Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: October 2023

Nominal Index [Citations 256 - 277]:Mridulla Kirti Vs High Court of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 256MAQSOOD AHMAD SHOOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K &OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 257Kirti Mridulla Vs J&K High Court 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258Abdul Majeed Dar alias Madnee Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 259Union Territory of J&K Vs Abdul Qayoom Bhat 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 260Ab. Hamid Bhat Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 261Ghulam Din Bhat and another Vs Mst Jana 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 262Tabeen Mineral Water Private Limited Vs National Insurance Company Limited 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 263Court On Its Own Motion Vs Comm. Secy. Govt. of JK Tourism and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 264Nikhat Nabi v M/s Fancy Fabrics & Ors (J&K Bank Ltd) 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 265G. M. Bhat v State of JK 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 266Chief Engineer PWD Kashmir Vs Fahmeeda Begum 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 267Shakeel Ahmad Kuchay Vs. Manmohan Lal 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 268Naveen Bhatnagar vs M/s Sudarsham Consolidated Limited 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 269CRP FOOD IMPORT-EXPORT v. KASHMIR KESAR MART 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 270Rajan Gupta V/s Manoj Gupta 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 271Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 272Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275FAROOQ AHMAD LONE Vs STATE OF J&K & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 276Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277Judgments/Orders: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea By Civil Judge Aspirants Seeking Relaxation Of Upper Age LimitCase Title: Mridulla Kirti Vs High Court of J&KCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 256The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition filed by a group of candidates seeking age relaxation for the Kashmir Civil Service (KCS) Judicial Examinations.The court said that while participating in the recruitment process, a candidate must possess the prescribed eligibility and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, there cannot be any relaxation in the requisite eligibility criteria.Degrees Issued By Private Universities Not Recognised By UGC Invalid For Govt Jobs: Jammu & Kashmir High Court ReiteratesCase Title: MAQSOOD AHMAD SHOOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K &OTHERSCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 257The Jammu & Kashmir High Court reiterated that a degree issued by a private university through a study centre or off-campus centre that lacks prior approval from the UGC is invalid and cannot be utilised to secure employment within the Government sector.Justice Sanjay Dhar added that when the petitioner himself was not eligible to be selected, he could not challenge the selection of others who appeared to have obtained their diplomas from recognised institutions.Jammu & Kashmir High Court Refuses To Postpone Civil Judge Exam, Says Candidates Expected To Be PreparedCase Title: Kirti Mridulla Vs J&K High CourtCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258Dismissing a fresh plea seeking deferment of the Civil Judge Exam for more preparation time to aspirants, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that once the candidate is ready to apply for any particular post, he cannot claim a specific period for preparation as he is supposed to be prepared.“The discretion of the Commission to conduct the examination cannot be normally interfered with by the court unless the Court is of the view that the time period has been scheduled with some malafide purpose or extraneous reasons which of course is conspicuous by absence in the present petition. No such plea is raised”, the court said.Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Relief To Islamic Cleric Detained Based On FIR Which Concluded In AcquittalCase Title: Abdul Majeed Dar alias Madnee Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 259The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention order passed against Abdul Majeed Dar, a prominent Islamic cleric popularly known as AL Madnee.Noting that the detaining authority had failed to express any compelling reason for the detention, the bench observed impugned detention order against the detenu and in fact has failed to express any compelling reason thereof. The impugned order, thus, in law, does not sustain on this count alone.Challenging Detention Orders, Getting Stay Before Execution May Prevent Proper Examination Of Evidence: J&K High CourtCase Title: Union Territory of J&K Vs Abdul Qayoom Bhat.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 260The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that after challenging a detention order before its execution through legal channels, they cannot argue that the order should be quashed due to a lack of live link between the current situation and the one when the detention order was issued.A division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Rajesh Sekhri reasoned that by preemptively challenging the order, they prevented a proper examination of whether there ...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: October 2023

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags