Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up May 19 - May 25, 2025

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

Judgments/Orders:

Employee Has No Vested Right To Promotion Under Repealed Rules, Rules In Force At Time Of Consideration Would Apply: J&K High Court

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The employee does not acquire a vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government,” held the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while dismissing a plea seeking promotion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“The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government.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”

[PITNDPS Act] Accused Must Be Informed Grounds Of Detention Within 5 To 15 Days To Allow Prompt Representation: J&K High Court

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.”

Administrative Tribunals Can Only Review Their Decisions Within The Bounds Applicable To Civil Courts Under CPC: J&K High Court

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.

Once Fresh DV & CrPC Proceedings Are Initiated, Lok Adalat Award Becomes Non-Executable For Same Claims: J&K High Court

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.

If Suit Under Order 37 CPC Is Not Tried Following Summary Procedure, It Is Deemed To Proceed As An Ordinary Suit: J&K High Court

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.

S.254(3) BNSS | Deferral Of Cross-Examination Must Be Sought Before Defence Strategy Is Exposed, Delay Undermines Purpose: J&K High Court

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.