J&K&L High Court Weekly Roundup: 29 August To 4 September, 2022

Nominal Index :Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Vs Drug Inspector 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 122Union of India Vs M/S D. Khosla Co & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 123 National Highway Authority of India Vs Ali Mohammad Dar & 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 124 Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125 M/S JK Stationers Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 126 Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 127 Altaf Ahmad Zargar Vs Mst Sana & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 128 New India Assurance Co Vs Mehra Begum 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 129 Muzamil Ahmad Dar V/s High Court of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 130 Bashir Ahmad Wani v J&K Grameen Bank and Another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 131 Aijaz Ahmad Sofi v. UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 132 Liaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 133 Mst Hameeda Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 134 Naseer Ahmad Sheikh Vs Mohammad Sultan Bhat 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 135 Mushtaq Ahmad Peer v/s State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 136 Judgements/Orders : S.32A Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Impleadment Of Manufacturer Can Be Done Only After Trial Has Commenced & Evidence Is Led: J&K&L High Court Case Title :Rishi Sharma Director Haustus Biotech Vs Drug Inspector Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 122 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that under the section 32-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 it is only after trial has commenced and the evidence has been led, power to implead manufacturer or any other person who appears to be involved in the offence can be exercised and prior to that, no such power can be exercised. "One of the differences between Section 319 of the Code and Section 20-A of the Act is that, while in the former even if it appears to the court from the evidence (either during inquiry or trial of the offence), that another person is to be tried along with the already arraigned accused, then the court can proceed against that other person, while in the latter the satisfaction of the court that such manufacturer (distributor or dealer) is also concerned with that offence must be gathered from "the evidence adduced before it during the trial". In other words, the power under Section 20-A cannot be invoked until the trial begins and after the trial ends." Justice Sanjay Dhar observed. Arbitrator Is A Creature Of Contract & Hence Cannot Supercede It By Any Means : J&K&L High Court Case Title :Union of India Vs M/S D. Khosla Co & Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 123 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an arbitrator is creature of the contract between the parties and, therefore, if he ignores the specific terms of the contract, it would be a question of jurisdictional error, which could be corrected by the Court under Section 30 of J&K Arbitration Act, 2002 and for that limited purpose the agreement is required to be looked into. "The award can be interfered with by the Court, if it is found that the arbitrator has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and has awarded claims which would be beyond the scope of submission. The award will also be bad, if the arbitrator, who himself is a creature of the contract agreement travels beyond the terms and conditions of the contract and awards claims on the excepted items. Such award would be invalid and can very well be interfered with by the Court", Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed. Local Authority May Appeal Against Enhancement Of Land Acquisition Compensation By Reference Court Only After Leave Of Court U/S 50(2): J&K&L HC Case Title :National Highway Authority of India Vs Ali Mohammad Dar & Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 124 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that in the event of enhancement of compensation for land acquisition by the reference court, if the Government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court only after obtaining leave of the court as prescribed u/s 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. NDPS Act | Standard Of "Conscious Possession" Different In Case Of A Public Transport As Opposed To Private Vehicle: J&K&L High Court Case Title : Waqar Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 125 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the expression "possession" used in the provisions contained in Section 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act clearly specify that the standard of conscious possession would be different in case of public transport as opposed to a private vehicle with few persons known to one another. "The term "conscious possession" is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statute and the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be ascertained from the fact and circumstances of the case", Justice Sanjay Dhar observed. S.319 CrPC | Only Material Collected By Court During ...

J&K&L High Court Weekly Roundup: 29 August To 4 September, 2022

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags