Nominal Index:IRSHAD RASHID SHAH vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 168Mohd. Ayub vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 169Asif Amin Thokar vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 170Irshad Rashid Shah Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 171Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Syed Waseem Rizvi vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 172Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)...
Nominal Index:
IRSHAD RASHID SHAH vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 168
Mohd. Ayub vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 169
Asif Amin Thokar vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 170
Irshad Rashid Shah Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 171
Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Syed Waseem Rizvi vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 172
Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 173
Pawan Kumar Vs Ranbir Singh 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 174
Suchet Singh & Anr Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 175
Mst Sara Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue JK Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 176
Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
Mohammad Shafi Gojar Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 178
Abdul Majid Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 179
Mohammad Najeeb Goni Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
GHULAM RASOOL BHAT Vs. SHAFEEQ FRUIT COMPANY 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
Shivani Misri Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
Smt Balbir Kour Vs State Bank Of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 183
Mohammad Ashraf Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs J&K State Forest Corporation & Others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 185
Farooq Ahmad Lodhi Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 186
Ghazanfar Ali vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 187
Khursheed Ahmad Naqeeb Vs State of J&K & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 188
Waqar Younis Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
Bilal Ahmad Yatoo Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 190
Ashok Toshkhani Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 191
Mohammad Tufail Vs Muzaffar Hussain 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 192
Amanullah Khan Vs Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 193
Sher Mohd Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 194
Sanjeev Gupta Vs Central University of Jammu 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 195
Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 196
Ravinder Singh & Ors Vs Om Prakash & ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 197
Tariq Wali Vs Beenish Aijaz 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 198
Mohd Maqbool Mir Vs Ghulam Ahmad Pahloo 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 199
Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
MOHAMMAD SHABAN GANAI & ANR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD RATHER 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 201
Rajinder Kumar vs State of J&K and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 202
Ashok Toshkhani vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
Mehmood Askari Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 204
Niket Kansal Vs Union Of India Through ED 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 205
Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 206
Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs Harmeet Kour and another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 207
Adil Hamid Wani Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 208
Manzoor Ahmad Wani Vs Ayaz Ahmad Raina 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 209
Mst Zoona Begum vs Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 210
Mubeen Ahmad Shah Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 211
Sheikh Showkat Vs Ghulam Jeelani Chesti & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 212
Sanjeev Gupta vs Central University of Jammu 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 213
Haleema Tramboo Vs UT Of J&K, Himalayan Welfare Organization Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 214
Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
UT Of J&K Through P/s Chanapora Vs Sameer Ahmad Koka 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 216
Judgments/Orders:
Case-Title: IRSHAD RASHID SHAH vs UT OF J&K & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 168
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held the petitioner's acceptance of the Constable post as against claim made for Sub-inspector on compassionate grounds did not negate his original claim because it was made after a prolonged struggle and under duress.
J&K High Court Grants Bail To 74-Yr-Old Father-In-Law In Rape Case Filed By Daughter-In-Law
Case Title: Mohd. Ayub vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 169
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner against whom charges are filed under heinous offence like rape filed by his own daughter-in-law. The FIR also included other offences, including section 333, 76, 115(2), and 352 of BNS.
J&K High Court Extends Bail Of NDPS Accused To Allow Him To Attend Surgery Of His Minor Daughter
Case-Title: Asif Amin Thokar vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 170
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, acknowledging that the presence of an elder male guardian during a minor child's surgery is essential, granted a short-term release order to the petitioner who had been accused under the NDPS Act.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed that court cannot loose site of the fact that presence of an elder male member of a family for attending upon an ailing daughter requiring surgery/hospitalization is a call of the day keeping in view the nature of the Civil and Social of which all of us are part of.
Case Title: Irshad Rashid Shah Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 171
Shedding light on the the statutory structure of compassionate appointments under SRO 43 of Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Rule 3(1) is a general provision for offering appointments in the lowest non-gazetted posts, while Rule 3(2) confers exclusive discretionary power upon the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) to appoint an eligible family member of a deceased employee to a higher non-gazetted post based on merit and recruitment rules.
Case-Title: Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Syed Waseem Rizvi vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 172
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the trial court erred in taking the cognizance against petitioner under sections 153-A, 295-A & 505(1) of IPC by-passing the required sanction from central government as provided under section 196 of Cr.PC.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhagat Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 173
Spotlighting on procedural integrity in the subordinate judiciary, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while dismissing a petition challenging the framing of charges in a forgery case, issued a cautionary note to trial magistrates against delegating the drafting of interim orders including those related to framing of charges to subordinate staff.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Vs Ranbir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 174
Reinforcing the statutory mandate under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that a solitary typographical error in a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot override the overall content and intent of the notice, thus refusing to quash cheque dishonour proceedings involving Rs. 21 lakhs.
Case Title: Suchet Singh & Anr Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 175
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh observed that an FIR cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it was lodged after the initiation of a civil or criminal proceeding. However, when such FIRs are filed shortly thereafter, the Court stressed, they must be closely examined to rule out any ulterior motives behind the criminal prosecution, the court clarified.
Case Title: Mst Sara Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue JK Srinagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 176
Reinforcing a critical procedural safeguard, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar held that Order XXII Rule 10A CPC introduces a legal fiction deeming the contract between an advocate and a deceased party as subsisting but only for the limited and essential purpose of requiring the advocate to inform the Court about the death of the party they represent.
Case Title: Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) do not bar Magistrates from adhering to the pre-cognizance notice requirements under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Gojar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 178
Underlining the balance between the rigours of the NDPS Act and humanitarian concerns, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar Wing, has granted temporary bail to a 71-year-old man suffering from serious health ailments. The Court held,
“Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play only when bail of a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband is being considered on merits, and the limitations contained therein would not come into play when bail is to be granted on humanitarian grounds like medical grounds.”
Case Title: Abdul Majid Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 179
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a scathing rebuke to the UT administration for its arbitrary demolition of properties owned by one Abdul Majid, a 69-year-old resident of Bathindi, Jammu.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing two writ petitions declared the demolition illegal, restored Majid's ownership rights, and awarded him ₹76.4 lakh in compensation for damages, along with an additional ₹10 lakh as punitive costs for the "clandestine and high-handed" actions of the authorities.
Case Title: Mohammad Najeeb Goni Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 180
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the offence of criminal trespass is not extinguished merely because the possession of State land is later recovered from the illegal occupant.
“The moment a person illegally occupies the State land with a view to insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or with an intent to commit an offence, the offence under Section 447-A RPC is complete,” Justice Sanjay Dhar observed while dismissing a petition.
Case Title: GHULAM RASOOL BHAT Vs. SHAFEEQ FRUIT COMPANY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 181
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the court, while referring parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), cannot direct that the award, passed after the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, be filed before it.
Case Title: Shivani Misri Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
Reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the disqualification of a visually impaired law graduate from recruitment to the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that the authorities “failed to take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation” as mandated under the law.
Family Pension Rules Must Be Interpreted Liberally For Disabled Dependents: J&K High Court
Case Title: Smt Balbir Kour Vs State Bank Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 183
Underscoring the importance of social welfare and inclusive interpretation of pension rules, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that provisions governing family pension for disabled persons must be interpreted liberally to ensure genuine claimants are not excluded.
Case-Title: Mohammad Ashraf Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) detention of Advocate Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, who previously served as secretary of the erstwhile Kashmir Bar Association.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the detention order after pointing to the serious nature of preventive detention laws being a double-edged sword that can deeply impact both those who enforce it and against those it is used.
Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Mir Vs J&K State Forest Corporation & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 185
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion only when the employer takes up the matter for filling the promotional posts. The court ruled that merely because a promotional post exists does not confer a right to claim promotion from the date of its vacancy.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Lodhi Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 186
Reaffirming the legal distinction between the right to compensation for physical acquisition of land and the non-compensable nature of aerial usage for transmission infrastructure the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that individual landowners cannot assert any legal, fundamental, or constitutional rights over aerial space traversed by high-tension transmission lines.
Case-Title: Ghazanfar Ali vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 187
The J&K High Court held that mere failure to publish acquisition notification in regional language as per section 4 of the Act does not vitiate the entire proceedings if the party affected has notice of the preliminary notification issued by the official Respondent and had also filled objection to the said notification.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Naqeeb Vs State of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 188
Reiterating the legal standard that courts are not obliged to discuss statutory provisions irrelevant to the controversy at hand, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a review petition filed by a retired employee of Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC), seeking reconsideration of its earlier judgment.
Case Title: Waqar Younis Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 189
Reaffirming the powers of criminal courts under the NDPS Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an application for the release of a vehicle seized in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case can be entertained not just by a registered owner, but also by a bonafide owner whether in the capacity of a purchaser or as an attorney holder as such categories are also covered under the definition of "owner" in law.
Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 190
“A police officer is not permitted to resign without the leave of the Superintendent unless he has given a prior notice of not less than two months of his intention to resign,” observed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while dismissing a plea challenging the acceptance of a constable's resignation on the same day it was submitted.
Case Title: Ashok Toshkhani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 191
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that Chapter X of the J&K Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996 provides a self-contained code for partition proceedings, which includes mandatory procedural safeguards.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that when a valid application for partition is filed under Section 105, the revenue officer must notify all interested parties, consider their objections, and proceed in accordance with Sections 109, 110, and 111-A, particularly when disputed questions of title arise.
Case Title: Mohammad Tufail Vs Muzaffar Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 192
Underscoring the sanctity of judicial procedure and evidentiary rigour, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside conflicting judgments passed by the trial and appellate courts, declaring that "finding of fact is something which is not to be conjectured by civil court or for that matter civil 1st appellate court."
Case Title: Amanullah Khan Vs Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 193
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that there is no impediment to the State issuing a supplementary award for compensation relating to trees, super-structures, and machinery omitted in the original land acquisition award, and directed authorities to assess damages caused to a brick kiln due to highway widening.
Case Title: Sher Mohd Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 194
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu upheld the preventive detention of one Sher Mohd under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
The detention order was challenged by his wife, Famida Begum, on grounds including non-supply of vital documents and lack of application of mind by the authorities. However, Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition, finding no merit in any of the contentions raised.
Case Title: Sanjeev Gupta Vs Central University of Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 195
The employee does not acquire a vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government,” held the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while dismissing a plea seeking promotion under old recruitment rules.
Citing State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others, (2023) Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified,
“The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.61 The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14”
Case Title: Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 196
Reiterating that procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases must be strictly observed, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the detention of one Sarfaraz Ahmed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that it is “obligatory on the detaining authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made within a maximum period of five days, and in exceptional case within a period of 15 days, from the date of detention and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention.”
Case Title: Ravinder Singh & Ors Vs Om Prakash & ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 197
Ruling on the scope of judicial review powers of statutory tribunals, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act can only review its decision within the bounds applicable to a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Tariq Wali Vs Beenish Aijaz
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 198
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a party who enters into a compromise and obtains a Lok Adalat award based on that compromise cannot subsequently seek both to enforce that award and to initiate fresh litigation on the same subject matter.
“Once fresh proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC are initiated and interim maintenance is granted therein, the prior award becomes non-executable for the same claims. The remedy lies either in executing the award or reviving the original proceedings, not both,” ruled Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Case Title: Mohd Maqbool Mir Vs Ghulam Ahmad Pahloo
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 199
“If a suit filed under Order 37 CPC is not tried following its prescribed summary procedure, it is deemed to proceed as an ordinary suit. Consequently, the defendant cannot seek relief under Order 37 (e.g., Rule 4)”, held the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, while dismissing a petition challenging the execution of an ex parte decree.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
Shedding light on the Legislative intent behind the provision of allowing the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an application for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses must be filed as early as possible but in any case, before the commencement of cross-examination, for once the defence strategy is exposed, the object of such deferral pales into insignificance.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHABAN GANAI & ANR Vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD RATHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 201
Reinforcing procedural rigour in civil litigation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that interim directions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be passed against a person who is not a party to the suit or appeal.
Case-Title: Rajinder Kumar vs State of J&K and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 202
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed FIR registered against a man accused of rape and criminal intimidation, citing the delayed complaint and the long-term consensual relationship shared between the parties.
Case Title: Ashok Toshkhani vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that urban residential property falls outside the scope of the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996, and quashed an order passed by a revenue officer attempting to partition such a property.
A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that section 105 of the Act empowers a revenue officer for partition of land used for agriculture or related purpose, including structures and trees thereon while excluding sites of buildings in a town or village abadi or land appurtenant thereto.
Case Title: Mehmood Askari Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 204
Clarifying the scope of income tax exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the benefit under this provision is not automatic and can only be claimed when an assessee clearly proves residence in the specified tribal area and demonstrates that the income was actually earned from sources located therein.
Discharge In Predicate Offence Does Not Invalidate PMLA Proceedings U/S 3 Of Act: J&K High Court
Case Title: Niket Kansal Vs Union Of India Through ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 205
Upholding the autonomy of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that a discharge or acquittal in the predicate (scheduled) offence does not automatically invalidate money laundering investigations or summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Case-Title: Anwar Hussain Wani & Ors vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 206
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that seniority of ReT (Rehbar-E-Taleem) teachers must be reckoned from the date of appointment as a general line teacher and the pre-regularization period of five years will not be included for the purpose of fixing seniority.
Case Title: Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs Harmeet Kour and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 207
Reinforcing a critical principle under consumer law, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that for an award of compensation or replacement of goods under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it must be conclusively established that the service provider was negligent or deficient in service.
Case Title: Adil Hamid Wani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 208
Taking strong exception to the alleged abuse of fiduciary trust, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh refused to grant anticipatory bail to a petrol pump manager accused of defrauding his employer of over ₹71 lakh.
Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Wani Vs Ayaz Ahmad Raina
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 209
Clarifying the scope of “sufficient grounds” under Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the expression grants wide judicial discretion to trial courts to permit withdrawal of a suit with liberty to institute a fresh one.
Case Title: Mst Zoona Begum vs Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 210
The Jammu and Kashmir Highcourt held that where the status quo order passed by the court is qualified by the word "possession" and not a blanket status quo order, there is no restraint on the parties to the suit on raising construction on the portion of property which is in their respective possession.
Case Title: Mubeen Ahmad Shah Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 211
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a plea challenging the registration of FIR against one Mubeen Ahmad Shah, who was accused of uploading a series of Facebook posts that allegedly incited communal tensions and undermined national integrity.
Case Title: Sheikh Showkat Vs Ghulam Jeelani Chesti & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 212
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Magistrate is legally obligated to adjudicate objections filed under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by third parties before an attachment order under Section 83 CrPC is carried out. Any postponement of such adjudication pending physical attachment or receipt of compliance reports is contrary to law, the court ruled.
Case-Title: Sanjeev Gupta vs Central University of Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 213
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the university can issue a fresh notification for initiating the departmental promotions under amended rules pending the finalization of the process of promotion issued under the previous rules.
Case Title: Haleema Tramboo Vs UT Of J&K, Himalayan Welfare Organization Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 214
Safeguarding the sanctity of long-standing administrative decisions and vested rights, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, upheld the enforceability of Government Order No. 60-C of 1944 and directed authorities to process the construction permission for land exchanged under the said order provided such land is not under dense plantation and is otherwise permissible under the Pahalgam Master Plan 2032.
Case Title: Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Interpreting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an order merely issuing notice in a proceeding is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Case Title: UT Of J&K Through P/s Chanapora Vs Sameer Ahmad Koka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 216
Shedding light on the contours of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that there exists no statutory embargo on granting bail under Section 13 of the UAPA, as the stringent restrictions imposed under Section 43-D(5) of the Act are inapplicable to offences falling outside Chapters IV and VI.