J&K&L High Court Weekly Round Up: August 15- August 21, 2022

Raaisha Vs Syed Sudhanshu Pandey 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 100

State of J&K Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Naik & Ors. 2022LiveLaw (JKL) 101

Arshad Hussain Vs General Officer Commanding 56 APO 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 102

Adnan Hassan Khan & Ors Vs Irshad Ahmad Kamili 2022 Live Law (JKL) 103

Latief Ahmad Rather Vs Shafeeqa Bhat 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

Ram Charan Singh Vs Ranjyoti Singh 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 105

Majid Nabi Khan Vs Executive Officer MC Bijbehara 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 106

Darshan Singh Vs Indru Devi 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 107

Tanveer Ahmad Khan Vs JK BOSE 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 108

Abdul Rehman Dar Vs Tariq Ahmad Wagay 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 109

Judgements/Orders

• Deep Appreciation Of Facts Not Required At Stage Of Framing Charges: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: MASHOOQ AHMAD BEIGH v UNION TERRITORY OF J&K & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 99

A single bench of J&K&L High Court observed that It is a settled law that while considering the case for charge or discharge of an accused, the court is not required to enter into deeper appreciation of the facts.

Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has only to consider the material for framing opinion as to whether prima facie offence is committed which would require the accused to be put on trial. A strong suspicion is enough to suggest commission of offence by an accused.

• Sec 125 CrPC | Grant Of Maintenance To Child Can Wait Till Veracity Of Claim Is Ascertained In Cases Of Disputed Paternity: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Raaisha Vs Syed Sudhanshu Pandey

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 100

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that grant of maintenance to a minor child should be the paramount consideration for a Magistrate dealing with a petition under Section 125 of CrPC but, when the paternity of a child is seriously disputed it would not be prudent for a Magistrate to fasten the liability of maintaining the child without first ascertaining the veracity of the claims.

• Years Of Service Alone Does Not Entitle A Daily Wager To Regularization, Eligibility To The Post Paramount Consideration: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: State of J&K Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Naik & Ors.

Citation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 101

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the completion of seven years of continuous service alone would not entitle a daily wager for regularization, unless other eligibility conditions were fulfilled.

"A Daily Rated Worker would become eligible for regularization on fulfilment of all the conditions as contained in Rule 4 of the provisions of SRO 64. Completion of seven years of continuous period of daily wage service alone thus would not entitle a daily wager for regularization unless such daily wager fulfills other eligibility conditions," the bench underscored.

• Party Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Must Demonstrate Failure By Other Party In Following Procedure: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Arshad Hussain Vs General Officer Commanding 56 APO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 102

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator through the intervention of the court must demonstrate that there was a failure by the other party in following the procedure and accepting the request for the appointment of an arbitrator before approaching the court.

"In the absence of such a notice, demand for arbitration and the mentioning of the specific dispute which require adjudication it cannot be said that there actually exists any arbitral dispute between the parties which is referable to arbitration", Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal recorded.

• Criminal Complaint Should Not Merely Mention Section & Its Language, Must Disclose Particulars Of Offences & Role Played By Each Accused: J&K&L HC

Case Title: Adnan Hassan Khan & Ors Vs Irshad Ahmad Kamili

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 103

Justice Sanjay Dhar Of J&K&L High Court observed that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and language of these sections is not all that is needed. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offences committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in commission of those offences...Unless specific allegations are made against the accused, it cannot be stated that they are involved in the alleged offences, the bench underscored.

• Bench Not Superior To Bar: J&K&L High Court Expunges Magistrate's Remarks Against Advocates

Case Title: Latief Ahmad Rather Vs Shafeeqa Bhat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the advocates are the officers of the Court and deserve the same respect and dignity as is being given to the Judicial Officers and Presiding Officers of the Courts.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed "Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other. The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity."

• Non-Incorporation Of Finer Elements Of Pleadings In A Petition Under Motor Vehicles Act Not Necessarily Fatal For Claimant: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Ram Charan Singh Vs Ranjyoti Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 105

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the finer elements of the pleadings, which are required to be mentioned in proceedings like a civil suit, if not incorporated in a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act will not necessarily prove fatal for the claimant.

"The sum and substance of the claim petition should be gauged and not the phrasing of the claim petition in order to do justice in the case. The pedantic approach in this regard can deprive the petitioner of compensation which may be otherwise due to the claimant. That cannot be the legislative intent behind the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act", the bench recorded.

• Judges Can't Overstep Defined Jurisdiction & Expose Administration Of Justice To Individualistic Whims & Fancies: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Majid Nabi Khan Vs Executive Officer MC Bijbehara

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 106

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Section 107 and 108 read with Order 43 Rule 2 CPC does not empower an appellate court to mutate the very script of the suit before the trial court and create a new fact situation alien to the original lis and proceed on to carry forward its own perception-based outcome to a given civil suit.

• Order 39 Rule 7 CPC | Commissioner's Report Is Not The "Final Word" & Is Subject To Parties' Objections: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Darshan Singh Vs Indru Devi

Citation: 2022LiveLaw (JKL) 107

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the purpose of appointment of the Commissioner is limited and the report of the Commissioner is not the final word as it is subject to the objections that may be taken by the parties to the suit.

• Promotion Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Criminal Proceedings Are Pending Against The Employee: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Tanveer Ahmad Khan Vs JK BOSE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 108

The bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee and to deny such benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee

• J&K&L High Court Reprimands Judicial Magistrate, Recommends Recalling Of Incumbent Judge For Undergoing Refresher Training

Case Title: Abdul Rehman Dar Vs Tariq Ahmad Wagay

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 109

A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti recently resorted to a remedial measure of recommending to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh to recall an incumbent judge from his/her posting as Munsiff, Anantnag for undergoing refresher training in the State Judicial Academy for an appropriate course of the period before restoring judicial/court work to said judicial officer

The courts comprised in the district judiciary are the first point of interface with citizens and accordingly this Court is constrained to take cognizance of the manner in which the Presiding Officer of the Court of Munsiff, Anantnag has come to act in discharge of judicial function and conduct the cases which leave the administration of justice becoming a mocking matter at the hands of the judge of the civil court itself, and which is likely to erode, and in fact must have already eroded, the respect oriented public perception viz the district level judicial institution,the bench noted.