumer Commission order wherein it was held that in cases where the death of the insured has occurred due to injuries suffered from a fall, the registration of FIR may not be required for processing the life insurance claim.

"We are entirely in agreement with the Commission that in the case of this nature, the registration of FIR is not a sin qua non for processing the case under the policy of life insurance. Moreso, when there is other evidence in abundance to demonstrate that the deceased insured had died in an accident," said the court.