Nominal Index:Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo vs Furqaan Ah. Rather 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 217Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 218Attiqa Bano Vs National Insurance Company Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219Tahir Riyaz Dar vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 220Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 221Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust Vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine...
Nominal Index:
Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo vs Furqaan Ah. Rather 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 217
Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 218
Attiqa Bano Vs National Insurance Company Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219
Tahir Riyaz Dar vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 220
Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 221
Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust Vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Jammu/Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 222
Chief Executive Officer and Anr Vs M/s Highlander Bar and Restaurant and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 223
Shri Nav Durga Jhaleri Mata Trust vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 224
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 225
Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 226
Jagdish Raj Gupta Vs Purushottam Gupta 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT & ORS. Vs UT OF J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
Saja Begum vs Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K Govt.& Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. Vs UT OF J&K & another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
BILAL AHMAD KUMAR VS UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
Basit Bashir Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
Intizamia Committee Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
TOUSEEF AHMAD KHAN Vs UT OF J&K & another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
Raja Aif Farooq & Anr VS UT OF J&K & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
Healthium Medtech Ltd. Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
MOHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK Vs MOHAMMAD AKRAM WANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
Mohd. Abbas vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
Court of its own motion Vs State of J&K & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. Vs UT of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
Anish Rajulia Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
Shamim Ahmad Parray Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
Judgments/Orders:
Case-Title: Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo vs Furqaan Ah. Rather
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 217
In a ruling aimed at streamlining cheque bounce proceedings, Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside an order of the Trial Magistrate, Srinagar, which had refused to record the statement of an authorized bank representative in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 218
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against the State of Punjab and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed that the petitioner self-invited the dismissal of this writ petition before it came to be filed. The court said that jurisdictional pleading is an essential prerequisite when targeting authorities outside a High Court's territorial domain.
Case Title: Attiqa Bano Vs National Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held in clear terms that Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has an overriding effect over Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and bars the maintainability of any further appeal from a judgment passed by a Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Case-Title: Tahir Riyaz Dar vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 220
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld a preventive detention order passed under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that the detaining authority's decision was based on application of mind, a reasonable assessment of future threat, and in accordance with constitutional and legal safeguards.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that the grounds of detention, which included details of an FIR, past criminal conduct, and release from jail, indicated a conscious and informed application of mind by the detaining authority.
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 221
Reaffirming the sanctity of constitutional rights, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that mere registration of a criminal case does not amount to proceedings prescribed under clause (e) of Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that for proceedings to be treated as pending before a criminal court, a chargesheet must be filed, and not merely an FIR.
Case Title: Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust Vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Jammu/Srinagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 222
In a stern ruling that underscores the sanctity of constitutional litigation, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while rejecting an application seeking withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh, held that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution is not shackled by procedural technicalities but nor is it an unregulated space for speculative or unjustified litigation maneuvers.
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer and Anr Vs M/s Highlander Bar and Restaurant and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 223
Reinforcing the regulatory powers of Cantonment Boards, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar ruled that the business of selling liquor within cantonment areas is a privilege extended by the State, not a fundamental right.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar upheld the authority of the Srinagar Cantonment Board to enhance license fees for liquor establishments, observing that such enhancement was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Case-Title: Shri Nav Durga Jhaleri Mata Trust vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 224
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court voiced serious concern over the prolonged absence of an Advocate General in the Union Territory, noting that this vacancy has effectively rendered Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inoperative, particularly in matters involving charitable and religious institutions.
Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 225
Reinforcing the principle that disciplinary proceedings need not culminate in an elaborate enquiry when the delinquent admits to the charges, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that once the delinquent employee unequivocally admits to the charges in disciplinary proceedings, a full-fledged enquiry involving oral evidence and cross-examination is not necessary.
Case Title:Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 226
“Once it is clearly discernible from the allegations made in the complaint that the act of the accused falls within the General Exceptions, there is no need to wait for submission of proof on behalf of the accused so as to bring his case within the purview of General Exceptions”, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while quashing a FIR against a group of revenue officials.
Case Title: Jagdish Raj Gupta Vs Purushottam Gupta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
Reaffirming the importance of financial credibility in cheque bounce litigation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that failure of the complainant to prove financial capacity to extend a large loan can fatally weaken the case, particularly when the accused manages to raise a plausible defence.
Case-Title:ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT & ORS. Vs UT OF J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that non-compliance of the provision requiring designated officer to make recommendation to the Commissioner Food Safety for accord of sanction for prosecution against the accused persons within time limit renders prosecution unsustainable.
Eviction Is A Civil Matter, Police Cannot Meddle In Landlord-Tenant Disputes: J&K High Court
Case Title: Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
Reiterating a foundational principle of law, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that police have no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes that are purely civil in nature, including those arising between landlord and tenant. Such matters, the Court observed, fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil courts and outside the scope of criminal law enforcement agencies.
Case-Title: Saja Begum vs Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K Govt.& Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
In a ruling emphasising the the interplay between the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and the earlier alienation of land Act, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that any oral gift of agrarian land, including to close relatives, is impermissible without prior approval from competent authority under Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Case-Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable holding that there was no bar in accepting the resignation on the same day on which it was tendered, rather than treat it as 'intention to resign' and wait for a two-month notice period to expire before accepting it.
Case Title: Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, while quashing an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 447 of the IPC has held that an assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC.
Case-Title: SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. Vs UT OF J&K & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman under the false promise of marriage, stating that there is prima facie material suggesting that the petitioner engaged the complainant over social media.
The court added that it appears that the petitioner extracted sexual favours under the pretext of marriage, and then failed to fulfil his promise.
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
Clarifying the interpretation of recruitment eligibility criteria, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that where the required experience for a post has no direct nexus with the prescribed educational qualification, such experience can be validly acquired either before or after obtaining the qualification.
Case-Title: BILAL AHMAD KUMAR VS UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed bail applications filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, ruling that the allegations involving recovery of explosive substances and links with a militant module are too grave to warrant release at this stage of the trial.
A bench of Justices Rajnesh Oswal, Sanjay Parihar observed that the trial is underway with material evidence already recorded and the delay, if any, is not inordinate enough to invoke the principle laid down in K.A. Najeeb.
Cannot Withold Retirement Benefits For Crime Branch Clearance: J&K HC
Case Title: Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that retirement benefits could not be withheld merely on the grounds of pending clearance from crime branch, especially when the FIR has been closed as 'not proved'.
The court ruled that even when if the FIR investigations were pending, it does not amount to 'judicial proceedings', and thus, cannot be used to deny retirement benefits. Thus, the court directed the employer to provide all retirement benefits, along with interest.
Case Title: Basit Bashir Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere medical evidence confirming sexual intercourse is insufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act or rape charges.
There must be direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the act, observed Justice Sanjay Dhar while quashing charges against one Basit Bashir, accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting two minor girls.
Case Title: Intizamia Committee Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Ziyarat (shrine), Dargah, or other religious property that qualifies as a "Wakaf by user" under Section 3(d)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Wakafs Act, 1978, does not require a formal declaration or notification to be treated as Wakaf.
CaseTitle: TOUSEEF AHMAD KHAN Vs UT OF J&K & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, observing that the prosecution failed to establish prima facie possession of commercial quantity of contraband drugs due to gaps in investigation and absence of crucial FSL reports.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the bail application after noting that only 3 out of 11 bottles of alleged codeine syrup seized from the accused were sent for chemical analysis, leaving serious doubts about whether the remaining bottles contained any contraband substance.
Case-Title: RAJA ASIF FAROOQ & ANR VS UT OF J&K & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed an FIR against two nephews accused of outraging the modesty of their aunt and criminal trespass, holding that the allegations arose out of a civil property dispute and did not constitute a criminal offence.
Case-Title: Healthium Medtech Ltd. Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside rate contracts awarded by the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd. (JKMSCL) for supply of suture materials stating “clear arbitrariness, procedural violations, and institutional favouritism” in favour of two long-time vendors.
Case-Title: MOHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK Vs MOHAMMAD AKRAM WANI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that local commissioners appointed by the court are well within their rights to submit a report regarding the physical features existing on the spot of land for the purpose of deciding the application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.
Case-Title: Mohd. Abbas vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed the preventive detention of a man, calling the action as a “punitive measure in the garb of preventive detention."
The court censured both the District Magistrate, Kathua, and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua, for “abuse of position” and “malice in law.”
Case-Title: Court of its own motion Vs State of J&K & Ors. 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
In an order aiming at restoring public spaces and ensuring smooth flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic the Jammu & Kashmir High Court issued comprehensive directions to curb illegal encroachments by shopkeepers, vendors, and food joints, while disposing of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Case-Title: Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. Vs UT of J&K and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet filed against several individuals accused of carrying out a violent attack using deadly weapons, holding that the plea of alibi raised by the accused cannot be tested in a pre-trial stage under the guise of a quashing petition.
Case Title: Anish Rajulia Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the medical rejection of a CAPF aspirant declared unfit due to a congenital birthmark.
A bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary emphasised that congenital conditions like 'Port Wine Stain' cannot, by themselves, be grounds for medical disqualification unless accompanied by concrete medical reasoning demonstrating functional impairment.
Case-Title: Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator's fee as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award.
The issue before the court was whether a government-prescribed internal fee structure for empanelled arbitrators could override the statutory fee scale in the Fourth Schedule of the 1996
Case Title: Shamim Ahmad Parray Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
Reaffirming foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to fill material gaps in the prosecution case unless the foundational facts necessary to shift the onus are first firmly established.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
Reiterating the wide discretionary powers conferred upon senior revenue authorities under Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that officers such as the Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner are legally empowered to decide matters on merits while exercising their authority to withdraw and transfer cases pending before subordinate revenue officers.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Reiterating the doctrine of pari delicto, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that where both parties are equally at fault in entering into an illegal agreement, the law will not intervene to determine their inter se rights and liabilities.
Case-Title: Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of murdering his wife with a firearm, observing that the prosecution has failed to produce any clinching or credible evidence connecting him to the crime.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the bail application, holding that “in such cases of 'no evidence', courts are obliged to take a holistic view and exercise discretion in favour of liberty.”