Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274

M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275

FAROOQ AHMAD LONE Vs STATE OF J&K & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 276

Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277

Abdul Rehman Nath V/s Umar Mohammad Beigh 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 278

Judgments/Orders:

If Only One Conclusion Possible From Undisputed Facts, Possible Breach Of Natural Justice Does Not Automatically Imply Prejudice: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shamsher Singh Manhas V/s State of J&K and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in situations where only one conclusion was possible upon admitted or undisputed facts, a breach of natural justice does not automatically imply prejudice.

Justice Sindhu Sharma thus upheld the cancellation of the allotment of a shop in Jammu to the allotee petitioner.

“Even otherwise, if on undisputed and admitted fact, if only one view is possible, then even if no opportunity of hearing is provided, the impugned notice can[not] be quashed”.

CRPF Act | Commandant Authorised To Dismiss Personnel For Misconduct, Dismissal & Removal Are Minor Penalties: J&K High Court

Case Title: Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act allows the Commandant the discretion to dismiss or remove a member of the force found guilty of misconduct as a penalty.

Justice Sanjay Dhar also clarified that under Section 11, dismissal and removal from service are classified as minor punishments.

"..it is clear that the Commandant is well within his powers to pass an order of dismissal of service of a delinquent CRPF Personnel if he feels that the misconduct is of such a nature as would warrant aforesaid punishment. This can be done by him in exercise of his powers under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Dismissal and removal from service are being considered to be minor punishments as per Section 11 of the CRPF Act. These punishments can be inflicted in addition to or in lieu of punishments provided under Clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act."

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging SCN Regarding Export Of Banned Yarn Shawls

Case Title: M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts held that jurisdiction in the case of shawls containing prohibited material lies in Delhi, not Jammu & Kashmir, as the seizure took place in Delhi.

The bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that in the absence of any specific pleadings in the writ petitions as well as memoranda of appeals, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action had accrued to the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar.

Prevention of Corruption Act | Sanctioning Authority's Competence, Application Of Mind Can Be Examined Only During Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: FAROOQ AHMAD LONE Vs STATE OF J&K & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 276

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the absence of sanction to prosecute a public officer can be challenged at the beginning of a case, but challenges related to the competence of the sanctioning authority and the application of mind can only be raised during the trial.

J&K High Court Orders Thorough Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture, Mutilation Of Police Constable

Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Chohan Vs UT of JK and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 277

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted that the police authorities and the court should carefully exercise discretion to determine if a second FIR is warranted based on case-specific considerations.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani thus ordered a thorough investigation into the alleged severe custodial torture and mutilation of a police constable while in the custody of the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara.

Court's Discretion To Extend Time To File Written Statement Beyond 120 Days Revoked By Amendments To J&K CPC: High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rehman Nath V/s Umar Mohammad Beigh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 278

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that in view of the substitution and addition of the proviso to Order VIII CPC, the legislature has taken away the discretion which was earlier vested with the court to extend the time to file the written statement beyond the 120 day period.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani highlighted the implication of the amendment.

“The only inescapable conclusion emerges from above is that if a defendant fails to file his written statement within the prescribed time provided under Order VIII Rule (1), the right to file same shall stand forfeited and the Court can in no situation allow the same to be taken on record.