- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- High Court of J & K and Ladakh
- /
- Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High...
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Half-Yearly Digest January - June 2025
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
30 July 2025 11:15 AM IST
Judgments/Orders:Judicial Review Can Be Resorted To When Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Alleged To Be "Tailor-Made" To Suit Certain Participants: J&K High CourtCase Title: M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1Underlining that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide or...
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1
Underlining that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide or procedural irregularities the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that Court can show its indulgence in tender matters, particularly when the terms of an invitation to tender are alleged to be "tailor-made" to suit certain participants.
“.. it is made clear that the scope of judicial review is very limited and is available in cases, where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process”, observed Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.
Case Title: M/S SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTUTVIKLING AS (“SPAS") Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 2
Taking suo motu cognizance of misquotations of its 2010 judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the prominent law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.
Noting misquotations made by the law firm in a legal notice concerning a hydroelectric project, Sawalkote Hydroelectric Power Project (HEP) Justice Rahul Bharti ordered,
“...this Court suo-moto takes cognizance of the contents of the said legal notice issued by Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi for the sake of proceeding against it for the contempt of Court, for which purpose a notice is directed to be issued to Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co., New Delhi to appear and explain its position in the context of legal notice dated 18.04.2022 issued by it to Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), NHPC Ltd on behalf of Sawalkote Consortium”
Piece-Rate Workers Not Entitled To Pension Benefits Granted To Regular Staff: J&K High Court
Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 3
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed petitions seeking pensionary benefits filed by former piece-rate workers of J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court distinguished between piece-rate workers and regular employees, and held that workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.
Case Title: Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4
Underscoring the necessity of the existence of "proceeds of crime" for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in the absence of such proceeds, no money-laundering offence could arise.
Quashing complaints filed under the PMLA in an alleged 250 crore scam Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as the admitted facts noticed in the preceding paras, the alleged offence manifestly has not resulted in any “proceed of crime” in favour of the petitioners herein. A-fortiori, it cannot be said that the petitioners have indulged in any activity connected with the “proceeds of crime” for unless there are “proceeds of crime”, there cannot be any activity about the “proceeds of crime”.
Case Title: Syed Tajamul Bashir Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 5
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sought an explanation from a judicial officer and an advocate involved in a Lok Adalat settlement after it took note of allegations of forgery and improper conduct in the recording of a settlement.
While setting aside the award passed by the forum Justice Sanjay Dhar ordered,
“.. it is directed that an explanation shall be called by the Registrar General from the concerned Judicial Officer and the Advocate who were members of the Lok Adalat for explaining their conduct. The response shall be placed before this Court for further directions”.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6
Stressing that bail should not ordinarily be granted in heinous offences like rape or murder once the trial begins, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused bail to the accused in a case of rape and abetment to suicide. Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that courts should refrain from granting bail just after framing charges or before the victim is examined, especially in sensitive cases.
Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7
Reaffirming the principle that no appeal lies against a compromise decree the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court court emphasised that a party seeking to avoid such a decree must challenge it before the court that issued it, proving the invalidity of the underlying agreement.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 8
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing opportunity to the appellants to correct the irregularity.
Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that procedural delays in informing the Designated Authority about seizures under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) do not render the proceedings invalid.
“The information though required to be communicated within 48 hours of the seizure, the delay, if any, caused will not by itself be fatal. The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law”, the court comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta explained.
Case Title:Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10
Highlighting the principles of law governing the framing of charges in criminal cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges, the material to be evaluated by the court is limited to what the prosecution has produced and relied upon.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11
Upholding a writ court judgment directing the Power Development department (PDD) to pay Rs. 20 lakh as compensation to a young electrocution victim the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the policy of granting ex-gratia relief cannot preclude courts from awarding appropriate compensation to victims of electrocution.
Case Title: Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12
Quashing multiple complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 citing failure to adhere to mandatory conditions laid down in the Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Section 138 of the Act being penal in nature, indisputably, warrants strict construction, hence making compliance with its proviso clauses (a), (b), and (c) essential before initiating prosecution.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh disposed of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the security arrangements at judicial complexes across the Union Territories.
Acknowledging the extensive measures undertaken to fortify the security infrastructure in both High Court and District Court premises, the bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri noted that substantial progress had been made in ensuring a safer environment for judicial officers, advocates, litigants, and visitors.
Case Title: Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the conviction of a former police constable under Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), emphasizing that a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA must be of sterling value and corroborated before it can be relied upon.
Shedding light on the mandate of Sec 32 of POTA Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed,
“.. that before a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA is relied upon and accepted admissible in evidence, it must be of sterling value inspiring confidence of the Court. As a matter of prudence, the Court relying upon such confession must insist for corroboration”
Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, and cannot be exercised at the stage of preliminary verification.
In quashing summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the petitioner, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that a preliminary verification is not an "investigation" under the Code, and hence, such summons lacked legal jurisdiction.
Case-Title: ABDUL RASHID DAR AND ORS. vs MUZAFFER AHMAD DAR AND ORS,
Citation: 2025 LIVELAW (JKL) 64
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it would take into account the date on which the death of a litigant was brought on the court's record for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for setting aside the abatement of the suit.
Case-Title: UT of J&K vs Showkat Ahmad Tantry
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 65
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court while dismissing an appeal, reprimanded government officials for preferring the appeal after a long period of delay. The court said that no clear reasons for filing the appeal after a prolonged period were forthcoming from the application for condonation of delay.
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.
Case Title: Tsewang Thinles Vs UT Of Ladakh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 166
Clarifying the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the Special Court is empowered not just to determine the age of the accused, but also of the victim.
Case Title: J&K HORTICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION Vs ABDUL RAZAK MALLA & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 167
Reiterating a significant principle of employment law, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the doctrine of "no work no pay" cannot be pressed into service when an employee is kept away from work by the act or omission of the employer.
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.
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.”