JKL High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

•  Jagdish Giri Vs Talib Hussain 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 226

• Mst Mala Begum Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

• Kala Ram & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

•  Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

•   M/s Shree Guru Kripa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

• Abass Ali Vs State of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

• Smt Chanchala Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Judgements /Orders :

• Unlike Criminal Proceedings, Action For Malicious Prosecution Generally Doesn't Lie Against Civil Proceedings: JKL High Court

Case Title : Jagdish Giri Vs Talib Hussain.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 226

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has said that unlike in the cases of malicious prosecution relating to criminal proceedings no action can be brought as a general rule in the cases of civil proceedings even though the same are malicious and have been brought without any reasonable cause.

"It is only in exceptional circumstances that a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution in civil proceedings can be maintained,"Justice Sanjay Dhar added.

• Authorities Manning 'Dangerous Commodity' Must Take Extra Measures: JKL High Court Awards 24 Lakh Compensation To Woman Disabled Due To Electrocution

Case Title : Mst Mala Begum Vs State of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while awarding Rs 24 Lakh to a woman left crippled because of a High Voltage electric shock observed that authorities manning dangerous commodities like electricity have an extra duty to take all measures to prevent any mishap.

"It is their statutory duty to ensure that no mishap takes place on account of lack of proper maintenance of these installations. The fact that the wooden cross of HT Frame of the transmission line had broken which resulted in sagging of conductor to a lower level shows that the field officials of the respondent Department have failed in their duty to check and supervise the transmission line", the court maintained.

• Literally Acted As Medieval Time Zamindar: JKL High Court Lambasts Police Establishment For Usurping Private Property In 2013

Case Title : Kala Ram & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expressed regret over the manner in which the Police establishment had "usurped" a private property for its use back in 2013, "dictated" its rent and continued in illegal occupation till 2018 until it was no longer of use to them.

Single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti remarked,

"J&K Police had lot to explain its conduct, rather misconduct in real terms, and still it has not dawned upon it to reconcile and make amends... on the acts of omission and commission of the erring police officials concerned in literally having acted as medieval time zamindar to overpower a private property."

• Police Cannot "Quick Fix" Facts Into Its Viewpoint Of Accusation: JKL High Court On Rape Investigation In Criminal Intimidation Complaint

Case Title : Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court called out the "Quick Fixes" resorted to by the police during criminal investigations, holding that investigations must be conducted within the domain of "Facts in Issue" and "Relevant Facts".

A single bench comprising Justices Rahul Bharti observed,

"Police Investigation acts with relish to exhibit its harassment bearing power of investigation aiming more to quick fix the facts into its view point of accusation but faintly knows the province of investigation out of which the full facts are to be drawn out to prove the script of the crime in all its details...If a given Police Investigation has least bothered to follow the script of said two domains, then in the name of Police Investigation what is taking place would be nothing but paper collection and compilation venture by the Investigation Officer so as to claim the service credit of having prepared and submitted a police report/challan in a court of law unmindful of its soundness and sustainability in a court of law."

• Retrospective Operation Of Govt Order Cannot Be Permitted Particularly Where It Is Merely An Executive Order & Not A Legislation: JKL High Court

Case Title : M/s Shree Guru Kripa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that retrospective operation of a Government Order cannot be permitted particularly where it is merely an executive order, and not a legislation.

A bench comprising Justice Waseem Sadiq Nargal observed,

"As every Government/executive order by virtue of a policy has prospective operation, it can in no way be applied retrospectively by infusing life in a Government order and interpreting differently, when the explicit language leads to an irresistible conclusion".

• Borrowing Department Liable To Disburse Salary Of Employee Sent To It On Deputation: JKL High Court

Case Title : Abass Ali Vs State of J&K & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that an employee sent on deputation from his parent department to the borrowing department at the request of the borrowing department is the liability of the borrowing department and hence they are accountable for salary of the employee.

• Armed Forces Tribunal At Srinagar Grants Family Pension To A Widow 48 Yrs After Her Husband's Retirement From Indian Army

Case Title : Smt Chanchala Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Srinagar bench of Armed Forces Tribunal recently granted pensionary benefits to a widow, 48 years after her husband's retirement from the Indian Army.

Deciding the matter the Division bench of the tribunal observed that the respondents have erroneously rejected the claim of the applicant for the grant of ordinary family pension. While drawing this conclusion, the bench took support of Government of India Instructions dated 14.08.2001 whereby approval for condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of family pension in respect of Personnel Below Officer Rank beyond six months and up to 12 months has been granted.