Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup April 7 - April 13, 2025

Nominal Index:Aditya Malhotra vs Dharminder Singh 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 138HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140Mumtaz Ahmed th. Nisar Ahmed Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 141Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Susheel Kumar Rana and others Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 143Anil Gupta and another vs Union Territory of J&K and another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 144ABDUL RAHEEM BHAT (Senior Citizen) vs BEAUTY JAN AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Hakim Nazir Ahmad Vs Commissioner SMC 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 146Abdul Hamid vs UT OF J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 147Judgments/Orders: Complainant Does Not Acquiesce To Jurisdiction Under NI Act By Merely Participating In Proceedings Or Negotiating A Settlement: J&K High CourtCase Title: Aditya Malhotra vs Dharminder SinghCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 138The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that merely because the complainant participated in the proceedings by giving evidence on affidavit before the trial magistrate not having the jurisdiction to try the case does not mean he has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court.Compulsory Retirement Valid For Leaving Battalion Without Informing About New Address, Employer Cannot Launch 'Manhunt' For Employee: J&K HCCase Title: HC/GD Harish Chander vs UOI and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 139The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement from the service imposed upon the petitioner for his continuous absence from the battalion without permission for overstaying his leave for the period of 326 days.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that “An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. This is what has been done by the respondents as well as the Inquiry Officer in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Inquiry Officer has not followed either the procedure prescribed under the CRPF Rules, or the principles of natural justice”Filing List Of Documents In Chargesheet Not Substantial Compliance With S.294 CrPC: J&K High CourtCase-Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of EnforcementCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that merely filing a list of documents is not substantial compliance with Section 294 CrPC.The Court held that it was necessary to give notice to the adverse party by providing them the list of the documents which are sought to be admitted or denied by the adverse party as per the section 330 of BNSS, which is equivalent of section 294 of Crpc, to ensure that the party is aware of the documents the said party has been called upon to admit or deny.Non-Disclosure Of Confidential Intel In Public Interest Doesn't Violate Detenu's Rights: J&K High Court Upholds Detention OrderCase Title: Mumtaz Ahmed th. Nisar Ahmed Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 141The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that not furnishing confidential information to the detenu, which would have been against public interest, cannot be construed as a violation of constitutional or statutory rights.Questions On Whether Infrastructural Project Would Be Technically Feasible Or Serve Larger Public Interest Are Beyond Scope Of Judicial Review: J&K HCCase-Title: Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 142The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that merits of the contention raised by the petitioner as to the feasibility or viability of the infrastructural project by the government cannot be looked into by this court as it is not an appellate authority over the expert decisions regarding the project costs, provisions for entry/exit points, safety, technical feasibility of the project, and the related aspects.Mere Existence Of Civil Remedy For Breach Of Contract No Grounds To Quash Cheating Case In Absence Of Mala Fides: J&K High CourtCase Title: Susheel Kumar Rana and others Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 143The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that the presence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, justify quashing of criminal proceedings unless the allegations in the complaint fail to disclose an offence or the proceedings are found to be malicious.“.. mere fact that complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. It is only if it is shown that the complaint even if taken at its face value does not disclose commission of any offence or if it is found that criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance...

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup April 7 - April 13, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags