Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16, 2022

Nominal Index: Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63 Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64 Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 65 Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66 Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 67 Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68 Faizan Amin and another V/s UOI and another 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 69 Mohammad Yousaf vs Union Territory of J&K and other 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 70 Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71 Zubair Ahmad Wani Vs. Government Of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 72 Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 73 Waiz-ul-Islam Vs Union Territory of J&K through NIA Jammu 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 74 Judgements/Orders 1) Offences Alleged Against A Person Must Fall Within Realm Of Disturbing "Public Order" To Warrant Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court Reiterates Case Title: Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63 A single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that a detention order passed by a competent authority under Sec 8(1) of J&K Public Safety Act on the ground of disturbance of law & order situation is not sustainable in law as the said provision clearly prescribes "prejudicial to Public order" as a ground to issue detention orders. The bench further observed that a person may be detained under preventive detention laws provided the case falls within the parameters of law laid down under the Act and the perusal of detention order reveals that in all the FIRs, the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the commiss ion of offences those do not fall within the realm of "public order" as defined by section 8(3) of the Act. 2) Employment Conditions Can't Take Away Employees' Right To Seek Judicial Review Of Employer's Actions: J&K&L High Court Case Title: Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64 The court held that the right to seek judicial review is a vital right conferred by the Constitution and any terms and conditions of employment, which restrain a person to seek legal remedies for enforcement of his rights, are null and void. employer cannot impose such conditions of employment which have the effect of taking away the right of its employees to seek judicial review of the actions of the employer, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar underscored. 3) Pre-Condition Of Filing Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Not Fulfilled When Statutory Notice Of Demand Sent On Wrong Address: J&K&L High Court Case Title: Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 65 A bench of Sanjay Dhar ruled The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an inference of having received the statutory notice of demand by a drawer of a cheque as mandated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can be raised only if the notice has been dispatched to his correct address. Such an inference cannot be drawn if the notice has been sent on the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque, the court observed. 4) If Sanction For Prosecuting Public Servant Under PC Act Is Denied, Prosecuting Agency Can't File Challan Under Other Penal Laws On Same Facts: J&K&L HC Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once the Central Vigilance Commission after examining the material on record reaches a conclusion that no criminal offence is made out against the accused public servant and the said opinion is accepted by the competent authority, it is not open to the investigating agency to file a challan on the same set of facts against the accused public servant by dropping the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and confining the challan only to the offences under other penal provisions. 5) Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Not Automatically Applicable To Restrict Words Used In Statute If Legislative Intent Is Clear: J&K&L High Court Case Title: Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 67 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability, Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded. 6) Courts Can't Expand Scope Of Qualification Prescribed By Employer By Reading Into It A Higher...

Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16, 2022

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags