Tariq Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 483

Mst. Themud v. Ram Nath & Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 484

Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 485

Bansi Lal Bhardwaj v. S. Gagandeep Singh 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 486

Villagers of Chutuk and Others v. Mohammad Hussain 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 487

Ikram Tahir v. Union Territory of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 488

Javed Ahmad Bhat v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 489

Abdul Rehman Wagay Gawgojree v. Nazir Ahmad Wagay & Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 490

Mushtaq Ahmad v. Union Territory of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 491

X X X X v. Union Territory of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 492

Vivek Bassan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 493

M/s Mass N Energy and Others v. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 494

Shakoor Ahmed v. Union Territory of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 495

Shanaza Banoo v. Union Territory of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 496

Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi v. Abdul Hamid Malla 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 497

Judgments/Orders:

“Ordinary Criminal Law Sufficient”: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of Man Accused In Repeated Livestock Theft Cases

Case Title: Tariq Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 483

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed Tariq Ahmad Dar's preventive detention under the Public Safety Act, holding that repeated involvement in livestock-theft cases did not, by itself, establish a threat to public order. As the criminal cases were already pending, the ordinary criminal law machinery was sufficient to deal with the allegations.

Adverse Revenue Entry During Childhood Does Not Automatically Trigger Limitation For Claiming Father's Property: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Mst. Themud v. Ram Nath & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 484

The High Court allowed a civil second appeal and restored the trial court's decree in favour of a woman claiming a share in her father's property. It held that an adverse mutation entry made during her minority did not, by itself, amount to a clear and unequivocal denial of her rights so as to trigger limitation; the defendants failed to prove when such denial occurred.

When Can Courts Reopen Evidence Under Section 151 CPC After Trial Closes: J&K&L High Court Explains

Case Title: Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 485

The High Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC permits recall of a witness to clarify evidence, not to fill omissions. However, Section 151 CPC may be invoked in an appropriate case to permit additional evidence after closure of trial when it is relevant and necessary in the interests of justice. The Court partly allowed the petition, setting aside costs and recall of two witnesses.

Inherent Jurisdiction Cannot Circumvent Bar On Second Revision; J&K&L High Court Says 90 Days Reasonable For S.528 BNSS Petitions

Case Title: Bansi Lal Bhardwaj v. S. Gagandeep Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 486

The High Court held that Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision and observed that 90 days is ordinarily a reasonable time to invoke the provision, with delay beyond that period requiring explanation. It also held that an accused may establish a defence through sale deeds without examining every person connected with the transactions.

Procedural Defect Pointed Out By Opposite Party Does Not Create Absolute Bar Against Rectification By Amendment: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Villagers of Chutuk and Others v. Mohammad Hussain

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 487

The High Court at Leh dismissed a petition challenging the impleadment of villagers and consequential amendments to the pleadings. It held that a procedural defect pointed out by the opposite party does not create an absolute bar against rectification, where the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or fundamentally alter the suit and the added defendants are afforded an opportunity to respond.

J&K&L High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Rape On False Promise Of Marriage, His Mother For Alleged Abetment

Case Title: Ikram Tahir v. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 488

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 23-year-old man accused of having sexual relations with a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage and to his mother, accused of abetment. The Court considered the complainant's account of a relationship lasting about one-and-a-half years and the circumstances in which the proposed marriage failed, clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the trial.

IGNOU Regional Centres In J&K Are Permanent Establishments With Cadre Posts: High Court Directs Consideration Of Regularisation Of Daily Wagers

Case Title: Javed Ahmad Bhat v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 489

The High Court disposed of three petitions by contractual and daily-wage workers of IGNOU's Srinagar Regional Centre, directing the University to consider their claims in light of a Division Bench ruling that its regional centres in J&K function as permanent establishments with cadre posts. The Court left the question of regularisation to the University's competent decision-making authority.

No Equity Or Permission To Construct Can Be Extended To Party Accused Of Disobeying Court Orders: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rehman Wagay Gawgojree v. Nazir Ahmad Wagay & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 490

The High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging orders directing the parties to maintain status quo over disputed property. It held that permission to continue construction during a pending suit is not an absolute right, particularly where the petitioner was accused of wilfully violating an existing status quo direction.

J&K&L High Court Quashes Preventive Detention, Says Yak Transportation Cannot Be Basis To Presume Communal Disharmony

Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 491

The High Court quashed a preventive detention order after finding that the detaining authority had mechanically inferred a threat to communal harmony from allegations that the detenue transported male bovine animals, including yaks. The authority had failed to distinguish yaks from cows or identify material showing a likelihood of communal disharmony.

Mitigating Factors Can Entitle Accused To Bail But Cannot Be Grounds To Quash POCSO Chargesheet: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: X X X X v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 492

The High Court dismissed a petition by a minor victim seeking quashing of a POCSO chargesheet, holding that a relationship, solemnisation of Nikah and the victim's wish to live with the accused may be mitigating factors relevant to bail but cannot erase the offence where she was below the age of consent. The Court also held that the minor could not independently invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.

J&K&L High Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Cop Accused Of Killing Wife, Considers His Ailing Father & Minor Son

Case Title: Vivek Bassan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 493

The High Court granted interim bail to a former Police Inspector facing trial in connection with his wife's death, pending adjudication of his main bail petition. Justice Rahul Bharti considered the impact of his continued custody on his 82-year-old ailing father and 12-year-old son, who depended on the grandfather for day-to-day care.

Levy Of Water Usage Charges On Hydropower Projects Is Tax On Generation Of Electricity, Beyond State Legislature's Competence: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: M/s Mass N Energy and Others v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 494

The High Court struck down the levy of water-usage charges on hydropower projects under the 2010 Act, holding that the levy was, in substance, a tax on the generation of electricity and beyond the legislative competence of the erstwhile State. The Division Bench also quashed consequential demand notices and restrained imposition of such a tax under the guise of water-usage charges.

“Advisory Board Not A Mere Post Office To Facilitate Confirmation Of Detention Orders”: J&K&L High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

Case Title: Shakoor Ahmed v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 495

The High Court quashed Shakoor Ahmed's preventive detention after finding that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation to the District Magistrate who passed the detention order. Justice Rahul Bharti held that the Advisory Board must independently scrutinise compliance with procedural safeguards and cannot act as a mere post office facilitating confirmation of detention.

Fresh Writ Seeking Relief Already Covered By Unimplemented Court Direction Amounts To Multiplicity Of Proceedings: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Shanaza Banoo v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 496

The High Court dismissed a fresh writ petition seeking permission to perform duties as an Aaya, holding that the same relief had already been addressed in an earlier writ petition. As the earlier direction remained unimplemented and contempt proceedings were pending, the Court held that the proper course was to pursue those proceedings rather than institute a fresh petition.

Disputed Liability Cannot Be Converted Into Admitted Obligation To Attract Order 39 Rule 10 CPC: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi v. Abdul Hamid Malla

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 497

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an interlocutory direction to deposit alleged rent arrears and occupational charges, holding that a disputed liability cannot be converted into an admitted obligation by drawing inferences from isolated statements. Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC requires a clear and unequivocal admission; an order made under Section 151 CPC is not appealable merely because it is interlocutory.