Gulshan Nazir Vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

M/S Aisha Construction Vs JKCA 2023 LiveLaw (JKL ) 2

Manzoor Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs UOI 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

Mst Zaiba Vs Ghulam Ahmad Zargar & Ors 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 5

Zahid Nabi Khan Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Khazir Mohammad Naikoo Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Nazir Ahmad Chopan Vs Abdul Rehman Chopan 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

Ruqaya Akhter Vs UT Through Crime Branch 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

Mst Haleema & Ors Vs Mst Dilshada & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

JK Montessori School Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs UT of J&K & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Javaid Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Kumar Avinav Vs State of J&K. 2023 LiveLaw 14

Rukhsana Jabeen Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Sham Lal vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Shahid Hameed Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Rahul Kumar & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

P N Sharma Vs Union Of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Asif Iqbal Naik Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Khalid Nazir Wagay Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Neeraj Shastri and another Vs State of J&K and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Tawqeer Ahmad Wani Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

M/s Sundaram Surgicals Vs Drug Inspector Doda 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

XXX(Minor) Through Her Father Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

Dr Jahangir Iqbal Tantray Vs Farmeeda Akhter 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Ms Syeda Nazir Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Shabir Ahmed Khan V/s State of J&K & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ghulam Qadir & anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

Dr Kiran Bala Vs Dr Ashwini Kumar Singh Jasrotia 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

Pooja Devi & Ors Vs Tarseem Lal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Radha Sharma Vs State of J&K & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

Inhabitants of Sheva Shirshu Doda Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

Union Of India Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

Jammu Development Authority Vs Jag Mohan Wazir & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

Syed Shahid Hamdani Vs UT of J&K 2023 (JKL) 45

Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs Shameema & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

Arif Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

J&K Service Selection Board Vs Vinkal Sharma 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs District Magistrate Anantnag & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Rokade Santosh Sandashiv & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

Reema Arora & Ors Vs Law Enforce Inspector (Fertilizer) 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

Rajana Devi Vs State of J&K &Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

Abdul Khaliq Rather Vs State of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Anita Devi and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

Mukhtar Ahmad Andrabi Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

National Insurance Co. ltd.Vs Mursa Begum and ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Karnail Singh Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

Farooq Ahmad & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Master X th. Shah Wali Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

India Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Anr Vs Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

Ms. X (MINOR) Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Bopinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Manzoor Ahmad Dar Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Mst Haleema & Ors Vs Mst Dilshada & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

Jia Lal Vs UT of J&K & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Om Prakash 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

Zahid Hussain Jan Vs State of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

UT of J&K Vs Munshi Masood 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

Dr. Khair-Un-Nisa and others Shalini Sharma and others Vs UT of J&K & others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

Nikunj Sharma Vs State of J&K and another 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 70

Mohammad Maqbool Regu and ors Vs Hilal Ahmad & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 71

Judgments/Orders:

JKL High Court Slams Authorities For Denying Passport To Mehbooba Mufti's Mother, Says Passport Authority Can't Act As Mouthpiece of CID

Case Title: Gulshan Nazir Vs Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 1

Directing the Passport Officer to consider former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti's mother's application for re-issuance of passport afresh, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the authority has not to act as "mouthpiece of the CID". It ruled that the police verification report cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967.

Setting aside the orders by which Mufti's mother Gulshan Nazir was refused passport, Justice M A Chowdhary said the passport officer shall consider the entire matter afresh and pass orders thereon within a period of six weeks.

When A Private Entity Is Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction, Judicial Review Restricted To Public Functions: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: M/S Aisha Construction Vs JKCA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL ) 2

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in cases where a private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction, the powers of judicial review are confined to actions which have an element of public duty involved.

12 Years After Arrest, J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Constable Accused Of Murdering Wife; Says Police Prolonging Trial

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

Observing that a long period of incarceration of an accused without any hope of conclusion of trial leads to a meltdown of the the rigour of 1st Proviso to Section 437 CrPC, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a man accused of murdering his wife.

Justice Sanjay Dhar said the accused has "carved out a case for grant of bail" on account of his long incarceration for more than 12 years and on account of the fact that by the conduct of the prosecution and the police department, there is hardly any chance of conclusion of trial in near future.

Units Located In J&K Entitled For Central Excise Duty Exemption Prior To 1st July 2017 Liable To Pay GST: J&K & Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Godrej Consumer Products Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that units located in Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to central excise duty exemption prior to July 1, 2017, and are therefore liable to pay GST.

The division bench of Justice Tashi Rabsdan and Justice Mohan Lal observed that in terms of the Central Excise regime as it existed prior to July 1, 2017, the units located in Jammu & Kashmir and other states were eligible to avail exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of area-based exemption notifications.

Co-Sharer Cannot Be Restrained From Raising Construction Over Portion Of Joint Holding In His Exclusive Possession: JKL High Court

Case Title: Mst Zaiba Vs Ghulam Ahmad Zargar & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 5

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a co-sharer, who is in exclusive possession of a joint holding, cannot be restrained from raising construction on the portion of which he is in exclusive possession.

Detention Order Passed For Pleasure Of Passing It, Grounds Not A Matter Of Wordplay: High Court Censures Kashmir Divisional Commissioner

Case Title: Zahid Nabi Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a detention order under Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, observing that it seems to have been passed for the pleasure of passing an order.

Justice Rahul Bharti said that the petitioner was on bail in the case under NDPS Act, thereby he was in regular attendance before the investigating agency and in a sense under the constructive custody of law.

S.311 CrPC Meant To Ensure There Is No Failure Of Justice Due To Mistake Of Parties In Bringing Valuable Evidence On Record: JKL High Court

Case Title: Khazir Mohammad Naikoo Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Observing that the legislative intent behind Section 540 of J&K CrPC (pari materia with Section 311 of CrPC) is to ensure there is no failure of justice due to the mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record, the J&K&L High court set aside an order of the trial court in terms of which it had disallowed the petitioner to examine certain witnesses.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:

"A Court may, in its discretion, summon and examine any person as a witness who has not been summoned as a witness or recall/re-examine any person already examined and in case evidence of such person appears to the Court essential to the just decision of the case, it is the bounden duty of the Court to exercise its power under this provision".

S.143A NI Act | Magistrate Must Record Reasons For Exercising Discretionary Power To Order Interim Compensation: JKL High Court

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Chopan Vs Abdul Rehman Chopan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that power to grant interim compensation under Sec 143-A of Negotiable Instrument Act is discretionary in nature and such interim relief must be based on reason and logic.

"There can be so many other reasons for a Magistrate to grant interim compensation in favour of the complainant but these reasons have to be recorded in the order so that the validity of the order is tested by the superior court if and when such an order is challenged", the court recorded.

S.102(3) CrPC Requiring Police Officer To Forthwith Report Seizure Of Property To Magistrate Only Directory In Nature: JKL High Court

Case Title: Ruqaya Akhter Vs UT Through Crime Branch.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that since the provisions of CrPC do not provide for consequences of non-adherence to Section 102(3) it can be inferred that the said provision is not mandatory in nature even though the word “shall” has been used in the provision.

The provision stipulates that a police officer, after seizing any property, has to forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and in case it is not convenient to transport the seized property to the court, he may entrust it to any person on his executing a bond to produce the property as and when required.

Muslim Law | No Need For Husband To Physically Depart From Gifted Property To Validate His Gift For Wife: JKL High Court

Case Title: Mst Haleema & Ors Vs Mst Dilshada & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that where a husband makes a gift to the wife, either of the matrimonial home occupied by both of them or any other property belonging to him, there is no need for actual physical departure by the donor to execute the Gift.

"The reason is that the relationship of husband and wife is different from any other relationship. Joint residence is an integral aspect of this relationship and the fact that the husband manages and looks after the property of the wife is backed by an implied presumption that he does it on behalf of his wife", Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded.

Sufficient Inbuilt Remedies Available Under J&K Electricity Act To Challenge Provisional Assessment, Writ Not Maintainable: High Court

Case Title: JK Montessori School Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the J&K Electricity Act 2010 provides sufficient inbuilt appellate remedies for anyone aggrieved of provisional electricity assessment. Therefore, invoking the writ jurisdiction would not be an appropriate mechanism to challenge the same.

Observing that when the statutory and equally efficacious remedy is available the writ petition should not be entertained and the party concerned should be relegated to such alternative remedy, Justice Nargal recorded,

"I don't find it a case, which is covered by the exceptions to the general rules that in the face of alternate and efficacious remedy, the Constitutional Court would entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".

JKL High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Party Over Suppression Of Litigation History

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Deploring the conduct of the petitioner for indulging in suppression of material facts in order to secure a favourable order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000/- (one lac) on the petitioner and directed the same to be deposited in the Lawyers Welfare Fund within a period of one month.

The costs came to be imposed by a bench comprising Justices Moksha Khajuria Kazmi while hearing a plea wherein the petitioner had assailed an order dated 12.11.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam pursuant to which Tehsildar, Kulgam, had been directed to proceed on spot and evict the petitioner from the land.

Even Typographical Errors In Dossier Copied By Magistrate, No Application Of Mind: JKL High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of Alleged LeT Aide

Case Title: Javaid Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that every case in which preventive detention of any citizen of India is sought by law enforcement agencies, the same demands a very fact-sensitive and law-centric application and approach of mind.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti quashed a preventive detention order against a detenue, who was "painted and portrayed" as an aide of Lashar-e-Taiba (LeT) outfit by the detaining authority, merely one year after a previous detention order against the said detenu was quashed.

CBI Was Sufficiently Empowered To Investigate Cases In Erstwhile State of J&K In Terms Of General Consent: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Kumar Avinav Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 14

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh ruled that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enjoyed the requisite jurisdiction to investigate offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of erstwhile State of J&K in terms of the general consent given on May 7, 1958 and December 8, 1963 by the government

Permitting Executive To Review Or Sit Over Court's Decisions Would Tantamount To Interference With Judicial Functions: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Rukhsana Jabeen Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the executive is under obligation to obey judicial orders and permitting the executive to review, revise or sit over the decisions of the Court by issuing executive orders or instructions would tantamount to interference with the exercise of judicial functions.

Article 226 Petition Can Be Moved Even When Fundamental Right Is Threatened, Provided Apprehension Is Well Founded: JKL High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a petition under Article 226 can be entertained even when the fundamental right of a citizen is threatened and one need not await the actual prejudice or adverse effects for filing the same, provided his apprehension is well founded.

Can't Let Them Suffer "Rough Side Of Life": JKL High Court Grants Bail To Father Of Two Minors Booked For Murder Of Their Mother

Case Title: Sham Lal vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a man, accused of killing his wife, to take care of their two minor daughters.

Appreciating the sensitivity of the situation Justice Rahul Bharti said that it could ignore the hard fact that the two minor daughters while on the one hand had come to suffer loss of their mother for all times to come and on the other hand are suffering the absence of their father who by virtue of his detainment, is not to be assumed to be able to attend to their welfare and well being in terms of needs of their daily life.

[JKPSC Recruitment] Qualification In 'Relevant Subject' Has Wider Scope Of Eligibility Than Qualification In 'Subject Concerned': High Court

Case Title: Shahid Hameed Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that in matters of recruitment, the phrase 'qualification in relevant subject' has wider implications than the phrase 'qualification in subject concerned'.

Finding so, it permitted a post graduate degree holder in 'Applied Geology' to apply for the vacant position of 'Geology' Assistant Professor, adding that the recruitment notification issued by the J&K Public Service Commission in this case only prescribed a candidate to possess degree in 'relevant subject' and not the particular 'subject concerned'.

Pending Inquest Proceedings U/S 174 CrPC No Bar For Magistrate To Order Registration Of FIR: JKL High Court

Case Title: Rahul Kumar & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a case can be registered for investigation by lodging of FIR, on receipt of information about commission of cognizable offence without waiting for a conclusion of inquest proceedings initiated under section 174 CrPC.

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

"Merely because the inquest proceedings were pending before the police at the time when the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate (to register FIR) would not make the said order unsustainable in law".

24 Years After Forced Eviction By MoD's Badami Bagh Cantonment Board In Kashmir, High Court Awards 10 Lakh Compensation To Allottee

Case Title: P N Sharma Vs Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court awarded Rs 10 Lakh compensation to a person, who was evicted from his shop-cum-residential premise in 1998 by Ministry Of Defence's Badamibagh Cantonment Board without following the due course of law as prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971

The compensation came to be granted by Justice Sanjay Dhar while disposing of a plea in terms of which the petitioner was seeking a declaration that his eviction from the shop-cum-residential premises at Saddar Bazar, Badami Bagh Cantonment, Srinagar is illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.

No Fetters Can Be Placed On Press Freedom By Registering FIRs Against Journalists Who Report On Information Given By Identifiable Source: JKL High Court

Case Title: Asif Iqbal Naik Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Quashing an FIR against a journalist, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that no fetters can be placed on the freedom of press by registering the FIR against journalists, who perform their professional duty by publishing news items on the basis of information obtained by them from an identifiable source.

"However, they are also expected to report the coverage with responsibility without any jingoism and divisive publication or telecast," Justice MA Chowdhary said.

[PIT-NDPS Act] Threat To Public Health Ground For Detention If Authority Satisfied That Detenu Indulged In Illicit Drug Trafficking: JKL High Court

Case Title: Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because the detaining Authority among other grounds has also observed that the activities of the detenu pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act illegal.

Cross FIRs Permissible In Case Of Two Different Versions Of Parties With Regard To Same Occurrence: JKL High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that there cannot be two FIRs with regard to the same occurrence but in cases of two different versions on part of rival parties with regard to the same occurrence, registration of cross FIRs is permissible.

"It cannot be said that in the instant case, the registration of FIR on the application of the petitioner would amount to registration of second FIR regarding same offence. Rather this Court is of the considered view that the same would be a cross FIR and the registration of the same, is not impermissible under law", the bench underscored.

Accused Can't Choose Place Of Prosecution By Taking Refuge Of Unfounded Security Apprehensions: JKL High Court

Case Title: Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition filed by social activist Prof. SK Bhalla seeking transfer of a defamation complaint, filed against him by a journalist in Doda, to Jammu.

The bench of Justice M A Chowdhary said that an accused cannot be allowed to have a place of his choice to be prosecuted by taking refuge of unfounded personal security apprehensions.

'Pseudo Police Report' Filed U/S 173 CrPC Cannot Defeat Right Of Accused To Default Bail: JKL High Court

Case Title: Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a 'pseudo police report' under section 173 CrPC, even if filed within time frame of section 167 CrPC, cannot be given legal sanctity to betray the statutory/default bail right of an accused in a case.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

"This right, upon getting accrued, is given straight away on asking of the entitled accused notwithstanding the purported gravity of the accusation of offence/s against the accused under pre-trial custody".

Multiple Criminal Proceedings By Complainant Over Same Allegations Violate Accused's Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 Constitution: JKL High Court

Case Title: Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently observed that filing of multiple criminal proceedings against the same accused by an informant for the same alleged offence is prohibited in law.

"Getting an accused entangled in multiple criminal proceedings in same alleged offence would be an abuse of process of law, which cannot stand the scrutiny of the Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution," a bench comprising Justices Javed Iqbal Wani observed relying on Apex Court's decision in Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs State of Uttar Pradesh".

[S.7 Armed Forces Special Powers Act] Sanction To Prosecute Required If Action, No Matter How Illegal, Is In Discharge Of Duty: JKL High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that to prosecute an Armed Forces personnel for an alleged illegal act committed in connected with the discharge of official duty, sanction to prosecute under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act is required, no matter how illegal the act may be.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"if an act is connected with the discharge of official duty of an accused, the said act is certainly under the colour of his duty, no matter how illegal the act may be, but if the offence is committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of police officer/official, there is no requirement of previous sanction. In short, in order to attract the provisions of Section 7 of AFSP Act, it has to be shown that there is a reasonable connection between the act and performance of duty in execution of powers under the Act."

Subsequent Detention Order Not Mentioning Detenu's Previous Detention On Same Grounds And Materials Not Sustainable: JKL High Court

Case Title: Khalid Nazir Wagay Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Quashing a detention order the Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently held that using the same grounds and material for passing a subsequent detention order without actually mentioning that the detenue had already been detained on the basis of this very material, not only amounts to an illegality but also shows lack of application of mind on part of the detaining authority.

S.66 Food Safety & Standards Act | Criminal Prosecution Cannot Proceed Against Partners Without Arraigning Firm As Accused: JKL High Court

Case Title: Neeraj Shastri and another Vs State of J&K and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the existence of Section 66 in the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is a clear pointer to the fact that the criminal prosecution cannot proceed against partners without arraigning the firm as an accused.

Observing that there is no concept of vicarious liability in criminal law the court went on to clarify that Section 66 of the said Act prescribes for vicarious liability and therefore when an offence has been committed by a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.

Detaining Authority Has Exclusive Responsibility To Formulate Grounds Of Detention, Investigating Agency Can Only Give Inputs: JKL High Court

Case Title: Tawqeer Ahmad Wani Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Quashing a Preventive detention order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the Investigating agency has no role in the formulation of the grounds of detention of a detenue as the same is a prerogative of the detaining authority.

A bench comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,

"Detaining authority may get inputs from different agencies, including Superintendent of Police concerned, but responsibility to formulate grounds of detention exclusively rests with detaining authority".

No Prosecution Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Against A "Purported Manufacturer"; Must Ascertain Identity Of Actual Manufacturer: JKL High Court

Case Title: M/s Sundaram Surgicals Vs Drug Inspector Doda.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the prosecution for commission of offence under section 18 (a) (i), read with section 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 Act cannot be launched against a purported manufacturer of whom the subject drug is truly not a product.

"It is only the dealer, retailer and actual manufacturer, who can be prosecuted for sale, stock or exhibition of spurious drug," Justice Sanjay Dhar observed while hearing a plea challenging the complaint filed against the Petitioner by Drugs Inspector, Doda.

J&K&L High Court Allows Minor Rape Victim To Undergo Medical Termination Of 19-Week Pregnancy After Her Father Gives 'High Risk Consent'

Case Title: XXX(Minor) Through Her Father Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a minor rape victim to undergo medical termination of 19-week pregnancy after her father gave "extra high risk consent" as was demanded by the medical board.

The victim's father had approached the court seeking termination of pregnancy of the minor. In the rape case, an FIR was registered at a police station in north Kashmir on February 14.

O VII R 10 CPC | Can't Dismiss Suit At Threshold If Question Of Jurisdiction Is Question Of Fact Or Mixed Question Of Fact And Law: JKL High Court

Case Title: Dr Jahangir Iqbal Tantray Vs Farmeeda Akhter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the obligation to dismiss a suit at the threshold or return a plaint for want of jurisdiction arises only when it is a pure issue of law. The issue of jurisdiction, depending on question of fact or mixed question of law and fact, must be decided on merits, it clarified.

Abraded Lesions On Hand After Tattoo Removal Does Not Make Candidate Unfit For CAPF Unless It Has Potential To Interfere With Working: JKL High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which do not have any potentiality to interfere with the working of a Constable, cannot be made ground to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF.

[Anganwadi Workers] Acquisition Of Higher Qualification At A Later Date Not Determinative For Fixing Seniority: JKL High Court

Case Title: Ms Syeda Nazir Vs State of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Govt of J&K to fix the seniority of Anganwadi workers from their initial engagement reiterating that the acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification is the requisite qualification for the higher post, will not be determinative for fixing the seniority.

"However for the purpose of computing the experience with a particular qualification, the relevant date would be when the relevant qualification has been acquired. Previous experience without particular qualification will have to be ignored," it clarified.

Proceedings Under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act Not Bar To Initiating Criminal Action, Lodging FIR U/S 498A IPC: JKL High Court

Case Title: Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because proceedings have been initiated by a wife against her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), no bar can be construed against lodging a first information report (FIR) for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Attacks On Politicians Who Do Not Subscribe To Separatists Ideology Still Prevalent In Kashmir Valley: High Court

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Khan V/s State of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

Observing that the incidents of attacks on main-stream politicians and the people who do not subscribe to the separatists ideology are still taking place in Kashmir Valley, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed an application filed by former health minister Shabir Ahmed Khan seeking transfer of criminal proceedings against him from a court in Srinagar to a Jammu court.

JKL High Court Raps Medical Officer For Issuing Disability Certificates To Motor Accident Victims For 'Extraneous Considerations', Orders Inquiry

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ghulam Qadir & anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court censured a medical Officer for conducting grave professional misconduct by issuing number of Permanent Disability Certificates, though being not competent to issue such certificates, and help beneficiaries to get hefty amount of compensation from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals from time to time without there being any such disability, thereby causing wrongful loss to the insurance companies.

Before Resorting To OV R15 CPC, Must Show Defendant's Absent From Residence & No Likelihood Of Being Found: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Dr Kiran Bala Vs Dr Ashwini Kumar Singh Jasrotia.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that before resorting to provisions contained in Order V Rule 15 (Issuance of Summons) of the CPC, it has to be shown that the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of the summons is sought to be effected and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"It has also to be shown that the defendant has no agent empowered to accept the service of the summons on his behalf. Only when the conducts above are fulfilled, O V, R15 can be taken recourse to".

Cannot Rescue Litigant Filing "Cryptic" Delay Condonation Application Without Giving Proper Account Of Dates: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Pooja Devi & Ors Vs Tarseem Lal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a ‘cryptic’ delay condonation application for not giving proper account of dates.

A bench comprising Justice MA Chowdhary observed,

"Courts cannot come to aid and rescue of litigant where application for condonation does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of petitioners, in making such application in casual and cryptic manner".

13-Yr-Old Electrocuted, Dies: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Invokes Absolute Liability, Grants ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Mother

Case Title: Radha Sharma Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

Invoking the principle of absolute liability, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday granted Rs. 10 Lakh compensation to the mother of a 13 year old who died due to electrocution.

A bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the rule of absolute liability does not obligate the claimant to prove negligence. Rather, on account of hazardous and dangerous nature of enterprise, the liability is fastened on the defaulter even when due and necessary care has been taken.

Stone Crusher Industry Plays Pivotal Role In Country's Development, Govt Policy Has Liberalized Mining Regime: J&K And Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Inhabitants of Sheva Shirshu Doda Vs UT of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

Terming the Standing Order issued by J&K Govt in 2021 for regulation of the stone crushing units in the UT as a valid piece of legislation, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that it has in a way liberalized the establishment of stone crusher units.

The bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed:

"The growth of the country and infrastructural development, the stone crusher industry plays a pivotal role and without operating the same, the development of the country will come to a standstill".

Creation Of Special Authority No Reason To Condone Delay, Party Must Offer Explanation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner condoning at least 15 years delay by certain persons in seeking compensation under Employees Compensation Act on behalf of their relatives, on the solitary premise that it is a creation of special legislation.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed,

"Creation of an Authority under special legislation cannot be a reason, much less sufficient, to condone the delay and as already explained, it is the applicant who is obliged to explain the delay and not the Authority or the Court, as the case may be, to make out a case for condonation of delay."

Cause Of Action Cannot Be Generated By Repeated Representations, Right To Claim Must Be Established: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Jammu Development Authority Vs Jag Mohan Wazir & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that ‘cause of action’ cannot be generated by making repeated representations and serving legal notices to the concerned authorities as every fact is required to be proved in order to support the right being claimed before the court.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Rape FIR, Says Proposal For Live-In To Ascertain How Relationship Will Work Out Not False Promise To Marry

Case Title: Syed Shahid Hamdani Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 (JKL) 45

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a rape FIR, observing that a proposal made by the accused to prosecutrix for live-In relationship, so as to ascertain how their relationship will work, does not tantamount to false promise to marry.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"He proposed to have live-in-relationship with her, meaning thereby that at the initial stage the petitioner had not indicated his intention to marry the prosecutrix but he only wanted to ascertain as to how their relationship will work out, whereafter he was to make up his mind as to whether or not he would enter into wedlock with the prosecutrix. This goes on to show that there was no promise of marriage from the petitioner at the time of initiation of their relationship".

Party Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree Not Required To Explain Its Absence During Trial: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs Shameema & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the seeker of condonation of delay is not required to explain the period of his absence during the trial, what is required is explanation for period of delay which runs as per the Limitation Act.

Pointing out the perversity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court the bench further added that law provides that delay is to be explained for the period beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the limitation in this case would run from the date of passing of the decree and not from any date prior to passing of the same.

Article 22(5) | Representation Made On Behalf Of Detenu Should Be Considered & Disposed With A Sense Of Urgency: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Arif Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

Quashing a Preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently observed that the words "As soon as may be‟, in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Order For Probe Against J&K SSB, Matter To Be Decided Afresh

Case Title: J&K Service Selection Board Vs Vinkal Sharma.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Setting aside the order of Single bench in terms of which it had ordered a probe into conduct of J&K Service Selection Board after the recruitment body was alleged to have appointed a 'Blacklisted' agency for conducting exam, the Division bench of J&K&L High Court remitted the matter back to the Single Judge with a request to decide the matter afresh.

A bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan and MA Chowdhary observed,

"We are of the view that the Writ Court had no jurisdiction to finally dispose of the petition without first issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the opposite side for filing reply on merits of the case"

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Accepts Unconditional Apology From Sr AAG, DM Anantnag

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs District Magistrate Anantnag & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Observing that the apology tendered by Senior Additional Advocate General Abdul Rashid Malik and District Magistrate Anantnag is accompanied with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance and is not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court accepted their unconditional apology.

Accepting the apology, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"Apology cannot be accepted, in case it is hollow; there is no remorse, no regret, no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigor of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as a “paper apology”.

When Issuing Authority Verifies Experience Certificate, Counter-Signing Authority's Denial Won't Lead To Termination Sans Enquiry: Jammu & Kashmir HC

Case Title: Rokade Santosh Sandashiv & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere denial of counter signature on a certificate in absence of proper enquiry or finding does not warrant major punishment of termination of service, which becomes punitive in nature particularly when the order of termination is not simpliciter but the stigma is attached to the same.

The bar of proving forgery is high and must be supported by sufficient evidence and in absence of any detailed enquiry conducted in this regard, it cannot be assumed that the documents has been forged by the petitioner No.1", the bench explained.

When Company Is An Offender, No Vicarious Liability Can Be Attached To Its Officers Unless Statute Specifically Provides So: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Reema Arora & Ors Vs Law Enforce Inspector (Fertilizer)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a criminal complaint filed under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the directors of a company on the ground that the complaint nowhere spells out as to how and in what manner the petitioners/accused were incharge of or were responsible to the accused company.

"The legal intendment is clear that when the company is an offender, vicarious liability of its directors can be imputed in terms of the provisions of a statue, making it a deeming fiction....There is no provision in the Penal Code to attach vicarious liability on Managing Director or Directors or employees of a Company.", the bench said.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comes To Aid Of Below Poverty Line Woman "Duped" Of Employment By Govt Officials To Oblige Sarpanch

Case Title: Rajana Devi Vs State of J&K &Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the perversity of an action or decision by a public authority/official, acting in the domain of public administration, irrespective of the tier of the administration, has no hiding from the pendular gaze of the Rule of Law which may for a given case get late but not defaults in catching up with the wrong deed and wrongdoer masquerading in the domain of the public administration.

S.7 Migrant Immovable Property Act Requiring Surrender Of Property To Prefer Appeal Against Eviction In Tune With Peculiar Conditions Of J&K: High Court

Case Title: Abdul Khaliq Rather Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the condition to surrender the property for preferring an appeal under Section 7 of the Migrant Immovable Property Act 1997 against eviction order, was necessitated by the peculiar situation prevailing in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

The bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal & Mohan Lal observed,

"This provision was incorporated in view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) because of migration from the then State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) and more particularly from the Kashmir Valley".

Compulsory Risks In Insurance Automatically Transferred To Transferee Of Vehicle Even When Certificate Of Insurance Not Transferred: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Anita Devi and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that whoever may be the actual owner of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, compulsory risks covered under the policy of insurance get automatically transferred to the transferee of a vehicle even though certificate of insurance has not been transferred in his favour.

No Absolute Bar On Citizens To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction In Contractual Matters With State: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mukhtar Ahmad Andrabi Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in matters of contractual dispute with the State and its instrumentalities there is no absolute bar to exercise the writ jurisdiction and the High Court should take a holistic view and make a determination as to whether it would be proper to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

"There has been paradigm shift in the approach of the Courts in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction in the matters of contractual disputes with State and its authorities. The law regarding the exercise of judicial review in contractual matters with State or its instrumentalities has definitely evolved over the years and the ordinary citizens can, in appropriate cases, approach the High Courts for exercise of Writ Jurisdiction."

Insurance Company Not Liable To Unauthorised Passengers Traveling In Offending Vehicle, Pay & Recover Principle Not Applicable: J&K High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Co. ltd.Vs Mursa Begum and ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that once it is shown that deceased/injured persons were traveling as unauthorised passengers in an offending vehicle and their risk is not covered under the terms insurance policy, the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability to compensate them and even the principle of 'Pay and Recover' will not be attracted.

Facilitating Question Paper Leak In Competitive Exam More Heinous Than Murder: Jammu & Kashmir HC Refuses Bail To BSF Officer In SI-Recruitment Scam

Case Title: Karnail Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court rejected the bail application of a BSF officer, alleged to be the main accused in the J&K Service Selection Board Police sub-inspector recruitment scam case observing that grant of bail in economic offences which affect a larger section of the society on the mere fact that the offence with which an accused is charged does not carry a very severe punishment does not by itself create a ground to enlarge the accused on bail.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, while rejecting the bail application of the accused, a Border Security Force (BSF) Commandant (Medical), observed,

"A person, who indulges in facilitating leakage and sale of question papers relating to competitive examinations, plays with the career and future of thousands of young aspirants. Such an act is more heinous than an offence of murder because by killing a person only one family gets affected but by ruining the career of thousands of aspirants, whole society is adversely impacted".

Once Magistrate Seeks Preliminary Report On Allegations Made In Application U/S 156(3) CrPC, Police Cannot Straightaway Lodge FIR: Jammu & Kashmir HC

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that when a Magistrate directs a preliminary enquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC and the police without reporting back to the Magistrate straightway goes on to file an FIR without any direction thereto, the same amounts to usurpation of the powers of the Magistrate.

Revisional Powers U/S 102 Juvenile Justice Act Vested With High Court, Cannot Be Exercised By Sessions Court/ Children’s Court: Jammu & Kashmir HC

Case Title: Master X th. Shah Wali Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made it clear that a Sessions Court or a Children’s Court cannot entertain a revision petition against the order of Juvenile Justice Board.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the power of revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act is vested with the High alone. "No such power is vested with the Court of Sessions or Children’s Court," the bench remarked.

S.25F ID Act Not Complied: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Says Acceptance Of Compensation Won't Estop Workmen From Challenging Retrenchment

Case Title: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Anr Vs Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in cases where there is a failure on the part of an employer to abide by the prescription of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the application of doctrine of Estoppel cannot lie against the employee who accepted compensation, while challenging his retrenchment order.

A bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Mohan Lal observed,

"From the records, it is established that the retrenchment amount was paid to the Respondents in utter disregard of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and, therefore, once the employer has not followed the statutory obligation, then the acceptance of the retrenchment amount would not to be an estoppel for the workmen to challenge the order of retrenchment...If the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, then the act must be done in that manner only. Once an act prescribed under any Statute is not done in accordance with the conditions prescribed for its performance, then the doer of the said act cannot derive any benefit of that Act."

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Permits Minor Rape Victim To Medically Terminate 30 Weeks Old Pregnancy

Case Title: Ms. X (MINOR) Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed the medical termination of a 30 week unwanted foetus, observing that while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Constitutional Court has got wider powers than what is prescribed under Section 3(2) of the MTP Act of 1971.

No Distinction Between Retired & Inservice Employees For Prosecution Under Jammu & Kashmir Prevention Of Corruption Act: High Court

Case Title: Bopinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made it clear that even retired employees of a Public Corporation can be be prosecuted under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, if the circumstances so warrant.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that Section2(2)(c) of the Act, which defines 'Public Servant', is wide enough to include inservice as well as retired officer/servants/ member of the Corporation.

Can't Direct Govt To Enforce Strict Prohibition On Liquor, Directive Principles Not Enforceable: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Dar Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Observing that Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus for enforcing the directive principles of State policy, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court closed a petition seeking closure of liquor shops and establishments in the UT, besides seeking rehabilitation of those engaged in this business.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta was hearing a plea seeking recall of the order passed by the division bench of the court on October, 27, 2015, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which was filed by Karwani Islami Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1998, seeking direction to the erstwhile State of J&K, to take necessary steps for prohibition of sale and consumption of liquor in the erstwhile State of J&K.

Order XLVII CPC | Erroneous View Of Law Not A Ground For Review: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mst Haleema & Ors Vs Mst Dilshada & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that an erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and a court cannot rehear and correct an erroneous judgment by way of a review.

"I am afraid the scope of review cannot be extended to re-appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before the trial court nor can this Court, in exercise of its power of review, sit over its own judgment regarding interpretation of a document," Justice Dhar explained.

General Allegations Of Insult Without Demonstrating Provocation To Breach Public Peace Won't Attract S.504 IPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Jia Lal Vs UT of J&K & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of section 504 IPC ( Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), rather insulting should be of such a nature as would give provocation to the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in order to attract the offence.

MV Act | Insurer Cannot Escape Liability On Premise That Legal Heirs Of DCase Title: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Om Prakash.

Case Title: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Om Prakash.

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the insurer cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the ground that the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not made parties to the claim petitions

Object Of Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Is Enforcement, Not Establishment Of Right/ Title, Can't Decide Disputed Facts: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Declining to display indulgence and exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the object of jurisdiction under Article 226 is the enforcement and not the establishment of right or title and hence a disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Civil Service Rules | Failure To Produce Chargesheet Within 3 Months Does Not Automatically Vitiate Employee's Suspension: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Munshi Masood

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

Setting aside an order of Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar, in terms of which it had quashed the suspension of an employee on the ground of his prolonged suspension, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that failure to produce a challan/charge sheet within a period of three months does not automatically vitiate the suspension.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed,

"It is true ordinarily whenever a Government servant is placed under suspension on a criminal charge, endeavour should be made to produce the charge sheet before the competent court of law within a period of three months. The failure to produce a challan/charge sheet within a period of three months does not automatically vitiate the suspension".

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Imposes ₹1L Cost On CWC And JJB Members For "Forum Shopping" Regarding Their Re-Appointments

Case Title: Dr. Khair-Un-Nisa and others Shalini Sharma and others Vs UT of J&K & others.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition to quash and set aside an advertisement notification for selections to constitute Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Welfare) Act, 2015.

"The re-agitation of the issue may or may not be barred by the principle of “res judicata” but the same may, in the given circumstances, tantamount to an abuse of process of Court", the court said.

Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offences Without Magistrate's Permission Can't Be Regularised By Subsequently Adding Cognizable Offences: J&K High Court

Case Title: Nikunj Sharma Vs State of J&K and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(JKL) 70

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that once an FIR is registered for non-cognizable offences, the inclusion of a cognizable offence at a later stage of the investigation could not be used to circumvent the law.

Inadvertence To Produce Document Not Substantial Cause To Invoke Order XLI Rule 27 CPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Maqbool Regu and ors Vs Hilal Ahmad & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 71

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that inadvertence on the part of a party to produce a document before the Court cannot be construed as a substantial cause within the meaning of Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) to allow application for production of additional documents.

"Mere fact that certain evidence is important per se is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal," Justice Javed Iqbal Wani remarked