Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup March 24 - March 30, 2025

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

Indian Army's Core Function Of National Security Is A Sovereign Function, Cannot Be Categorized As 'Industry': J&K High 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.

Security Threats Faced By Litigants Justify Alternative Measures Like Virtual Hearings Instead Of Transferring Case: J&K High Court

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.

Commissioner Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC Should Only Be Appointed When Evidence Presented By Parties Is Insufficient To Resolve Dispute: J&K High Court

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.

Policy Decision Restricting Pension Benefits To Employees Retiring After Particular Cut-Off Period Not Illegal: J&K High Court

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.

Prima Facie Evidence Connecting Accused To Offending Vehicle In Accident Cases Necessary To Frame Charges U/S 304A IPC: J&K High Court

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.

Trial Court's Reliance On Weak & Coerced Evidence While Convicting Father For Murdering Son Is Legally Unsustainable: J&K High Court

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.

Delay Of Over 3 Months In Considering Detenue's Representation Breaches Statutory Requirements, Renders Detention Invalid: J&K High Court

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.

[J&K Land Acquisition Act] Publication In All Three Modes Prescribed U/S 4 Is Compulsory For Acquisition: HC Quashes Land Acquisition For Amusement Park

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.

Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court

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.

J&K High Court Declares Work Done By Contractor As Illegal, Says He Acted In Connivance With Executive Engineer To Manipulate Tender Process

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.

Registering Officer Cannot Evaluate Title Or Irregularity In Document: J&K HC Directs Adherence To Statutory Duties Under Registration Act

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.

Different Approach Must Be Adopted In Bail Pleas Arising Out Of Corruption Cases Of Huge Magnitude: J&K HC Denies Bail To Chief Engineer

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.

Quashing FIR On Perception Of Complainant's Non-Support To Prosecution Case Unjustified, Accused Can Seek Discharge Before Trial Court: J&K High Court

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.

S.482 CrPC | Courts Duty Bound To Examine Overall Circumstances To Probe Malicious Intent In Criminal Cases: J&K High Court

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.

Mere Call Records Without Voice Recordings May Not Be Sufficient For Conviction U/S 27-A Of NDPS Act: J&K High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Drug Supplier

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.