Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2025

M/S K.P Singh Lau Through its proprietor Kavinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 1

M/S SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTU TVIKLING AS (“SPAS") Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 2

Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 3

Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

Syed Tajamul Bashir Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 5

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Rajinder Singh Vs Abdul Aziz 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs Farman Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

Rathika Pruthi vs Contonment Board (Badami bagh) thr. Chief Executive Officer 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

Tarun Bahl vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

Mohammad Amin Sheikh & Khalida Begum vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

Riyaz Ahmad Azad Alias Azad vs State of J&K &Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Dalip Thusu and anr vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

National Insurance Company Limited vs Gulshana Begum & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Mohammad Ishaq Dar & Anr.vs Usman Syed Shah & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Shahid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Aijaz Hussain Rather Vs Jeelani Ahmad Dar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Shivaeta Rani Vs Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Union Territory of J&K and Ors. vs Jehangir Ahmad Khan 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

Rajesh Singh vs National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

Ex-CT/GD Om Prakash vs Union of India & ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

Union Territory of J&K vs Ashu Jolly 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

Mohd. Amir Malik vs Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr vs M/s Gulati Metals & Alloys 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Bilal Ahmad Bhat Vs Mohammad Shafi Bhat 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Ashok Kumar vs Union of India and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Zaffar Abbas Din vs Nasir Hamid Khan, 2025 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

State of J&K and Anr. Vs Yawar Ahmad Bhat (minor) 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

Syed Mazloom Hussain Vs Government Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

Parvez Ahmad Khan vs Areeb 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Ghulam Nabi Sofi VS State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

Union Territory of J&K vs Arsam Imtiyaz Malik 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

Chairman, Building Operation Controlling Authority, Srinagar & Ors vs Jameel Hussain Farooqi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

Bashir Ahmad Mir Vs State Through P/s Safa Kadal 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

Mohammad Abass Lone Vs Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 45

Nagraj V Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

Abdul Rafi Baba & Anr vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

Mian Abdul Qayoom Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

Majid Hyderi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

Syed Murtaza & ors vs Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

Kashmir Valley Energy Private Limited & Anr Vs Mr.Bashir Ahmad Bhat 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

M/S NAVA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD vs UT OF J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

Ahsan Ahmad Malik Vs Basharat Feroz Ganie 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

ABDUL MAJID SOFI vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Madan Lal Goria Vs State Bank of India 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 56

FAYAZ AHMAD RATHER vs TARIQ AHMAD WANI 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

Kunj Lal Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Islam Ul Haq Peer vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Sugandha Sawhney Vs Union Of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

Rajesh Tandon vs Mohd. Safeer 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 61

Mohit Mahajan Vs Sham Dass Gupta 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Mohammad Shafi Beigh vs UT of J&K and Ors 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 63

ABDUL RASHID DAR AND ORS. vs MUZAFFER AHMAD DAR AND ORS 2025 LIVELAW (JKL) 64

UT of J&K vs Showkat Ahmad Tantry

2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Mohammad Shafi Naikoo Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 98

Sumesh Chadha vs UT of J&K and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 99

Mohd. Shafi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 100

Mohd. Asgar @ tola vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 101

Sumit Nayyar Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 102

Sahib Saran Khajuria vs Jammu Municipal Corporation 2025 Livelaw (Jkl) 103

Mohammad Junaid Raina Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

Archana vs. Union Territory of J&K & Another 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 105

Court on its own motions vs Sharadul Amarchand Mangaldass & Co 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 106

Johar Mehmood Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 107

M/s Mohd Asif Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 108

State Of J&K Vs Sayed Shabir Bukhari 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 109

General Officer Commanding corps & Ors. vs Aijaz Ahmad Mir & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

State Of J&K Vs Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 111

Dileep Kumar Raina and Ors. vs UT of J&K and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 112

Saraj Din vs Liyaqat Ali 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 113

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs KHURSHEED AHMAD NAQEEB 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 114

Manohar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 115

Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. vs State Th. PS Awantipora 2025, Livelaw (JKL) 116

ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117

Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 118

Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119

Rattan Lal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121

Santosha Devi Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 122

Rajesh Kumar Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

Khursheed Ahmad Mahajan and another Vs Govt Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 124

Smt Suresh Parihar Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 125

Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126

Judgments/Orders:

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.

Existence Of "Proceeds Of Crime" Is Pre-Condition For Money-Laundering: J&K High Court Quashes PMLA Complaints In Alleged ₹250 Cr Scam

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”.

J&K High Court Raises Concerns Over Improper Lok Adalat Award, Seeks Explanation From Judicial Officer

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”.

J&K High Court Denies Bail In Rape & Suicide Case, Cautions Against Granting Bail In Heinous Offences Immediately Post Framing Of Charges

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.

No Appeal Lies Against Compromise Decree, Party May Only Challenge Consent Decree Before Court Which Passed It: J&K High Court

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.

Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court

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.

Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High Court

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.

Evaluating Evidence While Framing Charges Shouldn't Become Mini-Trial: J&K High Court Quashes Corruption Charges Against Ex-JMC Commissioner

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.

Ex-Gratia Relief Cannot Replace Court Ordered Compensation: J&K High Court Upholds ₹20 Lakh Compensation For Electrocution Victim

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.

Section 138 Of NI Act Warrants Strict Construction, Compliance With Proviso Clauses Is A Precondition Before Prosecution: J&K High Court

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.

J&K High Court Disposes PIL On Safety Of Judicial Complexes Upon Being Informed Of 'Significant Progress' Made To Improve Security Measures

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.

Confession Must Be of Sterling Value & Corroborated: J&K High Court Upholds Conviction Under Prevention Of Terrorism Act

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”

Summons U/S 91 CrPC Cannot Be Issued During Preliminary Verification As It Is Not An 'Investigation': J&K High Court

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.

Judgments/Orders:

Limitation Laws Not Meant To Destroy Rights But To Prevent Delay, Every Legal Remedy Must Be Kept Alive Within Legislatively Fixed Period: J&K HC

Case Title: Rajinder Singh Vs Abdul Aziz

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Reaffirming that the rules of limitation exist not to extinguish legal rights but to ensure timely recourse to justice the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging an order condoning a delay of over six years in filing a review petition.

In dismissing the appeal Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohammad Yousuf Wani underscored that every legal remedy must be kept alive within a legislatively fixed period, but a liberal approach may be warranted if genuine reasons for the delay exist.

Victim's Solitary Evidence In Sexual Offences Not Sufficient For Conviction If Marred With Inconsistencies: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 17

While setting aside the conviction order passed by the trial court in a rape and abduction case, the Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the fact that Prosecutrix was aware of the place where she was kept after abduction and raped but never identified that place during the investigation assumes significance as material contradiction.

Surprising That Probe In NDPS Cases Is Being Entrusted To Incompetent Officers, Casual Approach Undermines Public Faith In Criminal Justice: J&K HC

Case title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs Farman Ali

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 18

While upholding the acquittal order passed by the trial court for possessing contraband in commercial quantity, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that the Non-compliance with mandatory provisions, such as proper sampling, immediate reporting and informing the accused of arrest grounds, renders the prosecution's case defective.

Trial Court Should Avoid Giving Observations On Merits Of Case At Stage Of Interim Application: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Case title: Rathika Pruthi vs Contonment Board (Badami bagh) thr. Chief Executive Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 19

While setting aside an order passed by the trial court, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir observed that by making observations on the merits of the suit, the trial court had virtually dismissed the suit under the guise of dismissing the application for interim relief, leaving nothing in the suit for determination.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani set aside the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the appellant. The court also observed that merely stating that concealment was of a material fact would not absolve the trial court of its duty the law puts on it.

Police Resorted To Public Safety Act For 'Perverted Detention', To Outmanoeuvre Courts: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

Case-title: Tarun Bahl vs UT of J&K, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 20

While quashing the detention order, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and the District Magistrate, Jammu had resorted to a dubious exercise of authority and jurisdiction at their respective ends to 'pounce upon' the personal liberty of the petitioner by subjecting him to preventive detention.

[S.25 UAPA] Mere Delay In Informing Authorities About Seizure Of Vehicle Allegedly Used In Terrorism Not Fatal To Investigation: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh & Khalida Begum vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 21

While upholding the order passed by the Trial Court for the seizure of a vehicle allegedly used in terrorism, the J&K High Court observed that the procedural timeline given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment within 48 hours is not mandatory under Section 25 of the UAPA.

It was also observed that if the Designated Authority fails to make its order within 60 days of confirming or revoking the seizure, the delay cannot be a reason to overturn the order of seizure.

Assertion Of Accused Being Habitual Offender Not Sufficient For Preventive Detention, Must Establish Continuous Commission Of Offences: J&K High Court

Case Title: Riyaz Ahmad Azad Alias Azad vs State of J&K &Ors. 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

While setting aside a detention order, the J&K High Court held that preventive detention cannot be a punitive measure on the apprehension that the detenu is going to go scot-free in pending trials due to lack of support to the prosecution case.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Kaul said that when the thread of connectivity between the last incident and the order of preventive detention is lost, the same cannot be restored by the mere assertion of the petitioner being a habitual offender as made in the grounds for detention in the absence of material to substantiate the propensity to commit a crime.

Mere Violation Of Departmental Norms Without Dishonest Intention To Obtain Pecuniary Advantage Not Criminal Misconduct: J&K High Court

Case Title: Dalip Thusu and anr vs Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

While quashing the order of framing charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the J&K High Court observed that there was no whisper in the chargesheet and no material on record annexed to the chargesheet to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had obtained any pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing, either for themselves or for any other person, even though the same had caused loss to the State Exchequer.

[MACT] Tribunal Must Examine Question Of Deceased Being Gratuitous Passenger Before Attaching Liability On Insurance Company: J&K High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Gulshana Begum & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

While remanding a case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the J&K High Court said that in the present accident case, the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger (travelling without paying) and not the labourer of the offending truck owner on the date of the accident was not established for the purpose of compensation.

The court said that the same could have been established by examining the officials of the Construction Company-HCC, where the deceased was alleged to be working on a monthly remuneration or, in the alternative, the driver or owner of the offending vehicle should have been examined by the Tribunal, which it failed to do.

Courts Must Not Deny Party's Statutory Remedies As A Matter Of Policy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Ishaq Dar & Anr.vs Usman Syed Shah & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

While dismissing an appeal with cost and upholding the trial court order granting a recall Application, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that when there is a statutory remedy available to a litigant, there is no dispute about a court granting liberty to avail such remedy as it remains open to the party to work out his remedies under the law.

Preventive Detention Can Be Ordered Regardless Of Prosecution, In Anticipation Of Discharge Or Acquittal: J&K High Court

Case Title: Shahid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to quash the detention order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, observing that preventive detention does not overlap with the prosecution (in regular courts) even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may have been launched.

The court clarified that "An order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution, with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution."

Chief Judicial Magistrate Has Jurisdiction Over Entire District, Can Take Cognizance Under NI Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Aijaz Hussain Rather Vs Jeelani Ahmad Dar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Clarifying that a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) has jurisdiction over the entire district the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the CJM can take cognizance of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), even if the local limits of a Judicial Magistrate are involved.

In dismissing a plea assailing the issuance of process by a CJM in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“It has been contended that as per Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is only the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection or where the cheque is presented for payment by the payee which has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, it is the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Magam, which has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and not the CJM, Budgam. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely frivolous”

Woman's Caste Determined By Birth, Not By Marriage: J&K HC Reiterates Home Ministry Circular, Seeks Timely Decision On Woman's ST Certificate

Case Title: Shivaeta Rani Vs Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 28

Reaffirming the guidelines of a circular issued by the Ministry of Home that a woman's caste is determined by birth and not by marriage the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the authorities to take a decision on issuing a Scheduled Tribe (ST) category certificate to a woman who belongs to the Padri Tribe but had married a non-ST individual.

Govt Employee Not Disentitled From Claiming Compensation Due To Disablement: J&K High Court Upholds ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Man Who Lost Arm

Case-Title: Union Territory of J&K and Ors. vs Jehangir Ahmad Khan, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 29

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a government employee cannot be disentitled from his right to receive compensation accruing to him due to permanent disablement in the course of employment. It also held that pain, agony and the nature of disablement could be taken account of in order to determine the amount of the compensation falling due to the victim.

Corporation Is An Independent Entity, Internal Service Rules Will Prevail Over Govt Office Memoranda: J&K High Court

Case-Title Rajesh Singh vs National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 30

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ Petition holding that Government office Memoranda will not prevail over the internal service rules relating to promotion unless these rules are specifically challenged before the court. It held that an employee facing criminal charges would be barred from being considered for promotion until completely exonerated as per the said internal rules.

Officer's Inablity To Stop Assailant Despite Being Armed Showed Incapability To Continue As Member Of CRPF: J&K HC Upholds Dismissal Order

Case-Title: Ex-CT/GD Om Prakash vs Union of India & ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 31

The J&K High Court ruled that an army personnel's negligence in discharging their duties justifies the dismissal from the services, even if they are in the initial years of their service. It also held that the High Court cannot interfere with conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer under departmental proceedings unless the same is found to be fanciful and perverse.

Mere Recovery Of Amount Without Conclusive Proof Of Demand Not Sufficient To Prove Charges Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: J&K High Court

Case Title :Union Territory of J&K vs Ashu Jolly

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 32

The J&K High Court held that a material discrepancy in the prosecution's case with respect to the mode and manner in which the demand for a bribe is made is sufficient to acquit the accused under the Corruption Act. The court also emphasized the principle that "Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, without proof of the demand, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused."

'Applicant Cannot Be Denied Passport Merely Due To Criminal Antecedents Of Family Members': J&K High Court

Case-Title: Mohd. Amir Malik vs Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the criminal family background cannot be used as a reason to deny a passport to the one applying for it. It also held that a mere speculative reason, in the absence of any direct evidence, cannot be considered a valid ground to restrain freedom of movement.

[MSMED Act] Pre-Deposit Of 75% Of Awarded Amount While Challenging Award Cannot Be Scuttled By Petition Under Article 227: J&K High Court

Case-Title: UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr vs M/s Gulati Metals & Alloys

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that an award passed under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED) cannot be challenged before the High Court, as the statutory remedy provided under the Act itself must be exhausted by the aggrieved party.

If Defendant Shows Plausible Defense Under Order 37 CPC, Court Must Grant Leave Unconditionally Without Requiring Any Security: J&K High Court

Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Bhat Vs Mohammad Shafi Bhat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Setting aside a trial court's order that had imposed a bank guarantee condition on a defendant seeking leave to defend, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed the principle that if a defendant discloses facts that may establish a defence at trial under Order 37 CPC, leave to defend must be granted unconditionally, without requiring security or a payment into court.

Employee Cannot Be Indefinitely Suspended On Corruption Allegations Without Any Departmental Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Ashok Kumar vs Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed the suspension order of the employee, stating that an employee cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. The court observed that the petitioner has remained under suspension for more than a year and that no departmental enquiry parallel to the filing of the charge sheet has been initiated by the respondents, which would be prejudiced by the termination of the petitioner's suspension.

Contract Which Is Renewable Based On 'Criteria Of Performance' Is Deemed Renewed Unilaterally After Criteria Is Met, Cannot Be Terminated: J&K HC

Case-Title: Zaffar Abbas Din vs Nasir Hamid Khan, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 37

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that where renewal of contract is based on the criteria of performance, the contract is deemed to have to been extended, if the said criteria is met. It also held that courts cannot interfere with the interpretation given by an Arbitrator if the same is reasonable and not opposed to logic.

J&K HC Upholds Compensation For Man Disabled Due To Tear Gas Fired By Police, Says Criminal Justice Would Look 'Hollow' If Victim Not Compensated

Case-Title: State of J&K and Anr. Vs Yawar Ahmad Bhat (minor)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 38

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has that permanent disability of the citizen due to state action violates their fundamental rights and has to be fully compensated by the State.

The court also held that when the service of notice is made at the correct address, the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the said notice.

Settlement Cannot Justify Quashing Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape, Or Corruption; No Legal Sanction For Such Compromises: J&K High Court

Case Title: Syed Mazloom Hussain Vs Government Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement between an offender and the victim is not the same as compounding an offence.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that serious crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity, and offences of moral turpitude under special statutes cannot be quashed merely because the accused and the victim have reached a compromise.

J&K High Court Cautions Against Use Of "Divorcee" Against Name Of Women In Cause Title, Says Such Pleas Would Not Be Registered

Case-Title: Parvez Ahmad Khan vs Areeb

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed practitioners/litigants to refrain from using the expression “divorcee” against the name of women in any petitions or applications in court proceedings. The Court also warned that if any petition or application refers to such an expression, the same shall not be registered/diarized.

Govt Employee Cannot Alter Date Of Birth In Service Records After 5 Years Of Submitting Credentials: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Ghulam Nabi Sofi VS State of J&K, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 41

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the date of birth declared by a Government servant and thereafter recorded by the appropriate authority in the service book or any other record, shall not be subject to any alteration, except in the case of a clerical error, without the orders of the Government.

Withdrawing Of Appointment Without Holding Inquiry Is Illegal Even During Probationary Period: J&K High Court

Case-Title : Union Territory of J&K vs Arsam Imtiyaz Malik, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 42

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that withdrawing the appointment order of an employee without conducting an inquiry is illegal, even if the said employee is in the probationary period. The court ruled that the mere pendency of a criminal case would not justify withdrawing the appointment without holding an inquiry.

Building Violations Committed In Broad Daylight Cannot Be Compounded By Tribunal: J&K High Court Upholds Demolition Order

Case-Title: Chairman, Building Operation Controlling Authority, Srinagar & Ors vs Jameel Hussain Farooqi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 43

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has that unauthorized constructions cannot be validated by paying the compounding fees after such violations, even if a long period has elapsed since those violations. The court said that failure on the part of the competent authorities to act in a timely manner to prevent the violations cannot be a ground to condone these violations.

Offense Of Assaulting Public Servant Not Attracted Unless They Are Acting Lawfully Or Doing Duty Mandated By Law: J&K High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Mir Vs State Through P/s Safa Kadal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 44

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an offence under Section 353 RPC (assault or use of criminal force against a public servant) cannot be made out if the public servant is not acting lawfully or performing a duty imposed by law.

Issuance Or Renewal Of Passport Can Be Barred Only After Presenting Of Chargesheet In Criminal Cases: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Mohammad Abass Lone Vs Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 45

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the mere registration of an FIR or a pending investigation will not bar the authority from issuing or renewing the passport of the applicant. The court ruled that the authorities cannot refuse to issue or renew the passport unless the charge sheet is presented in the said case FIR.

Offence Being Part Of Commercial Transaction Alone Not Enough To Avoid Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Nagraj V Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 46

Dismissing a petition that sought the quashing of an FIR and charge sheet, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that merely because the offence was committed during the course of a commercial transaction, it would not suffice to conclude that the complaint does not warrant a trial. The truthfulness of the allegations in the complaint is to be determined based on the evidence presented during the trial in the complaint case, it added.

Petitioner An Indian Citizen, Needs Legal Representation: J&K High Court Grants Consular Access To Kashmiri Engineer Detained In Saudi Arabia

Case-Title: Abdul Rafi Baba & Anr vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 47

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court admitted a writ petition filed by the wife of a detainee and directed the Indian Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to file an affidavit regarding the current status of the petitioner who has been detained there under uncertain circumstances.

"Informed Of Grounds Of Arrest”: J&K High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea By Ex-Bar President Mian Qayoom Against Arrest In Murder Case

Case Title : Mian Abdul Qayoom Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 48

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by former Bar President Mian Abdul Qayoom, challenging his arrest in the high-profile murder case of Advocate Syed Babar Qadri. The court emphasized that the petitioner had been informed of the grounds of his arrest, affirming the procedural compliance by the authorities.

If Peace-Loving Citizens Are Treated Harshly Under Preventive Detention Law, No 'Peace' Will Be Left: J&K HC Quashes Detention Order Of Journalist

Case Title: Majid Hyderi Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 49

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that acts lacking a causal link with the imperative need to detain are liable to be quashed. Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner referenced old social media posts and news articles without proving an ongoing or imminent threat, rendering the preventive detention unsustainable.

Govt Dept Committed Illegality By Withdrawing Posts After Recruitment Had Already Begun: J&K High Court Directs Restoration Of Slots

Case-Title: Syed Murtaza & ors vs Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a government department would be committing an illegality by usurping the quota meant to be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of merit through promotion. The court ruled that the government officials, in this case, had acted illegally by withdrawing as many as 29 out of 42 referred posts and filling them through promotion after the exam and interview for direct recruitment had already been conducted.

[Muslim Law] Daughter As Legal Heir Cannot Be Excluded From Revenue Documents Without Recording Valid Reasons: J&K High Court

Case-title : MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL vs State of J&K, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 51

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that where a mutation is attested excluding a legal heir without recording the reasons for exclusion, such a mutation can be set aside. It also stated that an invalid mutation of the record can be challenged without any bar concerning the limitation period.

J&K High Court Seeks State Response On Status Of Stamp Duty Exemptions Given To Companies Engaged In Power Development Projects

Case-Title: Kashmir Valley Energy Private Limited & Anr Vs Mr.Bashir Ahmad Bhat, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 52

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the concerned state authorities to apprise the court about the status of exemption in paying of stamp duty by power project developing companies in J&K, engaged in setting up power projects under any policy.

Preliminary Inquiry Is Mandatory Before Issuing Process When Accused Resides Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Of Magistrate: J&K High Court

Case-title : M/S NAVA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD vs UT OF J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 53

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that it is mandatory to conduct an inquiry before issuing process in a case where the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate court. The court held that in the present case, the Magistrate has not conducted any preliminary enquiry nor any investigation has been directed. The court held the impugned order as not sustainable in law.

[Summary Suit] Dismissing Application For Leave To Defend In Suit For Non-Prosecution Is Unsustainable In Law: J&K High Court

Case-Title: Ahsan Ahmad Malik Vs Basharat Feroz Ganie, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if a trial court does not consider an application for leave to defend a suit filed by the defendant on merits, the impugned judgment and decree become unsustainable in law.

'Reprehensible Conduct': J&K High Court Directs Criminal Proceedings Against Dy Commissioner, Ganderbal For Filing False Pleadings Before Court

Case-title: ABDUL MAJID SOFI vs UT of J&K, 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed that appropriate criminal proceedings should be initiated against the former Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal for having filed a false pleading before the learned District Judge.

The court observed that this conduct of a responsible officer of the Government is reprehensible and shows that the said officer has no respect for the rule of law. The court also stated that the officer concerned did not think twice before filing a false written statement before the learned trial court with a view to defeating the claim of the petitioner.

J&K High Court Imposes 25K Costs On "Compulsorily Retired" SBI Employee For Concealing Facts To Mislead Court's Jurisdiction

Case Title: Madan Lal Goria Vs State Bank of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 56

While dismissing a writ petition filed by a compulsorily retired State Bank of India (SBI) employee, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 for concealing crucial facts with the intent to deceive the Court regarding its territorial jurisdiction.

[S.219 CrPC] Joinder Of Charges Will Not Apply In Case Of Dishonored Cheques Where Consolidated Demand Notice Is Given By Complainant: J&K High Court

Case Title: FAYAZ AHMAD RATHER vs TARIQ AHMAD WANI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is maintainable if a consolidated legal notice was issued and the cause of action arises from a single transaction.

The court held that a single cause of action arose for all four cheques in favor of the respondent for filing a complaint against the petitioner upon the expiry of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice of demand.

“Failure To Issue Notice, Denied Fair Hearing”: J&K High Court Quashes Recovery Order Of ₹4 Lakh Against Fair Price Shop Dealer

Case Title: Kunj Lal Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an order directing the recovery of excess carriage charges amounting to Rupees over 4 Lakhs from a Fair Price Shop dealer, highlighting the violation of natural justice principles.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the failure to issue notice was an attempt to prevent the petitioner from having an opportunity to present his case, underlining the critical need for a fair hearing in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.

Recovery Of Drugs On Disclosure Statement Does Not Prima Facie Show Conscious Possession Of Contraband: J&K High Court

Case Title: Islam Ul Haq Peer vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a statement leading to the discovery of contraband is not sufficient to prima facie show conscious possession with respect to the concealed material. The court said that mere possession will not be considered as an offence unless it was coupled with the knowledge of what was being possessed.

Toll Plazas Should Not Serve Merely As Revenue Generating Mechanism With Sole Purpose Of Minting Money From Public: J&K High Court

Case Title: Sugandha Sawhney Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary underscored that toll plaza should not merely function as revenue-generating mechanisms to mint money from the public and directed the authorities not to establish any toll within 60 kilometres of the National Highway-44.

J&K High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Reporter Who Highlighted Misuse Of Hospital Ambulances For Personal Use By Govt Officials

Case-title: Rajesh Tandon vs Mohd. Safeer

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 61

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed a criminal defamation case against a reporter who covered a story relating to the misuse of a public hospital ambulance by government officials. The court held that the news report did not name the respondent, nor was he explicitly quoted as being responsible for the said misuse.

Ejectment Allowed For Reconstruction But Rebuilt Property Must Be Offered To Evicted Tenant At Market Rate: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohit Mahajan Vs Sham Dass Gupta

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Shedding light on the mandate of Section 13 of J&K Houses & Shops Rent Control Act 1966 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed the legal principle that while the law permits a suit for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement for reconstruction, it forbids a landlord from occupying a building obtained solely on the ground of rebuilding without offering the same to the evicted tenant at market rent.

Land Classified As 'Shamilat-E-Deh' Is As Good As Proprietary Land: J&K High Court Directs Compensation For Acquisition

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Beigh vs UT of J&K and Ors.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 63

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that land classified as Shamilat-e-Deh, once shown as vested in the name of any person, is as good as proprietary land, and the owner is entitled to compensation upon its acquisition by the government.

Law Casts Duty Upon Representing Counsel To Report Death Of Litigant During An Ongoing Litigation: J&K High Court

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.

"Sordid State Of Affairs": J&K High Court Reprimands Govt Officials For Taking 7 Months For Obtaining Sanction To File Appeal

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.

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.

S.37 Of NDPS Act Not A Blanket Ban On HC's Powers To Grant Bail On Humanitarian Or Medical Grounds: J&K High Court

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.

J&K High Court Allows Re-Recording Of S.164 Cr.PC Statement After Woman Says She Was Pressurised To Implicate Party In False Rape Case

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.

'Bonafide Interpretation Of Judgment, Though Wrong, Not Contempt': J&K&L High Court Closes Contempt Against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas

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.

Procedure U/S 329 CrPC For Accused With Unsound Mind Applies Only After Framing Of Charges: J&K High Court

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.

Validity Of Administrative Orders Must Be Judged On Initial Reasoning, Not Through Affidavits Filed Later: J&K High Court

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.

“Evidence Too Weak To Arrive At Different Conclusion”: J&K HC Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In Ex-Education Minister's Assassination Case

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."

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.