Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: July 2022 [Citations 52 – 85]

Shabir Ahmad Yatoo. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

Anita Mehta VS Gulkand Hues Private Ltd., & another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

UT of J&K and others VS Mohammad Latief Magrey & another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

Taja Begum & Ors Vs UT of J&k 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Sunny Gupta v Union Territory of J&K and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Eapen Chakoo Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

Vessu Welfare Committee and ors. v Relief & Rehabilitation Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Amit Kumar Gupta v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through SHO PS Mendhar 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Hanifa Deva and Others & Arshad Hussain and Others v Director SKIMS 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

Peerzada Rafiq Maqdoomi Vs. Union Territory of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Ishfaq Ahmad Khan v. State of J&K & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 67

Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

Faizan Amin and another V/s UOI and another 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 69

Mohammad Yousaf vs Union Territory of J&K and other 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 70

Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71

Zubair Ahmad Wani Vs. Government Of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 72

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 73

Waiz-ul-Islam Vs Union Territory of J&K through NIA Jammu 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 74

Sanjeev Kumar vs Union of India. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75

Ghulam Mohammad Naikoo vs Abdul Qayoom Wani 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 76

State of J&K through P/S Bandipora Vs Hilal Ahmad Parray. 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 77

Raisa Banoo vs Mst. Shameema & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 78

Zubair Ahmad Teli Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 79

Muzamil Butt Vs State Of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

Rouf Majid Naqash Vs SHO P/S Womens Wing 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

Ghulam Hassan Khanyari Vs Reyaz Ahmad Bhat& Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 82

Vakil Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K. 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

Sonam Dolma Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2022 (JKL) 84

Meenakshi Chohan &Ors Vs Jammu Muncipal Corp & ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 85

Judgements/Orders

"Right To Property Is Basic Human Right": J&K&L High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Penalty On Govt. For "Forcibly" Taking Over Private Land

Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Tatoo Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

The division bench of J&k&L High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held "It is well recognized that Right to Property is a basic human right which is akin to a fundamental right as guaranteed by Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and that no one can be deprived of his property other than by following procedure prescribe in law."

Non-Filing Of Application U/S 8 Arbitration Act Before Civil Court Does Not Debar Party From Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator: J&K&L High Court

CaseTitle: Anita Mehta vs Gulkand Hues &Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that non-filing of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not mean that the petitioner has surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court and left the right to get the disputes resolved through arbitration so as to debar the petitioner for seeking appointment of an arbitrator through the intervention of the Court.

Hyderpora Encounter: J&K&L High Court Allows Amir Magrey's Family To Perform Fatiha Khawani At His Grave, Upholds ₹5 Lakh Compensation For Kin

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Mohammad Latief Magrey &Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today directed the UT administration to allow the family of Amir Magrey, the fourth person killed in Hyderpora Encounter, to perform Fatiha Khawani (religious rituals/prayers after burial) at his grave.

The bench observed "the said right of burial and performance of last religious rituals of deceased available to the family members could not have been denied."

Presumption Of Innocence U/S 3(i) Juvenile Justice Act Not Applicable To Adult Co-Accused': J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Taja Begum & Ors Vs UT of J&k

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made it clear that the presumption of innocence in favour of a juvenile under Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be applied to the adult co-accused in a crime.

The bench of Justice Dhar rejected the contention raised by the Petitioners herein (co-accused with the juvenile) that since the main accused, being a juvenile, is to be presumed free of any malafide intent, the petitioners cannot be roped in by invoking the provisions contained in Section 34 of the IPC.

Judges Must Refrain From Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties Unless Absolutely Necessary For Deciding Case: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Sunny Gupta v Union Territory of J&K and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Justice Mohan Lal of J&k&L High Court ruled that Judges hold a "powerful seat" which must not be misused by indulging in intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism. "It is the general principle of highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks are not to be made against persons unless absolutely necessary for decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct."

Merely Because S.482 CrPC Does Not Prescribe Limitation Period Does Not Mean Parties Can Approach Court With Inordinate Delay: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Eapen Chakoo Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

J&K&L High Court held held that a party cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided.

A petition under Section 482 of the CrPC must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.

J&K&L High Court Directs Immediate Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants Of Newly Constructed Quarters

Case Title: Vessu Welfare Committee and ors. v Relief & Rehabilitation Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

The bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that "Such lawlessness, if permitted by Courts, will lead to chaos in the society which, in turn, would put the rule of law in peril. It is, thus necessary for the police power of the State to come heavily on those for whom the breach of law is like playing with a toy. They think that they will commit the offence of criminal trespass and get away with it by coining excuses like the poor conditions of their prefab accommodation.

Person Who Is Absconding And Evading Execution Of A Warrant Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Amit Kumar Gupta v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through SHO PS Mendhar

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that a person against whom a warrant who is absconding and evading the execution of a warrant, is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. The Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed thus while denying pre-arrest bail to one Amit Kumar Gupta who has been booked for offences punishable under Section 304/34 IPC.

Classification Based On 'Educational Qualification' For Promotion Not Violative Of Article 14&16 Of Constitution: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Hanifa Deva and Others & Arshad Hussain and Others v Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar held that the prescription of higher qualification for promotion to a superior post from a subordinate one is essentially for efficient discharge of duties of the said higher post and as a result, nothing prevents an employer to prescribe higher technical qualification for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post.

Further Investigation U/S 173(8) CrPC Not Ground To Seek Default Bail If Charge Sheet Filed Is Sufficient To Take Cognizance: J&K&L High Court

Case Title : Peerzada Rafiq Maqdoomi Vs. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today held that the test to be applied while considering a plea for default bail in terms of Section 167(2) CrPC, in a case where charge sheet is laid with a stipulation that further investigation is to be conducted in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC, is that whether affirmative action of taking cognizance and consideration of charge / discharge can be taken, on the basis of the charge sheet laid.

Repeated Sexual Activity With 9 Yr Old Child Not Possible Sans Any Injury In Vaginal/ Genital Area: JKL HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Case Title: Ishfaq Ahmad Khan v. State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

A bench comprising Justice M A chaudhary observed repeated sexual activity on a 9 year old child is not possible without any injury in the vaginal /genital area.

The Court also noted that though accused could be held guilty for the commission of offence of rape based on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, howeever the same must inspire confidence and should appear to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.

Offences Alleged Against A Person Must Fall Within Realm Of Disturbing "Public Order" To Warrant Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

A single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that a detention order passed by a competent authority under Sec 8(1) of J&K Public Safety Act on the ground of disturbance of law & order situation is not sustainable in law as the said provision clearly prescribes "prejudicial to Public order" as a ground to issue detention orders.

The bench further observed that a person may be detained under preventive detention laws provided the case falls within the parameters of law laid down under the Act and the perusal of detention order reveals that in all the FIRs, the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the commiss ion of offences those do not fall within the realm of "public order" as defined by section 8(3) of the Act.

Employment Conditions Can't Take Away Employees' Right To Seek Judicial Review Of Employer's Actions: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

The court held that the right to seek judicial review is a vital right conferred by the Constitution and any terms and conditions of employment, which restrain a person to seek legal remedies for enforcement of his rights, are null and void. employer cannot impose such conditions of employment which have the effect of taking away the right of its employees to seek judicial review of the actions of the employer, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar underscored.

Pre-Condition Of Filing Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Not Fulfilled When Statutory Notice Of Demand Sent On Wrong Address: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 65

A bench of Sanjay Dhar ruled The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an inference of having received the statutory notice of demand by a drawer of a cheque as mandated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can be raised only if the notice has been dispatched to his correct address. Such an inference cannot be drawn if the notice has been sent on the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque, the court observed.

Sanction For Prosecuting Public Servant Under PC Act Is Denied, Prosecuting Agency Can't File Challan Under Other Penal Laws On Same Facts: J&K&L HC

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once the Central Vigilance Commission after examining the material on record reaches a conclusion that no criminal offence is made out against the accused public servant and the said opinion is accepted by the competent authority, it is not open to the investigating agency to file a challan on the same set of facts against the accused public servant by dropping the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and confining the challan only to the offences under other penal provisions.

Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Not Automatically Applicable To Restrict Words Used In Statute If Legislative Intent Is Clear: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability, Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded.

High Court Directs NIT Srinagar To Pay Rs 5 Lacs Compensation Over Unjustifiable Delay In Appointing Candidates Selected As Jr. Engineers

Case Title: Faizan Amin and another V/s UOI and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

The bench comprsing Justice Sanjeev Kumar took a strong note of the mushrooming growth in frivolous litigations and said: "To serve the cause of justice and to keep the stream of justice unsullied, it is imperative for the Courts to act tough and discourage the tendency of some litigants to misuse the process of law."

The court further observed: "Time has come to stay firm on frivolous litigation lest it will prevent the Courts from taking up good causes involving adjudication of vital constitutional and other statutory rights of the citizens. It would be no exaggeration to say that a major portion of Court time is wasted in hearing and weeding out frivolous litigation.

Courts Can't Expand Scope Of Qualification Prescribed By Employer By Reading Into It A Higher Qualification: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

A division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chaudhary ruled that a person, to be eligible for a post, must possess the qualification prescribed for the post and it is not within the province of the Courts of law to read the higher qualification into the qualification prescribed in the rules or the advertisement as essential qualification.

J&K&L High Court Orders Probe By Anti-Corruption Bureau Into Leakage Of PSA Detention Order Even Before Its Execution

Case Title: Mohammad Yousaf vs Union Territory of J&K and other

Citation: 2022LiveLaw (JKL) 70

A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed The court further observed that it is at a loss as to understand how the order of detention landed in the hands of the petitioner or his brother without there being any execution of the said detention order. In view of the gravity of the act, the Court directed the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Union Territory of J&K to enquire the issue with regard to the connivance of the officials of the respondents with regard to fact as to how these documents landed with the detenu or his brother without execution of the detention order.

In Absence Of Criteria To Break A Tie, Selection Committee May Adopt Its Own Yardstick In Consonance With Article 14: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in cases of recruitment or drawing of seniority lists where there is neither any statutor y prescription, nor any executive instructions laying down any criteria or guidelines to be followed to break the tie, the only course that is left with a Court adjudicating such matter is to look to the fairness and rationality of the selection process as also the criteria that ought to have been possibly applied to break the tie.

The bench also observed that preferring a candidate having better merit in the academics but not being older in age cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be unfair, irrational or arbitrary.

Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable By Person Already Enlarged On Bail As He Is Under Constructive Custody: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Zubair Ahmad Wani Vs. Government Of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 72

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that a person released on bail is already construed to be the in constructive custody and if the law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, the application for anticipatory bail will not lie. There cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive of the law.

Dismissing the bail application the bench observed bench observed that the proper course for the petitioner was to surrender before the Sessions Court and apply for grant of regular bail because he had already been arrested and pursuant to grant of interim regular bail, he was in constructive custody of the law.

Simultaneous Prosecution Of Accused U/S 420 IPC & S.138 NI Act On Same Set Of Facts Not "Double Jeopardy": J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 73

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the test to ascertain and uphold the fundamental right against "double jeopardy", which isguaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, is that whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other and not that the facts relied on by the prosecution are the same in the two trials.

Pulwama Terror Attack: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Accused' Appeal Claiming 'Plea Of Juvenility'

Case Title: Waiz-ul-Islam Vs Union Territory of J&K through NIA Jammu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 74

The division bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Mohan Lal observed that if an offence is constituted of several acts and when the accused is major at a time when subsequent act is committed forming part of an offence, he c annot claim to be juvenile. Thus, this court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant was more than 18 years of age and was not juvenile at time of commission of offence.

Temporary Employees Also Protected Under Article 311 Of Constitution, Cannot Be Terminated Without Conducting Proper Enquiry: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India

Citatition: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today ruled that a temporary employee also stands protected under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and cannot be terminated without conducting proper enquiry.

Observing that this court is within its powers to go beyond the orders the court held that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order.

Breach Of Contract | Dishonest Intention U/S 420 IPC Has To Be From Inception Of Transaction, Subsequent Conduct Not Sole Test: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Ahmad Naikoo vs Abdul Qayoom Wani.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 76

A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held a distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating and it depends upon the intention of the accused at time of inducement while the subsequent conduct is not the sole test.

The bench observed in order to commit an act of deception of fraud, which is gist of the offence under Section 420 of the RPC, the complainant must have been dishonestly inducted to deliver the property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true, which is false and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false. This intention of deception or fraud must be existent at the time of commission of the offence, the bench underscored.

UAPA | Only Special Court/Session Court Empowered To Decide Bail Applications, Judicial Magistrate Has No Jurisdiction: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: State of J&K through P/S Bandipora Vs Hilal Ahmad Parray

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 77

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that only the Special Court or in the absence of a Special Court, a Sessions Court exercising powers of a Special Court, can entertain and grant/refuse bail to a person accused of an offence under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevent Prevention Act. It further observed that a Judicial Magistrate has neither the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the said Act nor he is vested wit with jurisdiction to try such offences or grant/refuse bail.

Sec 22 of the NIA Act is clear that the State Government has power to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for trial of offences and sub-section (3) of Section 22 takes care of a situation by prescribing that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government, such powers be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed, the bench recorded.

Suits Against Govt | Refusal Of Interim Relief After Grant Of Leave To File Suit Without Notice U/S 80 CPC Does Not Require Return Of Plaint: J&K&L High Court.

Case Title: Raisa Banoo vs Mst. Shameema & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 78

A bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul held that in case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave to file suit without issuing notice has been granted to the plaintiff under Section 80(3) of Civil Procedure Code, that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction.

"So, refusal to grant relief or to grant relief is to be considered at the stage when suit is sought to be filed without issuance of notice as required under Section 80 of CPC. The plaint would be returned in case, at that stage, the Court finds that there is no urgency in the suit or in passing an urgent relief. In case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave has been granted to the plaintiff that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction" the bench recorded.

JJ Act | Enquiry U/S 15 By Juvenile Justice Board Not Mandatory Before Consideration & Grant Of Bail U/S 12: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Zubair Ahmad Teli Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 79

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by JJ Board while considering a bail plea under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, as that was never intended by the legislature.

A bench comprising Justice MA Chaudhary observed: "The primary assessment of a child in conflict with law is for further purpose of trial i.e., as to whether he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the Children's Court. It will not curtail the power of the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the application filed under Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015"

Freedom Of Speech & Expression Does Not Permit A Person To Question The Status Of A Part Of The Country Or Its People: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Muzamil Butt Vs State Of J&K.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 80

A bench of Justice Snajay Dhar observed he freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow a person to question the status of a part of the Country or its people. It is one thing to criticize the Government for its negligence and express outrage on the violation of human rights of the people but it is quite another to advocate that the people of a particular part of the Country are slaves of the Government of India or that they are under occupation of armed forces of the Country."

Pending Matrimonial Litigation Between Parties In UAE Not Ground To Quash Cruelty FIR Against Husband In Srinagar: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Rouf Majid Naqash Vs SHO P/S Womens Wing

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court ruled that the proceedings for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights are of civil nature whereas the purpose of lodging of an FIR is to set the criminal law into motion, which is aimed at punishing the erring husband for his acts of cruelty. Therefore, merely because matrimonial litigation between the parties is going on at Sharjah would not be a ground to quash the impugned FIR," Justice Sanjay Dhar observed.

Order 6 Rule 4 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Effect An Amendment In Written Statement: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Khanyari Vs Reyaz Ahmad Bhat& Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 82

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently ruled that an application filed under the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code has tto be specific in exemplifying the details about allegations of misrepresentation, fraud or wilful default and this provision cannot be enlarged to effect an amendment.

Charge-Sheet Even In The State Of Its Photostat Copies Cannot Be Termed As 'Incomplete' For Grant Of Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Case Title : Vakil Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

The Division bench of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court held that a charge-sheet even in the form of its photostat copies when placed on record cannot be termed as incomplete charge-sheet for grant of default bail, for the reason that the original documents can be brought on record with the permission of the court and otherwise also their admissibility can be challenged during recording of evidence.

No Recovery Can Be Made From Pension If Employee's Promotion Was Not Based On Any Misrepresentation: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Sonam Dolma Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 84

A division bench of J&K&L High Court ruled that in absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner with regard to factum of seeking her promotion, no recovery, whatsoever, can be made from her retirement benefit or for that matter her promotion cannot be withdrawn.

The bench of Justices Tashi Rabstan & Waseem Sadiq Nargal also observed bench observed that the pensioners are on a better footing than the in-service employees and such pensioners can seek a direction that wrong payment should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in service employees, any attempt to recover an excesss wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them.

Right To Property May No More Be A Fundamental Right, But Its Sanctity As Human Right Is Still Intact: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Meenakshi Chohan & Ors Vs Jammu Muncipal Corp & ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 85

The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human rig right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived f his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.