High Court of J & K and Ladakh
Writ Powers Limited By Article 226: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Against Punjab Authorities Over Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against the State of Punjab and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner had approached the court seeking relief against certain notices issued by Punjab authorities but failed to plead any cause of...
Refusal To Record Statement Of Bank's Authorised Representative In Cheque Dishonour Cases Is Liable To Be Set Aside: J&K High Court
In a ruling aimed at streamlining cheque bounce proceedings, Jammu & Kashmir Highcourt has set aside an order of the Trial Magistrate, Srinagar, which had refused to record the statement of an authorized bank representative in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the approach adopted by the trial court was not...
Jammu And Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up May 26 - June 1 2025
Nominal Index:MOHAMMAD SHABAN GANAI & ANR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD RATHER 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 201Rajinder Kumar vs State of J&K and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 202Ashok Toshkhani vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 203Mehmood Askari Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 204Niket Kansal Vs Union Of India Through ED 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 205Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw...
No Statutory Bar On Granting Bail U/S 13 Of UAPA As Restrictions U/S 43-D(5) Do Not Apply: J&K High Court Clarifies
Shedding light on the contours of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has 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.In a ruling delivered by a...
BNSS | Interlocutory Notice Does Not Decide Rights Of Parties, S.438 Bars Revisional Jurisdiction Against Such Orders: J&K High Court
Interpreting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an order merely issuing notice in a proceeding is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, reaffirmed that Section 438(2) of the...
J&K High Court Upholds 1944 Land Exchange Order, Says Vested Rights Cannot Be Undone By Administrative Inertia
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...
Withdrawal Of Earlier Notification For Departmental Promotion & Issuing Fresh Notification Under Amended Rules Is Not Mala Fide: J&K High Court
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.The above orders came while the court was hearing the challenge by the petitioner against the fresh notification issued by the respondent University requiring...
J&K High Court Grants Final Chance To Estates Dept To File Status Report In Plea Seeking Eviction Of Ex-Ministers From Govt Accommodation
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the unauthorised occupation of government accommodations by former ministers and politicians, The Jammu & Kashmir Highcourt has given the Estates Department a final opportunity to submit a comprehensive status report by July.A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal expressed serious concern over repeated non-compliance...
Magistrate Cannot Postpone Decision On Third Party Ownership Objections U/S 84 Of CrPC Until After Attachment Is Executed: J&K High Court
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has 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...
J&K High Court Issues Notice On CRPF Jawan's Plea Challenging Dismissal From Service For Marrying Pakistani Woman
A Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) jawan from Jammu and Kashmir, has moved the J&K High Court challenging his dismissal from service for marrying a Pakistani national.A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani while hearing the matter issued notice to the Director General of CRPF, as well as to the Commandants of CRPF's 41 Battalion (Bangrasia, Bhopal) and 72 Battalion (Sodra,...
J&K High Court Declines Man's Plea Against FIR Over Social Media Posts Calling For Violence Against Non-Kashmiri's Living In Kashmir Valley
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has 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.Justice Sanjay Dhar, while rejecting the petition, made strong observations about the nature and impact of the petitioner's...
When Status Quo Order Is Passed Over Possession Of Suit Property, Party In Possession Can Raise Construction On Their Share: J&K High Court
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.The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the trial court allowing the respondent...








