Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup March 24 - March 30, 2025

Nominal Index:General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112Saraj Din vs Liyaqat Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS Awantipora 2025, Livelaw (JKL) 116ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 118Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119Rattan Lal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121Santosha Devi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 122Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123Khursheed Ahmad Mahajan and another Vs Govt Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 124Smt Suresh Parihar Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 125Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126Judgments/Orders Indian Army's Core Function Of National Security Is A Sovereign Function, Cannot Be Categorized As 'Industry': J&K High CourtCase Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.Employer Setting Cut-Off Dates For Pension Schemes Not Violative Of Article 14: J&K High CourtCase Title: State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad NaqeebCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that employers are well within their rights to fix a cut-off date for introducing new pension or retirement schemes, and such decisions do not violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.Security Threats Faced By Litigants Justify Alternative Measures Like Virtual Hearings Instead Of Transferring Case: J&K High CourtCase Title: Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others,Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112Recognizing that the petitioners had legitimate security concerns due to their migration from Kashmir in the past the Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowed a virtual hearing for the party from the Jammu Wing in a case before its Srinagar Wing.Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that two decades ago, the respondent had filed the suit in the Srinagar court, and there was a threat perception to the petitioner. As a result, it was not possible to contest the suit, nor was the virtual mode of appearance available at that time. The court added that, at the request of the petitioner/defendant, the suit was transferred to Jammu.Commissioner Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC Should Only Be Appointed When Evidence Presented By Parties Is Insufficient To Resolve Dispute: J&K High CourtCase title: Saraj Din vs Liyaqat AliCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC could be issued only when the trial court is unable to decide the controversy based on the evidence placed by the parties.The court noted that a Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is appointed for inspection purposes, while a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is meant for investigation to elucidate disputed facts.Policy Decision Restricting Pension Benefits To Employees Retiring After Particular Cut-Off Period Not Illegal: J&K High CourtCase Title: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEBCitation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that The employer is well within its rights to validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension scheme or for discontinuing an existing scheme and same is not violative of Article 14.A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Puneet Gupta said that government took a policy decision to introduce new pension scheme wherein the benefits was given to those who retired after 2014 and those who retired before the date and those who retired afterwards form two separate classes. Prima Facie Evidence Connecting Accused To Offending Vehicle In Accident Cases Necessary To Frame Charges U/S 304A IPC: J&K High CourtCase-title: Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&KCitation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is not open to the trial magistrate to frame charges against an accused without sifting the material collected on record for the limited purpose of framing opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made against the accused.Trial Court's Reliance On Weak & Coerced Evidence While Convicting Father For Murdering Son Is Legally Unsustainable: J&K High CourtCase-title: Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup March 24 - March 30, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags