Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 10 - June 16, 2024

Nominal Index:Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143Sita Devi Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar Gaind 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149Pawan Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 150Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat Vs Gowhar Majid Dalal 4th ADJ Srinagar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 151State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 153SADATI AL HUSSAINI AL JALALI TRUST Vs QASIM GANAIE AND OTHER 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 154Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir th.Director General of Police J&K iu2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 155M/s Zabarwan Tea Stall Vs Vice Chairman LCMA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 156Farooq Ahmad Khan Vs Mahbooba Khan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 157AQIB AHMAD RENZU Vs UT OF J&K2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 158Emerge Class Private Limited vs Kashmir Institute of Excellence and Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 159Judgments/Orders:Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High CourtCase Title: Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Observing 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.Unblemished Record Necessary For Promotion, Employee Facing Criminal Charges Not Entitled To Promotion During Pendency: J&K High CourtCase Title: Naba Kumar Giri Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 143The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court 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.BSF Act 1968 | Commandant Can Dismiss BSF Personnel Without Security Force Court Trial Provided Procedures Outlined In BSF Rules Are Followed: J&K High CourtCase Title: Sita Devi Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 144The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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.[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 CourtCase Title: Sh. Vaibhav Singh Vs Sh. Taushar GaindCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Quashing a complaint against a company director accused of dishonoring a cheque, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).Death Of Govt Employee Doesn't Guarantee Compassionate Appointment For Family, Financial Hardship Must Be Proven: J&K High CourtCase Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs State Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 146The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court 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.Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High CourtCase Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 147The 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.Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High CourtCase Title: Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 148The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court 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.Prosecutrix's Testimony Concerning Factum Of Occurrence & Persons Involved Ought To Be Scrutinized Before Basing Conviction On It: J&K High CourtCase Title: Naresh Kumar Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 149Highlighting the importance of a consistent and credible narrative from the prosecutrix in...

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 10 - June 16, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags