Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 2, 2025

Nominal Index:Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 8Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15Judgments/Orders:J&K High Court Denies Bail In Rape & Suicide Case, Cautions Against Granting Bail In Heinous Offences Immediately Post Framing Of ChargesCase Title: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6Stressing 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.No Appeal Lies Against Compromise Decree, Party May Only Challenge Consent Decree Before Court Which Passed It: J&K High CourtCase Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza AkhtarCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7Reaffirming 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.Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High CourtCase Title: Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & ContractorsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 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.Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High CourtCase Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9The 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.Evaluating Evidence While Framing Charges Shouldn't Become Mini-Trial: J&K High Court Quashes Corruption Charges Against Ex-JMC CommissionerCase Title:Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10Highlighting 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.Ex-Gratia Relief Cannot Replace Court Ordered Compensation: J&K High Court Upholds ₹20 Lakh Compensation For Electrocution VictimCase Title: State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad TantrayCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11Upholding 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.Section 138 Of NI Act Warrants Strict Construction, Compliance With Proviso Clauses Is A Precondition Before Prosecution: J&K High CourtCase Title: Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar RamCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12Quashing 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.J&K High Court Disposes PIL On Safety Of Judicial...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 2, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags