Nominal Index:XXXX Vs UT of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 66Abdul Hamid Bhat Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 67ARSHID AHMAD GANIE Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME) 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 68Peer Rattan Nath Mahant Sh. Shiv ji Maharaj Peer kho Vs Wazir Onkar Singh 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 69Meena Kumari vs Sainik Cooperative House Society Ltd 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 70Bilal Hassan Anim vs...
Nominal Index:
XXXX Vs UT of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 66
Abdul Hamid Bhat Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
ARSHID AHMAD GANIE Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME) 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 68
Peer Rattan Nath Mahant Sh. Shiv ji Maharaj Peer kho Vs Wazir Onkar Singh 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
Meena Kumari vs Sainik Cooperative House Society Ltd 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 70
Bilal Hassan Anim vs Shafeeq Ahmad Mir 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
Manzoor Ahmad Wani vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 72
Sadiya Sidiq Lone vs UT of J&K and others 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 73
FEROZ AHMAD ZARGAR & OTHERS vs UT OF J&K AND OTHERS 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 74
Mohd Altaf Najar Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
Parvaiz Ahmad Fashoo Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 76
Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India 2025 Livelaw JKL) 77
Mohammad Jamal Sheikh Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 78
Executive Engineer And Ors. Vs Ghulam Mohideen Tantray 2025 Livelaw(JKL) 79
Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 80
Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 81
Damni Rajrah & Ors Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 82
Mohammad Abass Magray vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 83
Smt Amrit Kour Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 84
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 85
Mohammad Bashir Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 86
Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Tariq Ahmad Wani 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 87
Renu Sharma and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J&K and another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 88
Airports Authority Of India Vs M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 89
M/S NAVA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD M/S MANCARE LABORATORIES PVT. LTD Vs UT OF J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 90
Saraj Din Vs Liaqat Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 91
Dilshada Begum Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 92
Ansh Mahajan Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 93
S. Charanjeet Singh vs UT of J&K and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 94
NA Ronga Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 95
Farukh Jehanzeb Vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 96
Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97
Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 98
Sumesh Chadha vs UT of J&K and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 99
Mohd. Shafi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 100
Mohd. Asgar @ tola vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 101
Sumit Nayyar Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 102
Sahib Saran Khajuria vs Jammu Municipal Corporation 2025 Livelaw (Jkl) 103
Mohammad Junaid Raina Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 104
Archana vs. Union Territory of J&K & Another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 105
Court on its own motions vs Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
Johar Mehmood Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 107
M/s Mohd Asif Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
State Of J&K Vs Sayed Shabir Bukhari 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 109
General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Saraj Din vs Liyaqat Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114
Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115
Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS Awantipora 2025, Livelaw (JKL) 116
ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 118
Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
Rattan Lal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120
Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
Santosha Devi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 122
Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123
Khursheed Ahmad Mahajan and another Vs Govt Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 124
Smt Suresh Parihar Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
Judgments/Orders:
Case-Title: xxxx vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 66
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowed the termination of the 28–29-week fetus of a sexual assault victim through the applicable medical intervention. The court recognized the severe mental trauma suffered by the victim and her inability to comprehend or cope with childbirth.
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Bhat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
Underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in narcotics cases, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that it is not for the accused to prove that seized samples were not in safe custody, rather, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish their safe handling and ensure that tampering was impossible.
Rigors Of Bail U/S 37 Of NDPS Act Will Not Apply In Cases Of Intermediate Quantity: J&K High Court
Case Title: ARSHID AHMAD GANIE vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME),
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 68
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the rigors of bail under the NDPS Act will not apply where the contraband in question is of intermediate quantity. The court observed that the quantity recovered from the accused persons fell within the intermediate category and not the commercial quantity attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the Act.
Case Title: Peer Rattan Nath Mahant Sh. Shiv ji Maharaj Peer kho Vs Wazir Onkar Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh reaffirmed the broad jurisdiction of executing courts under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court presided by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held that the term "any person" in Rule 97(1) is deliberately broad to include all individuals who resist or obstruct possession, empowering executing courts to adjudicate such disputes within the execution proceedings itself.
Case Title: Meena Kumari vs Sainik Cooperative House Society Ltd,
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 70
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party could not be forced to accept an arbitrator who has a conflict of interest, as the same would violate the principles of a fair trial. The court held that the Perpetual Lease Deed, as well as the Byelaws, which provide for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to be the sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between the petitioner and the department, would be against the law.
Case Title: Bilal Hassan Anim vs Shafeeq Ahmad Mir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the declaration of a moratorium would not bar the complainant from filing a complaint under the NI Act. The court said that the debtor cannot take refuge under the Code to frustrate proceedings under the NI Act if he is found liable to pay compensation in the proceedings.
Case-Title: Manzoor Ahmad Wani vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 72
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the prosecution's failure to seek cancellation of bail and instead using preventive detention as a shortcut to put the accused behind bars is not legally sustainable.
Case Title: Sadiya Sidiq Lone vs UT of J&K and others
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 73
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the EWS certificate could not be rejected merely by relying on mutation records. The court stated that a due inquiry must be conducted as to the eligibility criteria, wherein the applicant is given the right to a hearing before deciding the said application.
Trial Court Has No Inherent Powers To Recall Or Review Its Own Final Order: J&K High Court
Case Title: FEROZ AHMAD ZARGAR & OTHERS vs UT OF J&K AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 74
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is not open to the trial court to review its own final orders. The court held that in such cases, the only option available to the aggrieved party is to challenge the said order before the High Court.
Case Title: Mohd Altaf Najar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
Quashing the preventive detention of one Mohd. Altaf Najar, a B.Tech graduate from Pulwama, detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) as an alleged terror sympathizer the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that the detention was based solely on proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC, with no concrete incidents or allegations linking the detenue to any terrorist activities.
Case Title: Parvaiz Ahmad Fashoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 76
Underscoring the sanctity of procedural fairness the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that “delay, unless satisfactorily explained in making a preventive detention order, throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Janda vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 Livelaw JKL) 77
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that serving in a department for more than 20 years without following the due process of recruitment does not give the right to said employee to seek the regularization of services.
Case Title: Mohammad Jamal Sheikh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 78
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court restrained the government from making any promotions unless candidates from the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories entitled to reservation are duly considered.
Delivering a major relief to reserved category employees who have long been denied their rightful promotions due to a controversial government circular Justice M.A Chowdhary observed,
“The respondents are restrained from making any promotions unless candidates belonging to the SC/ST reserved categories entitled for consideration for reservation in promotions are considered”
Case Title: Executive Engineer And Ors. Vs Ghulam Mohideen Tantray
Citation: 2025 Livelaw(JKL) 79
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory powers; they can only record settlements between willing parties. The court stated that if a compromise is not reached, the case must be referred back to the appropriate court.
The court noted that the impugned award passed by the CJM in the Lok Adalat did not mention any settlement between the parties, and the record suggested that the order had been passed on merits, which is beyond its jurisdiction.
Case-title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 80
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a suit for damages due to wrongful dismissal is not maintainable unless the termination is first challenged and declared wrongful. The court observed that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor made any attempt to demonstrate that the impugned order of dismissal was in violation of any terms of his employment.
Case Title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 81
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if there is an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on the maintainability of the suit under law, that does not limit the powers of the appellate court to decide the issue of maintainability.
The court added that the only requirement is that there should be no new facts that need to be pleaded and no new evidence to be led by the parties. The court held that if the evidence on file is sufficient, the appellate court can decide and determine the case finally.
Case Title: Damni Rajrah & Ors Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 82
Dismissing a plea filed by 150 contractual healthcare workers seeking continuation of their services in Government Medical College (GMC), Jammu the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that once a contract of employment has been mutually agreed upon without any objection or reservation, courts lack the jurisdiction to compel an employer to maintain the contract or alter the terms of employment.
Case-title: Mohammad Abass Magray vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 83
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it would amount to a gross deprivation of liberty if an accused who has already been granted bail in the case FIR is charged and arrested for a different offence after a period of 15 years.
Case Title: Smt Amrit Kour Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 84
Underscoring the duty of constitutional courts to ensure that no one benefits from fraudulent acts the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to grant the writ of certiorari, emphasizing that when allegations of fraud are raised, the court must inquire into the matter to ensure substantial justice between the parties.
Case-Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & ORS
2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 85
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if hospitalization is deemed necessary by medical experts, insurance companies cannot deny claims solely on the basis of exclusion clauses without proper justification.
Case Title: Mohammad Bashir Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 86
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a mutation order passed 39 years ago reiterating that an unending period for initiating legal remedies could lead to uncertainty and anarchy, upholding the principle that every legal remedy must have a fixed lifespan.
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Tariq Ahmad Wani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 87
Clarifying the legal position under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque does not give rise to a cause of action under Section 138 of the Act.
Case-Title: Renu Sharma and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J&K and another,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 88
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that once the magistrate records the preliminary statement of the complainant and proceeds to direct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matter, it is not open to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.
Case Title: Airports Authority Of India Vs M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 89
Stressing the need for judicial restraint in matters involving public tenders and contractual integrity, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an interim injunction that had stayed the Airports Authority of India's (AAI) debarment order against M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. (SRPL).
Case Title: M/S NAVA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD M/S MANCARE LABORATORIES PVT. LTD Vs UT OF J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 90
Setting aside the proceedings against two pharmaceutical companies accused of manufacturing and marketing substandard drugs the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that while the trial of offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act must be conducted by a Court of Sessions, there is no bar on a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offences.
Case Title: Saraj Din Vs Liaqat Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 91
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that a Commissioner for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can only be appointed when the evidence before the trial court is inconclusive and requires clarification.
Case Title: Dilshada Begum Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 92
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that Special Police Officers (SPOs) enjoy the same protections as regular police officers and cannot be disengaged from service without being provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and meet the charges levelled against them.
Case Title: Ansh Mahajan Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 93
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that an individual seeking to claim reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category must not fall under any of the reserved categories, including Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Reserved Backward Areas (RBA), or any other similar categories.
Case Title: S. Charanjeet Singh vs UT of J&K and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 94
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that mere filing of the written statement in a suit does not constitute a waiver of right to arbitration if the party has raised a preliminary objection in respect of the arbitration clause at the outset.
Case Title: NA Ronga Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 95
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention of former Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association President Nazir Ahmad Ronga.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the allegations against Ronga were vague, lacked material particulars, and did not provide a basis for his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
Case-Title: Farukh Jehanzeb Vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 96
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that a defendant cannot rely on unsubstantiated and vague statements while offering his leave to defend in a summary suit procedure.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dealing with a cheque bounce case noted that the appellant had admitted signing the cheque but failed to provide any substantial evidence proving that the cheque was not meant for the respondent. The court held that a mere statement that the cheque was issued to another person is insufficient to disprove the allegations made by the respondent.
Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97
Giving relief to an elderly woman pensioner in whose account an excess amount of pension was credited, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if, due to an administrative error, an excess amount is credited to the accounts of elderly pensioners or widows which is withdrawn, the same cannot be recovered.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 98
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the eviction order passed by the Financial Commissioner in evicting the illegal occupant of a migrant property. The court held that the occupant-petitioner herein could not have taken over the possession of the land in question except with the express consent of the migrant in writing, to be handed over by the District Magistrate alone.
Case-title: Sumesh Chadha vs UT of J&K and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 99
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has deprecated the practice of arraying the relatives of the husband as accused in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC to create pressure on the husband and his family members.
Case Title: Mohd. Shafi Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 100
"A person who administers poison to kill a person will not keep the leftover poison, if any, with him for months together and wait for the police to come and recover it from him," observed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, as it overturned the conviction of Mohd. Shafi in a two-decade-old murder case.
Case-title: Mohd. Asgar @ tola vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 101
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the constitutional courts have a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage. It added that such remedy cannot be even otherwise be sought by a person who is evading the legal process of the court.
Case Title: Sumit Nayyar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 102
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that security cover provided at the State's expense cannot be construed as a luxury or a status symbol to be granted arbitrarily.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing a petition filed by Advocate Sumit Nayyar seeking the continuation of his personal security, underscored that the assessment of threat perception is a specialized function of security agencies, and courts lack the expertise to intervene in such matters unless there is clear evidence of error or mala fide.
Case-Title: Sahib Saran Khajuria vs Jammu Municipal Corporation
LiveLaw: 2025 Livelaw (Jkl) 103
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party cannot be permitted to unilaterally and retrospectively alter the rent amount fixed with the tenant.
Justice MA Chowdhary held that it was not permissible for the respondent to revise the rent twice in the same year. The court said that notice requiring the petitioner to pay the revised rent increasing it to 100% was not permissible and was done in violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
Case Title: Mohammad Junaid Raina Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 104
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act do not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that while Section 37 imposes restrictions on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, it does not curtail the High Court's discretion to grant bail on humanitarian grounds.
Case-Title: Archana vs. Union Territory of J&K & Another
2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 105
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the statement recorded before the magistrate can be re-recorded and there is no bar under section 164 CRPC for recording the statement of a witness more than once.
Case-Title: Court on its own motions vs Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that interpretation of a Court judgment, even if differing from Court's intended meaning, generally does not constitute Contempt of Court as long as the interpretation is not wilfully or deliberately wrong, and does not obstruct course of justice.
Case Title: Johar Mehmood Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 107
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that the provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), which deal with the procedure for trying a person of unsound mind, can only be invoked after the framing of charges in a criminal trial.
Case Title: M/s Mohd Asif Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 108
Reinforcing the principle of fairness and reasonableness in government dealings, especially in contractual matters, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the validity of an administrative order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned at the time of its issuance and cannot be bolstered by additional grounds introduced later through affidavits or other means.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Sayed Shabir Bukhari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 109
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused in the 2005 assassination case of former Education Minister Gulam Nabi Lone, stating that the "evidence on record is too weak and shaky to arrive at a conclusion different from one arrived at by the Trial Court."
Case Title: General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Army does not fall within the definition of an 'Industry' and thus, the Labour Court, which had ruled in favor of the writ petitioners serving as porters in the Indian Army, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages, had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Employer Setting Cut-Off Dates For Pension Schemes Not Violative Of Article 14: J&K High Court
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that employers are well within their rights to fix a cut-off date for introducing new pension or retirement schemes, and such decisions do not violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Recognizing that the petitioners had legitimate security concerns due to their migration from Kashmir in the past the Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowed a virtual hearing for the party from the Jammu Wing in a case before its Srinagar Wing.
Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that two decades ago, the respondent had filed the suit in the Srinagar court, and there was a threat perception to the petitioner. As a result, it was not possible to contest the suit, nor was the virtual mode of appearance available at that time. The court added that, at the request of the petitioner/defendant, the suit was transferred to Jammu.
Case title: Saraj Din vs Liyaqat Ali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC could be issued only when the trial court is unable to decide the controversy based on the evidence placed by the parties.
The court noted that a Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is appointed for inspection purposes, while a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is meant for investigation to elucidate disputed facts.
Case Title: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that The employer is well within its rights to validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension scheme or for discontinuing an existing scheme and same is not violative of Article 14.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Puneet Gupta said that government took a policy decision to introduce new pension scheme wherein the benefits was given to those who retired after 2014 and those who retired before the date and those who retired afterwards form two separate classes.
Case-title: Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is not open to the trial magistrate to frame charges against an accused without sifting the material collected on record for the limited purpose of framing opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made against the accused.
Case-title: Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS Awantipora,
Citation: 2025 Livelaw, (JKL) 116
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court overturned the conviction of four accused persons, who were sentenced in the 2012 Awantipora murder case, citing inadmissibility of confessions, procedural lapses, and weak circumstantial evidence.
Case Title:- ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that a delay of more than three months in considering a detenue's representation breaches statutory requirements under Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act which renders detention invalid.
The court said that it was admitted by the detaining authorities that the representation filed by the detainee was rejected after 3 months time which infringed the valuable right which is available to a detenue in terms of provisions contained under PSA.
Case Title: Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 118
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act must strictly adhere to all three prescribed modes ie public notice, Government Gazette, and two widely circulated newspapers, including one in the regional language.
Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.
Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC
Case Title:Rattan Lal v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120
A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF constable under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The court found the retirement to be justified based on the constable's repeated prior disciplinary infractions.
The court also held that the BSF had followed all due process, including issuing a show-cause notice, and held that maintaining discipline in a paramilitary force was paramount. Judicial review, it clarified, does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of material relied upon by the competent authority unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.
Case Title: Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court highlighted the high-handedness of the Executive Engineer in colluding with the appellant to procure the contract illegally. The court said that the work, if any, executed by the appellant was without any authority, and he was not entitled to any money in exchange for the work done.
Case Title: Santosha Devi Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 122
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Registering Officer's role is purely administrative and does not extend to determining the title of a document's executor.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasized that as per the Registration Act and Rules, a Registering Officer is only required to register documents accompanied by supporting documents and has no authority to evaluate title irregularities.
Case-Title: Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that while determining a bail application, the severity of the punishment is an important but not the only factor; the court must also consider the nature and gravity of the offence with which the applicant is charged.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Mahajan and another Vs Govt Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 124
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that merely quashing an FIR or complaint based on the perception that the complainant will not support the prosecution's case is not justified in law.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. even before trial, making it unnecessary to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing prosecution in such cases.
Case Title: Smt Suresh Parihar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 125
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), it is the duty of the Court to look beyond the mere allegations in an FIR or complaint and assess the attending circumstances to determine if the criminal proceedings have been initiated maliciously.
Case Title: Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126
"CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, though it raises a suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime," observed Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while granting bail to one Yugraj Singh, accused of financing illicit drug trafficking.