J&K&L High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Nominal Index : Tanzeem Khursheed Zargar Vs J&K Special Tribunal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 201 M/s Swiss Garner Life Sciences & Ors Vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 202 Tamanna Vs Khushmeela 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 203 Mst Mugli Begum & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 204 Shabir Ahmad Ganai Vs Ghulam Mohi Ud Din Wani 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 205Jagdev Singh versus Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 206 Judgements /Orders : Right To Choose Forum For Redressal Of Grievance Does Not Permit Choice Of Two Forums For Same Reliefs: J&K&L High Court Imposes 50K Cost Case Title : Tanzeem Khursheed Zargar Vs J&K Special Tribunal & Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 201 Coming down heavily on a petitioner for "forum hunting" and suppression of material facts, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 50000 on him. The court ruled that a person may have a right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, but he/she cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject-matter for the same relief. Govt Analyst's Report U/S 25 Drugs & Cosmetics Act Not "Conclusive" If It Is Not Supplied To Person From Whom Sample Was Collected: J&K&L High Court Case Title : M/s Swiss Garner Life Sciences & Ors Vs Union of India. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 202 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the report of a Government Analyst would become conclusive under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, only against the person who despite having been provided a copy of the report, has failed to notify his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report, within a period of 28 days. Deliberating on the term "Conclusiveness" used in sec 25(3) of the Act the bench explained that the conclusiveness meant in Section 25(3) of the Act has reference to the person referred to in the said sub-section, meaning thereby that the facts stated in the report of the Government Analyst would become conclusive only against the person who despite having been provided a copy of the report, has failed to notify his intention to adduce evidence regarding facts stated therein within a period of 28 days. If Demand Notice U/S 138 NI Act Mentions Correct Address Of Accused, Question Of Delivery Due To Variation In Postal Receipt To Be Decided At Trial: J&K&L HC Case Title : Tamanna Vs Khushmeela Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 203 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that if correct address of the accused is mentioned in the complaint as well as in the notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act, then mere variation of address in the postal receipt will not lead to a presumption that the notice was sent on a wrong address. "In these circumstances, the question whether the notice of demand has been actually received by the petitioner/accused can be determined only during the trial of the case," it said. Mutation Entries Only Fiscal In Nature, Do Not Confer Any Title In Respect Of Property To Which They Relate: J&K&L High Court Case Title : Mst Mugli Begum & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Anr. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 204 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and these do not confer any title in respect of the property to which they relate nor do these entries extinguish the right of a party in respect of the said property. "The title to an immovable property is to be established by the disputants before a civil court and not in mutation proceedings. The mutation is attested only in order to enable the Government to recover revenue from the person in whose favour the same is attested. These entries are always subject to the decree of a civil court of competent jurisdiction", the bench underscored. J&K&L High Court Deprecates Passing Of Status Quo Orders In Property Disputes Without Tentatively Determining Party In Possession Case Title : Shabir Ahmad Ganai Vs Ghulam Mohi Ud Din Wani Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 205 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court deprecated the practice of trial courts passing status quo orders in property suits in a routine manner, without specifying as to which of the parties to the dispute is in possession of the suit property. Justice Sanjay Dhar held that while passing an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, the trial courts should in no uncertain terms record a tentative finding as to which of the parties is in possession of the disputed property. High Court Refuses Intervention In PIL Seeking Recognition Of Hindi As Official Language Of J&K And Ladakh Case Title: Jagdev Singh versus Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 206The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition...

J&K&L High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags