J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On "Habitual" Litigant For Demeaning Language Against Daughter-in-Law

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has come down heavily on a father who filed a petition challenging the maintenance proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law. Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹1 Lakh to be deposited in the Litigants' Welfare Fund, calling the language used in the petition "demeaning of a woman and totally unacceptable in...

When Statute Provides For Detention Under Specific Contingency, Detention Under Different Contingency Cannot Be Made Unless Conditions Overlap: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that once a statute provides for the detention of a person under a specific contingency, he cannot be detained under a different contingency outlined by the statute unless both conditions overlap or coexist.In quashing a preventive detention order against an alleged habitual liquor smuggler under Section 8 (1) (a) of Jammu and...

Prosecutrix's Testimony Concerning Factum Of Occurrence & Persons Involved Ought To Be Scrutinized Before Basing Conviction On It: J&K High Court

Highlighting the importance of a consistent and credible narrative from the prosecutrix in rape cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that courts must undertake a rigorous scrutiny of a prosecutrix's testimony before reliance can be placed on it.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar added, “.. the Court should satisfy itself that there is no doubt as to the factum...

Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that given the exclusive privilege of the Government in the sale/manufacture of liquor, the Court, being a constitutional body, should be slow in interfering with executive decisions taken by the State as they are essentially a matter of economic policy.Dismissing a series of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of liquor auction...

Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal...

Death Of Govt Employee Doesn't Guarantee Compassionate Appointment For Family, Financial Hardship Must Be Proven: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the death of an employee while in service doesn't automatically entitle their family to a compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the family must be examined, and jobs should only be offered if the family cannot meet the crisis without it, provided there is a relevant scheme or rule.Justice...

J&K High Court Asks Municipal Corp To Identify Those Who Converted Residential Properties to Commercial Properties In Violation Of Master Plan

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) to submit a list of violators within two weeks who have changed land use from residential to commercial in violation of existing rules, bye-laws, and the Jammu Master Plan. The court also sought details of the action taken against such violators.A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed...

[S.138 NI Act] Personal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases Limited To Drawer, No Liability Can Be Fastened Against Company For Cheque Not Issued By It: J&K High Court

Quashing a complaint against a company director accused of dishonoring a cheque, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).Citing Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad Mishra &Anr”, (2021) 4 SCC 675, a bench of Justice Rajesh Oswal reiterated, “Section 138...

BSF Act 1968 | Commandant Can Dismiss BSF Personnel Without Security Force Court Trial Provided Procedures Outlined In BSF Rules Are Followed: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a Commandant's power to dismiss a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) is independent and does not require prior conviction by a Security Force Court, provided that the procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, 1969, are followed.Clarifying the competence of the commandant in issuing dismissal order Justice Sanjay...

Unblemished Record Necessary For Promotion, Employee Facing Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Promotion During Pendency: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a government employee facing criminal charges cannot claim promotion while the proceedings are pending. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that for promotion, an employee must at least have an unblemished record to ensure a clean and efficient administration.The court further said that that an employee found guilty of misconduct...

Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest May 2024

Nominal Index:Jahangir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 98Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo Vs Tej Krishan Ganjoo 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 99Ghulam Mohammad Bhat Alias Gull Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 100Abdul Hamid Khandey Vs United India Insurance Company Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 101Rupen Patel Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 102GHULAM QADIR MIR & OTHERS Vs UT...

Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High Court

Observing that every act prejudicial to state security necessarily disrupts public order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that only acts causing grave disruption to public order qualify as threats to state security.Drawing a significant distinction between acts prejudicial to public order and those affecting the security of the state a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar...