Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup October 14 - October 20, 2024

Nominal Index:Hallmark v. Jammu & Kashmir GST Department & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 272Sabahat Sanna Vs Dr Shabir Ahmad 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 273Sudhir Power Limited v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 274Pawan Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 275Syed Tassadque Hussain Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 276Oriental Insurance Company Vs M/S Shalimar Wine Shop 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 277Suraj Prakash Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 278UT Of J&K Vs Mudasir Farooq Malik 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 279Mohammad Iqbal Mir and others Vs State of J&K and others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 280State Of J&K Vs Rakesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281Judgments/Orders:Limitation For Refund Of GST Is Determined From Date Of Original Application, Not From Date Of Follow-Up Application: J&K HC Quashes Deficiency MemoCase title: Hallmark v. Jammu & Kashmir GST Department & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 272The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the time limit for refund of GST is to be determined from the date the original application is filed by an assessee, and not from the date of follow-up application.Temporary Residence Elsewhere Doesn't Alter Jurisdiction In Guardianship Petitions, It Depends On Ordinary Residence: J&K High CourtCase Title: Sabahat Sanna Vs Dr Shabir AhmadCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 273The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that it is the ordinary place of residence of the minor which determines the jurisdiction of the Court in guardianship matters under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and temporary residence elsewhere at the time of filing the application does not alter this jurisdiction.HC Upholds J&K Govt's Decision To Withdraw Budgetary Support Scheme 2018 For Reimbursement Of IGST To Manufacturing UnitsCase title: Sudhir Power Limited v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 274The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the UT government's decision to withdraw the 'Budgetary Support Scheme', notified in the year 2018 for providing budgetary support to manufacturing units in the UT, by reimbursement of Integrated Goods and Service Tax.A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Sekhri observed that the Scheme did not create any legitimate expectation in the units nor did it attract promissory estoppel on the government.Though DNA Report Can Be Considered While Adjudicating Bail, Prosecution Can Contest Its Accuracy In Trial: J&K High CourtCase Title: Pawan Kumar Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 275The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that while the prosecution and complainant retain the right to contest the accuracy of the DNA analysis during the trial, such a report can be considered in the context of a bail petition before the trial fully unfolds.J&K High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Public Safety Act as Not Maintainable, Cites Ongoing Adjudication On Similar IssueCase Title: Syed Tassadque Hussain Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 276The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. The court declared the PIL non-maintainable, citing that the issue of detention of citizens under the PSA was already under judicial consideration, making this litigation a parallel and redundant proceeding.Insurance Company Must Pay Full Insured Amount, Relief From Government Irrelevant: J&K High CourtCase Title: Oriental Insurance Company Vs M/S Shalimar Wine ShopCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 277The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an insurance company cannot reduce the payout to a claimant based on ex gratia relief received from the government.Dismissing a Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an Insurance company against an award a bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary emphasized, "the Insurance Company is bound to pay the claim against the sum insured. It is not the business of the Insurance Company to see whether the person suffering damages has been paid some sort of relief from other sources or not."Employee Of State Road Transport Corporation Entitled To Pay Revision And Benefits Of 5th And 6th Pay Commissions: Jammu & Kashmir High CourtCase Title: Suraj Prakash Vs State of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 278Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing his entitlement to the pay revisions under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, despite his superannuation. The court held that since the petitioner had been treated as a government employee for pension purposes, he was also entitled to the pay revisions granted under the relevant Statutory Rules and Orders (SROs).O.37 R.3 CPC | Courts Can Allow Conditional Leave To Defend Summary Suits, With Terms Tailored To Specific Facts Of Each Case: J&K High CourtCase Title:...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup October 14 - October 20, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags