Judicial Review Can Be Resorted To When Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Alleged To Be "Tailor-Made" To Suit Certain Participants: J&K High CourtCase Title: M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1Underlining that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide or procedural irregularities...
Judicial Review Can Be Resorted To When Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Alleged To Be "Tailor-Made" To Suit Certain Participants: J&K High Court
Case Title: M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1
Underlining that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide or procedural irregularities the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that Court can show its indulgence in tender matters, particularly when the terms of an invitation to tender are alleged to be "tailor-made" to suit certain participants.
“.. it is made clear that the scope of judicial review is very limited and is available in cases, where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process”, observed Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.
Case Title: M/S SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTUTVIKLING AS (“SPAS") Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 2
Taking suo motu cognizance of misquotations of its 2010 judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the prominent law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.
Noting misquotations made by the law firm in a legal notice concerning a hydroelectric project, Sawalkote Hydroelectric Power Project (HEP) Justice Rahul Bharti ordered,
“...this Court suo-moto takes cognizance of the contents of the said legal notice issued by Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi for the sake of proceeding against it for the contempt of Court, for which purpose a notice is directed to be issued to Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi to appear and explain its position in the context of legal notice dated 18.04.2022 issued by it to Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), NHPC Ltd on behalf of Sawalkote Consortium”
Piece-Rate Workers Not Entitled To Pension Benefits Granted To Regular Staff: J&K High Court
Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 3
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed petitions seeking pensionary benefits filed by former piece-rate workers of J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court distinguished between piece-rate workers and regular employees, and held that workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.
Case Title: Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4
Underscoring the necessity of the existence of "proceeds of crime" for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in the absence of such proceeds, no money-laundering offence could arise.
Quashing complaints filed under the PMLA in an alleged 250 crore scam Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as the admitted facts noticed in the preceding paras, the alleged offence manifestly has not resulted in any “proceed of crime” in favour of the petitioners herein. A-fortiori, it cannot be said that the petitioners have indulged in any activity connected with the “proceeds of crime” for unless there are “proceeds of crime”, there cannot be any activity about the “proceeds of crime”.
Case Title: Syed Tajamul Bashir Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 5
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sought an explanation from a judicial officer and an advocate involved in a Lok Adalat settlement after it took note of allegations of forgery and improper conduct in the recording of a settlement.
While setting aside the award passed by the forum Justice Sanjay Dhar ordered,
“.. it is directed that an explanation shall be called by the Registrar General from the concerned Judicial Officer and the Advocate who were members of the Lok Adalat for explaining their conduct. The response shall be placed before this Court for further directions”.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6
Stressing that bail should not ordinarily be granted in heinous offences like rape or murder once the trial begins, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused bail to the accused in a case of rape and abetment to suicide. Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that courts should refrain from granting bail just after framing charges or before the victim is examined, especially in sensitive cases.
Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7
Reaffirming the principle that no appeal lies against a compromise decree the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court court emphasised that a party seeking to avoid such a decree must challenge it before the court that issued it, proving the invalidity of the underlying agreement.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 8
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing opportunity to the appellants to correct the irregularity.
Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that procedural delays in informing the Designated Authority about seizures under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) do not render the proceedings invalid.
“The information though required to be communicated within 48 hours of the seizure, the delay, if any, caused will not by itself be fatal. The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law”, the court comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta explained.
Case Title:Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10
Highlighting the principles of law governing the framing of charges in criminal cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges, the material to be evaluated by the court is limited to what the prosecution has produced and relied upon.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11
Upholding a writ court judgment directing the Power Development department (PDD) to pay Rs. 20 lakh as compensation to a young electrocution victim the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the policy of granting ex-gratia relief cannot preclude courts from awarding appropriate compensation to victims of electrocution.
Case Title: Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12
Quashing multiple complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 citing failure to adhere to mandatory conditions laid down in the Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Section 138 of the Act being penal in nature, indisputably, warrants strict construction, hence making compliance with its proviso clauses (a), (b), and (c) essential before initiating prosecution.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh disposed of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the security arrangements at judicial complexes across the Union Territories.
Acknowledging the extensive measures undertaken to fortify the security infrastructure in both High Court and District Court premises, the bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri noted that substantial progress had been made in ensuring a safer environment for judicial officers, advocates, litigants, and visitors.
Case Title: Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the conviction of a former police constable under Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), emphasizing that a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA must be of sterling value and corroborated before it can be relied upon.
Shedding light on the mandate of Sec 32 of POTA Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed,
“.. that before a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA is relied upon and accepted admissible in evidence, it must be of sterling value inspiring confidence of the Court. As a matter of prudence, the Court relying upon such confession must insist for corroboration”
Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, and cannot be exercised at the stage of preliminary verification.
In quashing summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the petitioner, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that a preliminary verification is not an "investigation" under the Code, and hence, such summons lacked legal jurisdiction.
Case-Title: ABDUL RASHID DAR AND ORS. vs MUZAFFER AHMAD DAR AND ORS,
Citation: 2025 LIVELAW (JKL) 64
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it would take into account the date on which the death of a litigant was brought on the court's record for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for setting aside the abatement of the suit.
Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Showkat Ahmad Tantry
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 65
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court while dismissing an appeal, reprimanded government officials for preferring the appeal after a long period of delay. The court said that no clear reasons for filing the appeal after a prolonged period were forthcoming from the application for condonation of delay.
Judgments/Orders:
Case-Title: xxxx vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 66
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowed the termination of the 28–29-week fetus of a sexual assault victim through the applicable medical intervention. The court recognized the severe mental trauma suffered by the victim and her inability to comprehend or cope with childbirth.
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Bhat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
Underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in narcotics cases, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that it is not for the accused to prove that seized samples were not in safe custody, rather, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish their safe handling and ensure that tampering was impossible.
Rigors Of Bail U/S 37 Of NDPS Act Will Not Apply In Cases Of Intermediate Quantity: J&K High Court
Case Title: ARSHID AHMAD GANIE vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME),
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 68
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the rigors of bail under the NDPS Act will not apply where the contraband in question is of intermediate quantity. The court observed that the quantity recovered from the accused persons fell within the intermediate category and not the commercial quantity attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title: Peer Rattan Nath Mahant Sh. Shiv ji Maharaj Peer kho Vs Wazir Onkar Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh reaffirmed the broad jurisdiction of executing courts under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court presided by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held that the term "any person" in Rule 97(1) is deliberately broad to include all individuals who resist or obstruct possession, empowering executing courts to adjudicate such disputes within the execution proceedings itself.
Case Title: Meena Kumari vs Sainik Cooperative House Society Ltd,
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 70
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party could not be forced to accept an arbitrator who has a conflict of interest, as the same would violate the principles of a fair trial. The court held that the Perpetual Lease Deed, as well as the Byelaws, which provide for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to be the sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between the petitioner and the department, would be against the law.
Case Title: Bilal Hassan Anim vs Shafeeq Ahmad Mir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the declaration of a moratorium would not bar the complainant from filing a complaint under the NI Act. The court said that the debtor cannot take refuge under the Code to frustrate proceedings under the NI Act if he is found liable to pay compensation in the proceedings.
Case-Title: Manzoor Ahmad Wani vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 72
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the prosecution's failure to seek cancellation of bail and instead using preventive detention as a shortcut to put the accused behind bars is not legally sustainable.
Case Title: Sadiya Sidiq Lone vs UT of J&K and others
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 73
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the EWS certificate could not be rejected merely by relying on mutation records. The court stated that a due inquiry must be conducted as to the eligibility criteria, wherein the applicant is given the right to a hearing before deciding the said application.
Trial Court Has No Inherent Powers To Recall Or Review Its Own Final Order: J&K High Court
Case Title: FEROZ AHMAD ZARGAR & OTHERS vs UT OF J&K AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 74
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is not open to the trial court to review its own final orders. The court held that in such cases, the only option available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the said order before the High Court.
Case Title: Mohd Altaf Najar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
Quashing the preventive detention of one Mohd. Altaf Najar, a B.Tech graduate from Pulwama, detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) as an alleged terror sympathizer the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that the detention was based solely on proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC, with no concrete incidents or allegations linking the detenue to any terrorist activities.
Case Title: Parvaiz Ahmad Fashoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 76
Underscoring the sanctity of procedural fairness the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that “delay, unless satisfactorily explained in making a preventive detention order, throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 Livelaw JKL) 77
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that serving in a department for more than 20 years without following the due process of recruitment does not give the right to said employee to seek the regularization of services.
Case Title: Mohammad Jamal Sheikh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 78
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court restrained the government from making any promotions unless candidates from the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories entitled to reservation are duly considered.
Delivering a major relief to reserved category employees who have long been denied their rightful promotions due to a controversial government circular Justice M.A Chowdhary observed,
“The respondents are restrained from making any promotions unless candidates belonging to the SC/ST reserved categories entitled for consideration for reservation in promotions are considered”
Case Title: Executive Engineer And Ors. Vs Ghulam Mohideen Tantray
Citation: 2025 Livelaw(JKL) 79
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory powers; they can only record settlements between willing parties. The court stated that if a compromise is not reached, the case must be referred back to the appropriate court.
The court noted that the impugned award passed by the CJM in the Lok Adalat did not mention any settlement between the parties, and the record suggested that the order had been passed on merits, which is beyond its jurisdiction.
Case-title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 80
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a suit for damages due to wrongful dismissal is not maintainable unless the termination is first challenged and declared wrongful. The court observed that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor made any attempt to demonstrate that the impugned order of dismissal was in violation of any terms of his employment.
Case Title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 81
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if there is an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on the maintainability of the suit under law, that does not limit the powers of the appellate court to decide the issue of maintainability.
The court added that the only requirement is that there should be no new facts that need to be pleaded and no new evidence to be led by the parties. The court held that if the evidence on file is sufficient, the appellate court can decide and determine the case finally.
Case Title: Damni Rajrah & Ors Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 82
Dismissing a plea filed by 150 contractual healthcare workers seeking continuation of their services in Government Medical College (GMC), Jammu the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that once a contract of employment has been mutually agreed upon without any objection or reservation, courts lack the jurisdiction to compel an employer to maintain the contract or alter the terms of employment.
Case-title: Mohammad Abass Magray vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 83
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it would amount to a gross deprivation of liberty if an accused who has already been granted bail in the case FIR is charged and arrested for a different offence after a period of 15 years.
Case Title: Smt Amrit Kour Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 84
Underscoring the duty of constitutional courts to ensure that no one benefits from fraudulent acts the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to grant the writ of certiorari, emphasizing that when allegations of fraud are raised, the court must inquire into the matter to ensure substantial justice between the parties.
Case-Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & ORS
2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 85
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if hospitalization is deemed necessary by medical experts, insurance companies cannot deny claims solely on the basis of exclusion clauses without proper justification.
Case Title: Mohammad Bashir Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 86
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a mutation order passed 39 years ago reiterating that an unending period for initiating legal remedies could lead to uncertainty and anarchy, upholding the principle that every legal remedy must have a fixed lifespan.
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Tariq Ahmad Wani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 87
Clarifying the legal position under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque does not give rise to a cause of action under Section 138 of the Act.
Case-Title: Renu Sharma and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J&K and another,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 88
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that once the magistrate records the preliminary statement of the complainant and proceeds to direct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matter, it is not open to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.
Case Title: Airports Authority Of India Vs M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 89
Stressing the need for judicial restraint in matters involving public tenders and contractual integrity, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an interim injunction that had stayed the Airports Authority of India's (AAI) debarment order against M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. (SRPL).
Case Title: M/S NAVA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD M/S MANCARE LABORATORIES PVT. LTD Vs UT OF J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 90
Setting aside the proceedings against two pharmaceutical companies accused of manufacturing and marketing substandard drugs the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that while the trial of offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act must be conducted by a Court of Sessions, there is no bar on a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offences.
Case Title: Saraj Din Vs Liaqat Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 91
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that a Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can only be appointed when the evidence before the trial court is inconclusive and requires clarification.
Case Title: Dilshada Begum Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 92
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that Special Police Officers (SPOs) enjoy the same protections as regular police officers and cannot be disengaged from service without being provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and meet the charges levelled against them.
Case Title: Ansh Mahajan Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 93
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that an individual seeking to claim reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category must not fall under any of the reserved categories, including Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Reserved Backward Areas (RBA), or any other similar categories.
Case Title: S. Charanjeet Singh vs UT of J&K and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 94
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that mere filing of the written statement in a suit does not constitute a waiver of right to arbitration if the party has raised a preliminary objection in respect of the arbitration clause at the outset.
Case Title: NA Ronga Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 95
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention of former Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association President Nazir Ahmad Ronga.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the allegations against Ronga were vague, lacked material particulars, and did not provide a basis for his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
Case-Title: Farukh Jehanzeb Vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 96
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that a defendant cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague statements while offering his leave to defend in a summary suit procedure.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dealing with a cheque bounce case noted that the appellant had admitted signing the cheque but failed to provide any substantial evidence proving that the cheque was not meant for the respondent. The court held that a mere statement that the cheque was issued to another person is insufficient to disprove the allegations made by the respondent.
Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97
Giving relief to an elderly woman pensioner in whose account an excess amount of pension was credited, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if, due to an administrative error, an excess amount is credited to the accounts of elderly pensioners or widows which is withdrawn, the same cannot be recovered.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 98
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the eviction order passed by the Financial Commissioner in evicting the illegal occupant of a migrant property. The court held that the occupant-petitioner herein could not have taken over the possession of the land in question except with the express consent of the migrant in writing, to be handed over by the District Magistrate alone.
Case-title: Sumesh Chadha vs UT of J&K and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 99
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has deprecated the practice of arraying the relatives of the husband as accused in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC to create pressure on the husband and his family members.
Case Title: Mohd. Shafi Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 100
"A person who administers poison to kill a person will not keep the leftover poison, if any, with him for months together and wait for the police to come and recover it from him," observed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, as it overturned the conviction of Mohd. Shafi in a two-decade-old murder case.
Case-title: Mohd. Asgar @ tola vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 101
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the constitutional courts have a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage. It added that such remedy cannot be even otherwise be sought by a person who is evading the legal process of the court.
Case Title: Sumit Nayyar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 102
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that security cover provided at the State's expense cannot be construed as a luxury or a status symbol to be granted arbitrarily.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing a petition filed by Advocate Sumit Nayyar seeking the continuation of his personal security, underscored that the assessment of threat perception is a specialized function of security agencies, and courts lack the expertise to intervene in such matters unless there is clear evidence of error or mala fide.
Case-Title: Sahib Saran Khajuria vs Jammu Municipal Corporation
LiveLaw: 2025 Livelaw (Jkl) 103
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party cannot be permitted to unilaterally and retrospectively alter the rent amount fixed with the tenant.
Justice MA Chowdhary held that it was not permissible for the respondent to revise the rent twice in the same year. The court said that notice requiring the petitioner to pay the revised rent increasing it to 100% was not permissible and was done in violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
Case Title: Mohammad Junaid Raina Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 104
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act do not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that while Section 37 imposes restrictions on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, it does not curtail the High Court's discretion to grant bail on humanitarian grounds.
Case-Title: Archana vs. Union Territory of J&K & Another
2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 105
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the statement recorded before the magistrate can be re-recorded and there is no bar under section 164 CRPC for recording the statement of a witness more than once.
Case-Title: Court on its own motions vs Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that interpretation of a Court judgment, even if differing from Court's intended meaning, generally does not constitute Contempt of Court as long as the interpretation is not wilfully or deliberately wrong, and does not obstruct course of justice.
Case Title: Johar Mehmood Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 107
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that the provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), which deal with the procedure for trying a person of unsound mind, can only be invoked after the framing of charges in a criminal trial.
Case Title: M/s Mohd Asif Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
Reinforcing the principle of fairness and reasonableness in government dealings, especially in contractual matters, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the validity of an administrative order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned at the time of its issuance and cannot be bolstered by additional grounds introduced later through affidavits or other means.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Sayed Shabir Bukhari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 109
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused in the 2005 assassination case of former Education Minister Gulam Nabi Lone, stating that the "evidence on record is too weak and shaky to arrive at a conclusion different from one arrived at by the Trial Court."
Case Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Employer Setting Cut-Off Dates For Pension Schemes Not Violative Of Article 14: J&K High Court
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that employers are well within their rights to fix a cut-off date for introducing new pension or retirement schemes, and such decisions do not violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Recognizing that the petitioners had legitimate security concerns due to their migration from Kashmir in the past the Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowed a virtual hearing for the party from the Jammu Wing in a case before its Srinagar Wing.
Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that two decades ago, the respondent had filed the suit in the Srinagar court, and there was a threat perception to the petitioner. As a result, it was not possible to contest the suit, nor was the virtual mode of appearance available at that time. The court added that, at the request of the petitioner/defendant, the suit was transferred to Jammu.
Case title: Saraj Din vs Liyaqat Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC could be issued only when the trial court is unable to decide the controversy based on the evidence placed by the parties.
The court noted that a Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is appointed for inspection purposes, while a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is meant for investigation to elucidate disputed facts.
Case Title: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that The employer is well within its rights to validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension scheme or for discontinuing an existing scheme and same is not violative of Article 14.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Puneet Gupta said that government took a policy decision to introduce new pension scheme wherein the benefits was given to those who retired after 2014 and those who retired before the date and those who retired afterwards form two separate classes.
Case-title: Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is not open to the trial magistrate to frame charges against an accused without sifting the material collected on record for the limited purpose of framing opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made against the accused.
Case-title: Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS Awantipora,
Citation: 2025 Livelaw, (JKL) 116
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court overturned the conviction of four accused persons, who were sentenced in the 2012 Awantipora murder case, citing inadmissibility of confessions, procedural lapses, and weak circumstantial evidence.
Case Title:- ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that a delay of more than three months in considering a detenue's representation breaches statutory requirements under Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act which renders detention invalid.
The court said that it was admitted by the detaining authorities that the representation filed by the detainee was rejected after 3 months time which infringed the valuable right which is available to a detenue in terms of provisions contained under PSA.
Case Title: Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 118
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act must strictly adhere to all three prescribed modes ie public notice, Government Gazette, and two widely circulated newspapers, including one in the regional language.
Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.
Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC
Case Title:Rattan Lal v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120
A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF constable under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The court found the retirement to be justified based on the constable's repeated prior disciplinary infractions.
The court also held that the BSF had followed all due process, including issuing a show-cause notice, and held that maintaining discipline in a paramilitary force was paramount. Judicial review, it clarified, does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of material relied upon by the competent authority unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.
Case Title: Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court highlighted the high-handedness of the Executive Engineer in colluding with the appellant to procure the contract illegally. The court said that the work, if any, executed by the appellant was without any authority, and he was not entitled to any money in exchange for the work done.
Case Title: Santosha Devi Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 122
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Registering Officer's role is purely administrative and does not extend to determining the title of a document's executor.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasized that as per the Registration Act and Rules, a Registering Officer is only required to register documents accompanied by supporting documents and has no authority to evaluate title irregularities.
Case-Title: Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that while determining a bail application, the severity of the punishment is an important but not the only factor; the court must also consider the nature and gravity of the offence with which the applicant is charged.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Mahajan and another Vs Govt Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 124
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that merely quashing an FIR or complaint based on the perception that the complainant will not support the prosecution's case is not justified in law.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. even before trial, making it unnecessary to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing prosecution in such cases.
Case Title: Smt Suresh Parihar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), it is the duty of the Court to look beyond the mere allegations in an FIR or complaint and assess the attending circumstances to determine if the criminal proceedings have been initiated maliciously.
Case Title: Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
"CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, though it raises a suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime," observed Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while granting bail to one Yugraj Singh, accused of financing illicit drug trafficking.
Case Title: Tsewang Thinles Vs UT Of Ladakh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 166
Clarifying the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the Special Court is empowered not just to determine the age of the accused, but also of the victim.
Case Title: J&K HORTICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION Vs ABDUL RAZAK MALLA & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 167
Reiterating a significant principle of employment law, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the doctrine of "no work no pay" cannot be pressed into service when an employee is kept away from work by the act or omission of the employer.
section 196 of Cr.PC.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 173
Spotlighting on procedural integrity in the subordinate judiciary, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while dismissing a petition challenging the framing of charges in a forgery case, issued a cautionary note to trial magistrates against delegating the drafting of interim orders including those related to framing of charges to subordinate staff.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Vs Ranbir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 174
Reinforcing the statutory mandate under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that a solitary typographical error in a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot override the overall content and intent of the notice, thus refusing to quash cheque dishonour proceedings involving Rs. 21 lakhs.
Case Title: Suchet Singh & Anr Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 175
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh observed that an FIR cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it was lodged after the initiation of a civil or criminal proceeding. However, when such FIRs are filed shortly thereafter, the Court stressed, they must be closely examined to rule out any ulterior motives behind the criminal prosecution, the court clarified.
Case Title: Mst Sara Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue JK Srinagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 176
Reinforcing a critical procedural safeguard, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar held that Order XXII Rule 10A CPC introduces a legal fiction deeming the contract between an advocate and a deceased party as subsisting but only for the limited and essential purpose of requiring the advocate to inform the Court about the death of the party they represent.
Case Title: Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) do not bar Magistrates from adhering to the pre-cognizance notice requirements under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Gojar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 178
Underlining the balance between the rigours of the NDPS Act and humanitarian concerns, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar Wing, has granted temporary bail to a 71-year-old man suffering from serious health ailments. The Court held,
“Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play only when bail of a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband is being considered on merits, and the limitations contained therein would not come into play when bail is to be granted on humanitarian grounds like medical grounds.”
Case Title: Abdul Majid Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 179
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a scathing rebuke to the UT administration for its arbitrary demolition of properties owned by one Abdul Majid, a 69-year-old resident of Bathindi, Jammu.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing two writ petitions declared the demolition illegal, restored Majid's ownership rights, and awarded him ₹76.4 lakh in compensation for damages, along with an additional ₹10 lakh as punitive costs for the "clandestine and high-handed" actions of the authorities.
Case Title: Mohammad Najeeb Goni Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the offence of criminal trespass is not extinguished merely because the possession of State land is later recovered from the illegal occupant.
“The moment a person illegally occupies the State land with a view to insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or with an intent to commit an offence, the offence under Section 447-A RPC is complete,” Justice Sanjay Dhar observed while dismissing a petition.
Case Title: GHULAM RASOOL BHAT Vs. SHAFEEQ FRUIT COMPANY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the court, while referring parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), cannot direct that the award, passed after the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, be filed before it.
Case Title: Shivani Misri Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
Reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the disqualification of a visually impaired law graduate from recruitment to the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that the authorities “failed to take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation” as mandated under the law.
Family Pension Rules Must Be Interpreted Liberally For Disabled Dependents: J&K High Court
Case Title: Smt Balbir Kour Vs State Bank Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 183
Underscoring the importance of social welfare and inclusive interpretation of pension rules, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that provisions governing family pension for disabled persons must be interpreted liberally to ensure genuine claimants are not excluded.
Case-Title: Mohammad Ashraf Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) detention of Advocate Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, who previously served as secretary of the erstwhile Kashmir Bar Association.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the detention order after pointing to the serious nature of preventive detention laws being a double-edged sword that can deeply impact both those who enforce it and against those it is used.
Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs J&K State Forest Corporation & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 185
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion only when the employer takes up the matter for filling the promotional posts. The court ruled that merely because a promotional post exists does not confer a right to claim promotion from the date of its vacancy.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Lodhi Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 186
Reaffirming the legal distinction between the right to compensation for physical acquisition of land and the non-compensable nature of aerial usage for transmission infrastructure the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that individual landowners cannot assert any legal, fundamental, or constitutional rights over aerial space traversed by high-tension transmission lines.
Case-Title: Ghazanfar Ali vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 187
The J&K High Court held that mere failure to publish acquisition notification in regional language as per section 4 of the Act does not vitiate the entire proceedings if the party affected has notice of the preliminary notification issued by the official Respondent and had also filled objection to the said notification.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Naqeeb Vs State of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 188
Reiterating the legal standard that courts are not obliged to discuss statutory provisions irrelevant to the controversy at hand, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a review petition filed by a retired employee of Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC), seeking reconsideration of its earlier judgment.
Case Title: Waqar Younis Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
Reaffirming the powers of criminal courts under the NDPS Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an application for the release of a vehicle seized in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case can be entertained not just by a registered owner, but also by a bonafide owner whether in the capacity of a purchaser or as an attorney holder as such categories are also covered under the definition of "owner" in law.
Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 190
“A police officer is not permitted to resign without the leave of the Superintendent unless he has given a prior notice of not less than two months of his intention to resign,” observed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while dismissing a plea challenging the acceptance of a constable's resignation on the same day it was submitted.
Case Title: Ashok Toshkhani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 191
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that Chapter X of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 provides a self-contained code for partition proceedings, which includes mandatory procedural safeguards.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that when a valid application for partition is filed under Section 105, the revenue officer must notify all interested parties, consider their objections, and proceed in accordance with Sections 109, 110, and 111-A, particularly when disputed questions of title arise.
Case Title: Mohammad Tufail Vs Muzaffar Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 192
Underscoring the sanctity of judicial procedure and evidentiary rigour, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside conflicting judgments passed by the trial and appellate courts, declaring that "finding of fact is something which is not to be conjectured by civil court or for that matter civil 1st appellate court."
Case Title: Amanullah Khan Vs Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 193
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that there is no impediment to the State issuing a supplementary award for compensation relating to trees, super-structures, and machinery omitted in the original land acquisition award, and directed authorities to assess damages caused to a brick kiln due to highway widening.
Case Title: Sher Mohd Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 194
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu upheld the preventive detention of one Sher Mohd under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
The detention order was challenged by his wife, Famida Begum, on grounds including non-supply of vital documents and lack of application of mind by the authorities. However, Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition, finding no merit in any of the contentions raised.
Case Title: Sanjeev Gupta Vs Central University of Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 195
The employee does not acquire a vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government,” held the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while dismissing a plea seeking promotion under old recruitment rules.
Citing State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others, (2023) Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified,
“The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.61 The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14”
Case Title: Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 196
Reiterating that procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases must be strictly observed, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the detention of one Sarfaraz Ahmed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that it is “obligatory on the detaining authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made within a maximum period of five days, and in exceptional case within a period of 15 days, from the date of detention and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention.”
Case Title: Ravinder Singh & Ors Vs Om Prakash & ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 197
Ruling on the scope of judicial review powers of statutory tribunals, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act can only review its decision within the bounds applicable to a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Tariq Wali Vs Beenish Aijaz
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 198
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a party who enters into a compromise and obtains a Lok Adalat award based on that compromise cannot subsequently seek both to enforce that award and to initiate fresh litigation on the same subject matter.
“Once fresh proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC are initiated and interim maintenance is granted therein, the prior award becomes non-executable for the same claims. The remedy lies either in executing the award or reviving the original proceedings, not both,” ruled Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Case Title: Mohd Maqbool Mir Vs Ghulam Ahmad Pahloo
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 199
“If a suit filed under Order 37 CPC is not tried following its prescribed summary procedure, it is deemed to proceed as an ordinary suit. Consequently, the defendant cannot seek relief under Order 37 (e.g., Rule 4)”, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, while dismissing a petition challenging the execution of an ex parte decree.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
Shedding light on the Legislative intent behind the provision of allowing the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an application for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses must be filed as early as possible but in any case, before the commencement of cross-examination, for once the defence strategy is exposed, the object of such deferral pales into insignificance.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHABAN GANAI & ANR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD RATHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 201
Reinforcing procedural rigour in civil litigation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that interim directions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be passed against a person who is not a party to the suit or appeal.
Case-Title: Rajinder Kumar vs State of J&K and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 202
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed FIR registered against a man accused of rape and criminal intimidation, citing the delayed complaint and the long-term consensual relationship shared between the parties.
Case Title: Ashok Toshkhani vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that urban residential property falls outside the scope of the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996, and quashed an order passed by a revenue officer attempting to partition such a property.
A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that section 105 of the Act empowers a revenue officer for partition of land used for agriculture or related purpose, including structures and trees thereon while excluding sites of buildings in a town or village abadi or land appurtenant thereto.
Case Title: Mehmood Askari Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 204
Clarifying the scope of income tax exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the benefit under this provision is not automatic and can only be claimed when an assessee clearly proves residence in the specified tribal area and demonstrates that the income was actually earned from sources located therein.
Discharge In Predicate Offence Does Not Invalidate PMLA Proceedings U/S 3 Of Act: J&K High Court
Case Title: Niket Kansal Vs Union Of India Through ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 205
Upholding the autonomy of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that a discharge or acquittal in the predicate (scheduled) offence does not automatically invalidate money laundering investigations or summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Case-Title: Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 206
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that seniority of ReT (Rehbar-E-Taleem) teachers must be reckoned from the date of appointment as a general line teacher and the pre-regularization period of five years will not be included for the purpose of fixing seniority.
Case Title: Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs Harmeet Kour and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 207
Reinforcing a critical principle under consumer law, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that for an award of compensation or replacement of goods under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it must be conclusively established that the service provider was negligent or deficient in service.
Case Title: Adil Hamid Wani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 208
Taking strong exception to the alleged abuse of fiduciary trust, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh refused to grant anticipatory bail to a petrol pump manager accused of defrauding his employer of over ₹71 lakh.
Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Wani Vs Ayaz Ahmad Raina
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 209
Clarifying the scope of “sufficient grounds” under Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the expression grants wide judicial discretion to trial courts to permit withdrawal of a suit with liberty to institute a fresh one.
Case Title: Mst Zoona Begum vs Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 210
The Jammu and Kashmir Highcourt held that where the status quo order passed by the court is qualified by the word "possession" and not a blanket status quo order, there is no restraint on the parties to the suit on raising construction on the portion of property which is in their respective possession.
Case Title: Mubeen Ahmad Shah Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 211
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a plea challenging the registration of FIR against one Mubeen Ahmad Shah, who was accused of uploading a series of Facebook posts that allegedly incited communal tensions and undermined national integrity.
Case Title: Sheikh Showkat Vs Ghulam Jeelani Chesti & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 212
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Magistrate is legally obligated to adjudicate objections filed under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by third parties before an attachment order under Section 83 CrPC is carried out. Any postponement of such adjudication pending physical attachment or receipt of compliance reports is contrary to law, the court ruled.
Case-Title: Sanjeev Gupta vs Central University of Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 213
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the university can issue a fresh notification for initiating the departmental promotions under amended rules pending the finalization of the process of promotion issued under the previous rules.
Case Title: Haleema Tramboo Vs UT Of J&K, Himalayan Welfare Organization Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 214
Safeguarding the sanctity of long-standing administrative decisions and vested rights, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, upheld the enforceability of Government Order No. 60-C of 1944 and directed authorities to process the construction permission for land exchanged under the said order provided such land is not under dense plantation and is otherwise permissible under the Pahalgam Master Plan 2032.
Case Title: Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Interpreting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an order merely issuing notice in a proceeding is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Case Title: UT Of J&K Through P/s Chanapora Vs Sameer Ahmad Koka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 216
Shedding light on the contours of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that there exists no statutory embargo on granting bail under Section 13 of the UAPA, as the stringent restrictions imposed under Section 43-D(5) of the Act are inapplicable to offences falling outside Chapters IV and VI.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the medical rejection of a CAPF aspirant declared unfit due to a congenital birthmark.
A bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary emphasised that congenital conditions like 'Port Wine Stain' cannot, by themselves, be grounds for medical disqualification unless accompanied by concrete medical reasoning demonstrating functional impairment.
Case-Title: Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator's fee as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award.
The issue before the court was whether a government-prescribed internal fee structure for empanelled arbitrators could override the statutory fee scale in the Fourth Schedule of the 1996
Case Title: Shamim Ahmad Parray Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
Reaffirming foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to fill material gaps in the prosecution case unless the foundational facts necessary to shift the onus are first firmly established.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
Reiterating the wide discretionary powers conferred upon senior revenue authorities under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that officers such as the Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner are legally empowered to decide matters on merits while exercising their authority to withdraw and transfer cases pending before subordinate revenue officers.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Reiterating the doctrine of pari delicto, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that where both parties are equally at fault in entering into an illegal agreement, the law will not intervene to determine their inter se rights and liabilities.
Case-Title: Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of murdering his wife with a firearm, observing that the prosecution has failed to produce any clinching or credible evidence connecting him to the crime.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the bail application, holding that “in such cases of 'no evidence', courts are obliged to take a holistic view and exercise discretion in favour of liberty.
Case Title: Mohd Khalil Qazi Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while dismissing a 34-year-old writ petition challenging deportation orders, held that "The petitioners have acted in their own volition and acquired the citizenship of a foreign Country. Their passports and the residential permit issued in their favour are cogent, unequivocal evidence of the fact that the petitioners are not citizens of India and, as such, orders to deport them were valid."
Case Title: M/S Durga Enterprises Vs FCI & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 253
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh directed the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to refund an amount of ₹7,93,456 to a transport contractor, M/s Durga Enterprises, after holding that recoveries made retrospectively based on revised route distances were illegal and contrary to contractual terms and policy guidelines.
Case-Title: Maan Chand vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court acquitted a man convicted for murder, pointing to multiple shortcomings in the prosecution's case, including variations and contradictions in the initial report and testimony of key witnesses and conflicting accounts of the type of weapons used, the manner of assault, and nature of injuries.
Case-Title: Parveen Begum vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 255
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court refused to entertain a writ petition seeking reinvestigation or alteration of charges in an alleged assault and disrobing case, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the trial court.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity before the trial court to raise her grievances, and that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless a manifest error or miscarriage of justice is established.
Case-Title: MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHAH & ORS vs UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 256
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court delivered a judgment reinforcing the legal principle that “one ad hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another of similar nature,” and criticised the University of Kashmir for replacing contractual faculty with visiting and guest lecturers.
Case-Title: UT Of J&K & ORS VS MRS. RAJINDER OBEROI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 257
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld Rs. 1.37 crore in compensation to a woman entrepreneur whose hotel lease was wrongfully cancelled, stating that illegal termination of lease resulted in losses to the extent of Rs.1,37,57,009/.
Case-Title: WASEEM QURESHI vs STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 258
In granting relief to a former Medical Superintendent of SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in an embezzlement case, holding that his conduct lacked mens rea and was already ratified by competent authorities.
Case Title: Sushant Khajuria Vs J&K Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 259
Reiterating the legal position that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in the recruitment process, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition filed by Sushant Khajuria, an unsuccessful aspirant for the post of Probationary Officer (PO) in Jammu and Kashmir Bank.
Case-Title: ASIF AMIN CHALKOO & ORS vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 260
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act against certain public officials, despite acknowledging that the initial phase of investigation was conducted without the mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.
Case-Title: UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. VS SALEEMA BEGUM & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 261
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court the writ court's finding of negligence on the part of the Power Development Department in the electrocution death of a 45-year-old man, holding that such hazardous activities attract presumed negligence, especially when no contrary material is brought on record by the department.
Case Title: Abdul Aziz Reshi Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 262
“Judicial restraint is especially warranted where the subject-matter requires specialized knowledge, such as the alignment of highways or public roads, which is fundamentally a matter of technical feasibility and infrastructural prudence,” observed Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while dismissing a petition against the construction of a rural road.
Case-Title: U.T. OF J&K vs SHAKEEL AHMAD BHAT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 263
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the government's decision to scrap the selection process for Class IV/MTS posts in a district, citing serious irregularities in the procedure.
Case Title: Naveed Bashir Wani Vs Varqa Bashir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
In a pivotal ruling on the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is not mandatory for a Magistrate to grant interim or ex parte relief under the statute.
Case-Title: Iqbal Singh vs Pankaj Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 265
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court came down heavily on a police officer for violating the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, on guidelines for arrest.
Case Title: Dr Noor Mohammad Bilal Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
Emphasising that the power of the constitutional courts cannot be exercised by transferring the investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate prestige of a party interested for such investigation the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a writ petition seeking a fresh investigation by the CBI into a house burglary case.
Case-Title: IQBAL MUBARIK vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 267
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the Department of Home is liable to reimburse GST in addition to the fixed rent to hotel owners whose accommodations have been requisitioned for housing security forces.
Case Title: M/S PMT Industries Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 268
Reinforcing the rights of small industrial units, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar reiterated that the arbitrary withholding of payment for completed work is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal thus directed the Union Territory administration and concerned departments to release the long-pending dues to a registered Small Scale Industrial (SSI) Unit, for execution of government-assigned works.
Case-Title: Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd vs Abdul Aziz Khan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 269
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside an order passed by the Consumer Commission, citing that it was “bereft of any reasons” and rendered without affording an opportunity to the insurance company to produce evidence in rebuttal against the claimant's statement.
Case-Title: Peerzada Muneer Ahmad vs Aaliya Anjum
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
The Jammu & Kashmir High court held that a Magistrate is empowered to drop proceedings or revoke interim orders issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) if, upon hearing the respondent and examining the record, it is found that no case is made out.
Case Title:Syed Jameel Qaiser & Ors Vs J&K State Cable Car Corp.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 271
Declaring that irregular appointments cannot be equated with illegal ones, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that qualified individuals appointed through a proper selection process and who have served in sanctioned posts for more than a decade are entitled to regularization of their services.
Case-Title: MOHAMMAD AKBAR SHEIKH vs MST JANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 272
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kupwara, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding that the attachment of land and handing over of possession to third parties was done without adhering to the statutory procedure.
Case Title: Amir Medical Store Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 273
Reinforcing the legal principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that orders passed under Section 10 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, are appealable under Section 12 of the same Act.
Case Title: Arshad Ahmed Allaie Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 274
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that bail in cases under the UA(P) Act and NDPS Act is subject to strict legal conditions as these laws apply especially when the offence involves terrorism or narco-terrorism.
The Court made it clear that delay in trial or long incarceration alone is not enough to relax these restrictions. If there is prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement, the stringent bail provisions must be followed, it emphasised.
If There's No Waqf Tribunal, Civil Courts Can Hear Waqf Disputes : J&K High Court
Case-Title: J&K BOARD FOR MUSLIM SPCIFIED WAKFS & SPECIFIED WAKF PROPERTY vs SOURA SHOPKEEPERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 275
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that in the absence of a Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act does not apply. The court said that litigants cannot be left remediless where no forum exists for adjudicating waqf-related disputes.
Case-Title: J&K Road Transport Corporation vs Shareefa & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 276
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has partially upheld a writ court's order directing reinstatement of a conductor wrongfully terminated by the State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC), holding that while the employee is entitled to reinstatement, full back wages cannot be awarded in the absence of pleadings regarding gainful employment.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Vs Financial
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 277
Reiterating the narrow scope of Paragraph 100 of Standing Order No. 23-A, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a mutation entry cannot be used to delete the name of a co-sharer or to confer exclusive ownership.
Case-Title: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Ors Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 278
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the percentage of reservation of a community under the J&K Reservation Act must not exceed the population share of that community.
The court thus allowed the withdrawal of multiple petitions challenging the vires of various provisions of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, after observing that Section 3 of the parent Act was not under challenge in any of the petitions.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Bhat & Ors Vs Ghulam Nabi Bhat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 279
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the presumption of correctness attached to entries in revenue records under Section 31 of the J&K Land Revenue Act cannot be dislodged merely by swearing an affidavit.
Case-Title: Mohan Lal Angral Vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 280
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court took strong exception to the “regionalised” approach of the UT administration, noting that the High Court's decision in conferring land ownership rights was selectively implemented in the Srinagar wing and not in the Jammu wing.
Case Title: National Insurance Co Vs Naresh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 281
Clarifying the scope of driving licenses for commercial vehicles, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a driver holding a valid licence to drive a "transport vehicle" is competent to operate both heavy goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles without the need for a separate Public Service Vehicle (PSV) endorsement.
Case-Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Jan & Ors Vs Govt. Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 282
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the State cannot be permitted to invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to legitimise forcible and unauthorised occupation of private land, reiterating that such action is a violation of both constitutional and human rights of the citizen.
Case-Title: GHULAM MOHAMMAD PAYER Vs AMANULLA KHAN,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 283
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that a complainant alleging a cognizable offence is not bound to first approach the police for lodging an FIR and may directly move the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC.
The Court added that no illegality is committed in such cases where the Magistrate takes cognizance based on the complaint.
Case-Title: Mst. Sundri and Ors Vs J&K Bank &Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 284
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a secured creditor is not required to issue a fresh notice to the legal heirs of a deceased borrower before invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Ameer Hamza Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 285
The Jammu & Kashmir held that advocating for the secession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India constitutes an "unlawful activity" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and squarely attracts Section 13(1) of the Act.
J&K And Ladakh High Court Upholds Acquittal In 2005 Jammu Terror Case
Case Title: State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Tajinder Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 286
"Non-association of independent civilian witnesses, despite their availability at the time of arrest and alleged recovery, casts a serious shadow over the credibility of the investigation" , observed the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while upholding the acquittal of two men accused in a 2005 terror-linked arms recovery case in Jammu.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Gulia Vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 287
In a crypto-currency fraud case, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh denied the pre-arrest bail plea by Naresh Kumar Gulia, who is alleged to have set up a huge fake crypto Ponzi scam that tricked many investors in India and other places.
Mere Involvement In 'Grave Economic Offence' Not Organised Crime U/S 111 Of BNS: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Aamir Bashir Magray Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 288
Observing that the invocation of organised crime provisions under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires strict compliance with the statutory prerequisites, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that mere involvement in a grave economic offence is not sufficient to attract the rigours of Section 111 BNS.
Complainant's Incarceration Is A Valid Reason To Allow Condonation Of Delay: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Waheed Shafi Sheikh Vs Naseer Ahmad Ganai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 289
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a complainant's time in jail is a valid reason to excuse delay in filing appeals, even if a special power of attorney was appointed to represent him.
Case-Title: Naseer Ahmad Sheikh vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 290
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court took strong exception to the retrospective dismissal of the officer, passed after his retirement and noted that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the nature of the alleged lapses.
Case Title: MUBASHIR AHMAD WANI Vs MEELAZ MUBASHIR & ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 291
Affirming the expansive protective scope of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a woman aggrieved by domestic violence is entitled to seek residence or other reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in any legal proceeding including enforcement proceedings under Section 488(3) of the J&K CrPC (Pari Materia with Sec 125 CrPC) by invoking Section 26 of the Act.
Case-Title: Sarwa Zahoor & Anr. vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 292
The Jammu & Kashmir High court held that the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) possesses inherent powers to remand matters back to the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside a confirmation order, as a necessary concomitant to its appellate jurisdiction.
Case-Title: Union of India vs Nirman Singh Jamwal & Connected matters, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 293
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that once a soldier is enrolled in a medically fit condition and subsequently develops disabilities during service, the disability is presumed attributable to or aggravated by service unless the Army proves otherwise.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Khan Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 294
Reaffirming the legal principle that civil courts exercise superior and overriding jurisdiction over revenue authorities in disputes involving title, possession, or civil rights over immovable property, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed three revenue orders passed against a landowner.
Case Title: MRS. SHABEENA IBRAHIM THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMIT Vs MIR USMAN DISOOKI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 295
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that when a joint bank account carries the “either or survivor” mandate, payment of the matured deposit to the surviving account holder constitutes a complete and valid discharge of the bank's liability.
Case-Title: Mohd Ashraf Wagay vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 296
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to grant bail to an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act, holding that the delay in conclusion of the trial was entirely attributable to the accused himself, who absconded for nearly two-and-a-half years, thereby disabling him from invoking Article 21's right to speedy trial or relying on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on prolonged incarceration.
Cause-Title: Kehar Singh Ors vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (JKL) 297
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the 2017 Rules, ruling that the regulatory framework applies not only to manufacturers but also to brick dealers, rejecting challenges raised by multiple petitioners.
Case-Title: Commissioner Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development & PR, Civil Secretariat vs Ryaz Ahmed,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 298
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) does not lie against interlocutory orders passed in contempt proceedings, reiterating that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only where the Court has actually imposed punishment for contempt.
Case Title: Abdul Khaliq Sofi Vs Mohammad Shafi Mir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 299
Observing that due process of law is satisfied the moment a competent court adjudicates rights of the parties, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that “once a person in possession brings a suit for injunction against a person who interferes in his possession and his rights are determined in the said suit, it is not necessary for the defendants to bring a fresh suit for eviction”.
Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs Mohammad Ashraf Khan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 300
Highlighting the legal obligations of both dealers and manufacturers to resolve defects within the prescribed warranty period the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once a defect is identified within the warranty period, both the dealer and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.
Case Title: Senior Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Kashmir v. Shafiqa Muneer & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 301
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the Economic Offences Wing, Srinagar, has no authority under the applicable notification to investigate allegations relating to custodial torture and killing.
The Court observed that a Magistrate is empowered to direct an investigation only by an agency having jurisdiction over the offence alleged.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mala Bashir & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 302
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an insurer cannot deny coverage for Storm, Tempest, Flood and Inundation (STFI) perils on the ground that no separate premium was paid, when the policy issued is styled as a comprehensive cover including special perils.
Allotment Of Evacuee Property Confers Only Temporary Licence, Not Leasehold Rights: J&K&L High Court
Cause Title: Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir & Others v. Custodian General & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 303
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an allotment under the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act merely creates a temporary licence, terminable in accordance with statutory provisions.
Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Reshi @Gulla Vs Smt Kamla Ji & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 304
“Matters arising out of the Agrarian Reforms Act especially resumption proceedings fall exclusively within the domain of Revenue Authorities, and civil courts lack jurisdiction to interfere, even at the injunction stage,” held the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while dismissing a petition filed by two litigants challenging concurrent findings of the courts below.
GST Demand Cannot Exceed Amount Mentioned In Show Cause Notice: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: M/s Ukas Goods Carrier vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 305
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a tax demand under GST cannot exceed the amount mentioned in the show cause notice and that doing so violates basic principles of fairness.
Failure To Provide Sample & Report To Accused Vitiates Trial Under Drugs Act: J&K&L High Court
Case-Title: Zahoor Ahmad Rada & Ors. vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 306
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against a petitioner, holding that mandatory safeguards prescribed under the statute, namely furnishing of a portion of the sample and a copy of the Government Analyst's report to the accused, were violated.
Case Title: Arfaz Mehboob Tak Vs Union of India
Citataion: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 307
Underscoring the importance of a balanced interpretation of "reasonable grounds" in the context of bail applications, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that such grounds must go beyond mere suspicion yet fall short of conclusive proof.
Case-Title: WASEEM AHMAD DAR Vs UT OF J&K & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 308
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld a preventive detention order passed against a detainee accused of posting content on Facebook that raised security concerns, observing that the decision of the detaining authority was not mechanical, but based on material that could reasonably lead to satisfaction that preventive custody was necessary.
Case-Title: Abdul Khaliq Nengroo vs Collector Land Acquisition Pulwama
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 309
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the Land Acquisition Act does not recognise the concept of a “tentative award”, clarifying that what is often referred to as such is merely a tentative assessment of compensation subject to approval of the competent authority.
Case Title: M/s Gogi Motor Store Vs Citizen's Co-operative Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 310
Reaffirming of the legal bar under the amended Section 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a borrower's right to redeem a secured asset stands extinguished the moment the Auction Notice is published, if dues are not cleared before such publication.
Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Himayun through Attorney Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Nishat Ara & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 311
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a plea filed by an 82-year-old Attorney Holder Abdul Gani Bhat, imposing ₹2 lakh exemplary costs while warning that his conduct of filing habitual pleas poses a serious threat to the administration of justice.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmed Sheikh Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 312
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that revenue authorities cannot run concurrent proceedings once a civil court has already seized a dispute. Court noted that this principle was violated in a Kupwara land-pathway dispute where both sides simultaneously sought remedies before different forums.
Case Title: Residents of Village Silgam Vs UT Of J&K, United Auqaf Committees Aishmuqam Pahalgam Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 313
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in a powerfully worded judgment, expressed deep anguish over more than a decade of administrative indecision that prevented the establishment of a sanctioned Government Degree College in the Pahalgam constituency.
Case-Title: Residents of Village Siligam, Adhard vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 314
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court flagged delays that stalled the establishment of the Aishmuqam Degree College for more than a decade, resulting in what the Court described as “avoidable hardship” and “educational loss” to successive batches of students.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar & Anr Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 315
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that where the prosecution fails to prove the very occurrence of the alleged crime through clear, cogent and uncontradictory evidence, the minority of the alleged victim cannot be invoked as a fallback to sustain conviction.
Case-Title: MEHRAJ AHMAD GANAI AND ANR. Vs MST. SARA BEGUM & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 316
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that an appellate order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn does not amount to a compromise decree merely because a written compromise was placed on record, unless the court records its satisfaction and passes a decree in terms of the compromise as required under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Umadevi Judgment Not A Shield For Perpetual Temporary Employment: J&K HC
Case Name : U. T. of J&K and others vs. Kashmir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 317
A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that daily rated worker engaged prior to 31-03-1994 and continuously employed for decades cannot be denied regularization under SRO-64 on the pretext of being a casual labourer. Further, the Umadevi Judgment cannot be invoked to justify perpetual temporary employment for permanent work.
Case Title: M/s Rightway Construction Company Vs UT Of J&K
Citation; 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 318
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that it is not the job of a contractor to ensure that all administrative approvals, technical sanctions, or legal formalities are completed before undertaking contractual obligations.
Case Title: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology and another Vs Dr Robinder Nath Koul & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 319
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that migrant status cannot be used to dilute career progression once eligibility for promotion is established under statutory rules.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed Parray & Ors Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 320
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that employees of two different institutions cannot claim parity in service conditions merely because both are funded from the same source.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by serving and retired employees of J&K Sainik School who had sought extension of pensionary benefits on par with government employees and employees of other Sainik Schools across the country.
Case Title: Tafazul Fazili Vs Sabzar Ahmad Bandh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 321
Reinforcing the procedural safeguards available to both complainants and accused in cheque dishonour cases, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that an order passed by a Magistrate on an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order, and therefore amenable to revision before the Sessions Court.
Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Som Raj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 322
The Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court dismissed the Union Territory's challenge to the regularisation of a daily wager, holding that denial of regularisation after extracting work for more than three decades would be illegal, inequitable, and contrary to the welfare obligations of the State.
Case Title: Vikas Dhar Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 323
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed an order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) which had reopened and annulled revenue mutations after more than four decades.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while allowing a writ petition, held that revisional powers whether invoked in cases of fraud or otherwise must be exercised within a reasonable period, and that merits of a case cannot be used as a justification to condone gross delay.
Case Title: Akhand Prakash Shahi Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 324
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that such an inquiry is only a fact-finding mechanism intended to assist authorities in deciding the future course of action and does not amount to initiation of departmental proceedings.
Case Title: Mian Abdul Qayoom Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 325
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by former Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom seeking bail on medical and humanitarian grounds, holding that the record clearly demonstrates that he has been all along being provided with the advance and specialised treatment whenever necessitated and that no life-threatening medical emergency exists warranting his release at this stage.
Case Title: Pyare Lal Bhat & Ors Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed a long-pending Letters Patent Appeal filed by a batch of 1979 direct recruit Sub Inspectors of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, sharply criticising the manner in which binding judicial verdicts were repeatedly diluted through subsequent litigation and administrative actions.
Case Title: Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sheikh Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 327
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rehabilitation and allotment process of shops in the Sector-6 Shopping Complex, Batamaloo, Srinagar, holding that the litigation was misconceived, devoid of merit, and had resulted in enormous loss to the public exchequer as well as grave prejudice to genuine claimants .
Case Title: Radha Krishen Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 328
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that litigant who withholds or suppresses material facts while approaching the Court disentitles himself from being heard on merits and cannot seek or claim any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Vikas Bharti Vs Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 329
Deploring the growing tendency of defaulting borrowers to misuse judicial remedies to stall recovery of public money, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that such conduct strikes at the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: District Kathua Cricket Association & others Vs Board of Control for Cricket in India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 330
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition filed by District Kathua Cricket Association and other District Cricket Associations, seeking inclusion in the Electoral College of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA).
Case-Title: HAKEEM IRFAN AND ORS VS. CHAIRMAN J&K BANK Ltd. AND ORS,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 331
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that no specific performance or interim injunction can be granted in respect of a lease agreement which is determinable in nature, reiterating the statutory bar contained under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Case Title: Oasis Girls School Vs XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 332
Holding that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has no statutory authority to recommend punitive or legal action against educational institutions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, which had recommended action against a private school for allegedly expelling a minor student.
Successive Bail Plea Maintainable Even Without Change In Circumstances: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Basharat Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 333
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a change of circumstances is not a prerequisite for the High Court to entertain a successive bail application where earlier bail pleas have been rejected by an inferior criminal court.
Case Title: Abdul Gani Ganai Vs Habibullah Ganai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 334
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the question of limitation can be subsumed within the broader issues arising from the pleadings, and failure to frame a specific issue on limitation is not fatal, so long as no prejudice is caused to the parties.
Case Title: Dharmarth Trust J&K Vs Industrial Tribunal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 335
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the J&K Dharmarth Trust, by virtue of the systemic, organised and commercial nature of its activities, answers the statutory definition of an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case Title: Irfan Yousuf Vs IIT Jammu, Nagrota Campus & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 336
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Jammu wrongfully delayed and denied appointment to a duly selected candidate, in clear breach of his legal and constitutional rights.
Case Title: Residents of Seenthakran, Tehsil & District Udhampur Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 337
Underscoring the balance between administrative discretion and public fairness, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the choice of location for a government amenity such as a Health Sub-Centre squarely lies within the domain of the competent authority, and no private individual or group can insist upon a particular site.
Case Title: Mehbooba Mufti Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 338
Reaffirming the constitutional limits of Public Interest Litigation, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a PIL filed by PDP President and former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, holding that the petition was “lacking material documents and grounded in ambiguity” and rested on incomplete, vague and unsubstantiated assertions.
Past Employment With Party Does Not Make Arbitrator Ineligible: J&K&L High Court Reaffirms
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K vs SRM Contractors Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 339
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that an arbitrator does not become ineligible merely because he was employed by one of the parties in the past.
Case Title: Kafil Ahmad Mangral Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 340
Underscoring the necessity of precise pleadings while alleging fraud, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that making sweeping and baseless allegations as to the veracity of the documents issued by the competent authorities would not make such documents unreliable.
Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Bashir Ahmad Mir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 341
Holding that police personnel entrusted with public safety cannot abdicate their duty in the face of militant violence, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the failure of police guards to retaliate a militant attack and their act of surrendering service weapons without firing even a single round amounts to a serious act of cowardice bringing moral disgrace to the police force as a whole.
Case Title: Sunny Kashyap Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 342
Holding that criminal courts are not meant to function as passive recipients of police reports, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored that from the very presentation of a final police report (challan), courts must proactively apply judicial acumen to examine whether a case discloses a complete and coherent factual foundation warranting trial, or whether it is a factually fractured prosecution destined to collapse.
Case Title: Ghulam Rasool Baba Vs Principal Secretary To Govt & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 343
Holding that the statutory protection of prior sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption law is available only so long as a public servant remains in service, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that no sanction is required once the official has demitted office or retired.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company V/s M/s Hollywood ornaments at Hari Singh High Street, Sgr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 344
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that where possession of insured property is voluntarily transferred on the basis of trust, such transfer amounts to entrustment, and any dishonest loss arising therefrom attracts exclusion clauses notwithstanding that the act may legally amount to theft.
Case Title: Ghulam Nabi Ganai Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 345
In a sensitive case involving allegations by a granddaughter against her own grandfather, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to a 75-year-old accused, holding that the very edifice of the prosecution case crumbled during trial, and that continued incarceration would be legally impermissible.
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Malik Vs Gulzar Ahmad Wani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 346
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored that once a lawful compromise is recorded in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial Magistrate is duty-bound to dispose of the complaint in terms of that compromise and cannot continue to monitor or enforce the settlement by assuming the role of an executing court.
Case Title: TC Tours Limited v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 347
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once a GST appeal is filed electronically within the statutory period along with the uploaded order, there is no requirement to file a hard copy or certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Zaffer Abbas Din Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 348
Clarifying the scope of criminal law in arbitral proceedings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the bar contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to allegations of false evidence given before an Arbitral Tribunal, as an arbitrator is not a “court” within the meaning of that provision.
Case Title: M/S Sohrab Iqbal Goni (JV) Vs. Director, Transport J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 349
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a second reference to arbitration is maintainable where an arbitral award has been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") without any adjudication on merits of the claims, leaving the underlying disputes unresolved.
Case Title: Shakeel Ur Reham Vs SHO Womens PS Anantnag
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 350
Examining the interface between multiple matrimonial remedies, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that strict segregation of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not always necessary, particularly because allegations of domestic violence, dowry demand, mental cruelty and physical harassment are often interlinked.
Case Title: Shameema Begum Vs PS Bijhama
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 351
Reflecting the human consequences of prolonged criminal litigation, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court brought to a close a criminal case arising out of an incident of 1979, holding that continuation of the substantive sentence would serve no meaningful purpose.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed Bhat Vs Commissioner Secretary General Administration Department.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 352
Reiterating that courts must not stifle corruption investigations at the threshold, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a plea seeking quashment of an FIR registered against a former Assistant Regional Transport Officer, holding that the record discloses “sufficient grounds to suspect commission of offences” and that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out.
Case Title: Jatinder Kumar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 353
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to Jatinder Kumar, a Manager of Jammu & Kashmir Bank, who was arrested in connection with an alleged large-scale loan fraud case investigated by the Crime Branch, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Jammu.
Violation Of Article 16: J&K&L High Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Reservation
Case Title: Balwinder Kumar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 354
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared unconstitutional a clause in a High Court recruitment advertisement that restricted eligibility for district cadre posts on the basis of residence.