Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025
Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo vs Furqaan Ah. Moderately 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 217
Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 218
Attiqa Bano Vs Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219
Tahir Riyaz Dar vs UT of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 220
Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 221
Bhole Bhandari Charitable Belief Vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Jammu/Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 222
Chief Government Officer and Anr Vs M/s Highlander Bar and Restaurant and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 223
Shri Nav Durga Jhaleri Mata Belief vs UT of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 224
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 225
Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 226
Jagdish Raj Gupta Vs Purushottam Gupta 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT & ORS. Vs UT OF J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
Saja Begum vs Monetary Commissioner Income J&Okay Govt.& Ors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. Vs UT OF J&Okay & one other 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
BILAL AHMAD KUMAR VS UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
Basit Bashir Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
Intizamia Committee Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
TOUSEEF AHMAD KHAN Vs UT OF J&Okay & one other 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
Raja Aif Farooq & Anr VS UT OF J&Okay & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
Healthium Medtech Ltd. Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
MOHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK Vs MOHAMMAD AKRAM WANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
Mohd. Abbas vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
Court docket of its personal movement Vs State of J&Okay & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. Vs UT of J&Okay and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
Anish Rajulia Vs Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
Shamim Ahmad Parray Vs State of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Monetary Commissioner Income Jammu and others 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT Of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&Okay 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
Judgments/Orders:
Case-Title: Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo vs Furqaan Ah. Moderately
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 217
In a ruling geared toward streamlining cheque bounce proceedings, Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket put aside an order of the Trial Justice of the Peace, Srinagar, which had refused to document the assertion of a certified financial institution consultant in a criticism filed below Part 138 of the Negotiable Devices Act.
Case Title: Thakur Ashwani Singh vs State of Punjab
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 218
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket dismissed a writ petition filed towards the State of Punjab and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, on the bottom of lack of territorial jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Structure of India.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti noticed that the petitioner self-invited the dismissal of this writ petition earlier than it got here to be filed. The courtroom stated that jurisdictional pleading is a vital prerequisite when concentrating on authorities outdoors a Excessive Court docket’s territorial area.
Case Title: Attiqa Bano Vs Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm Ltd
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 219
The Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held in clear phrases that Part 100-A of the Code of Civil Process (CPC) has an overriding impact over Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and bars the maintainability of any additional attraction from a judgment handed by a Single Choose in train of appellate jurisdiction.
Case-Title: Tahir Riyaz Dar vs UT of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 220
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket upheld a preventive detention order handed below the J&Okay Public Security Act (PSA), ruling that the detaining authority’s determination was based mostly on software of thoughts, an affordable evaluation of future menace, and in accordance with constitutional and authorized safeguards.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri noticed that the grounds of detention, which included particulars of an FIR, previous felony conduct, and launch from jail, indicated a acutely aware and knowledgeable software of thoughts by the detaining authority.
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 221
Reaffirming the sanctity of constitutional rights, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dominated that mere registration of a felony case doesn’t quantity to proceedings prescribed below clause (e) of Part 10(3) of the Passports Act. Justice Sindhu Sharma noticed that for proceedings to be handled as pending earlier than a felony courtroom, a chargesheet have to be filed, and never merely an FIR.
Case Title: Bhole Bhandari Charitable Belief Vs Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board Jammu/Srinagar
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 222
In a stern ruling that underscores the sanctity of constitutional litigation, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, whereas rejecting an software in search of withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh, held that the jurisdiction exercised below Article 226 of the Structure will not be shackled by procedural technicalities however neither is it an unregulated area for speculative or unjustified litigation maneuvers.
Case Title: Chief Government Officer and Anr Vs M/s Highlander Bar and Restaurant and Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 223
Reinforcing the regulatory powers of Cantonment Boards, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dominated that the enterprise of promoting liquor inside cantonment areas is a privilege prolonged by the State, not a basic proper.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar upheld the authority of the Srinagar Cantonment Board to reinforce license charges for liquor institutions, observing that such enhancement was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Case-Title: Shri Nav Durga Jhaleri Mata Belief vs UT of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 224
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket voiced critical concern over the extended absence of an Advocate Basic within the Union Territory, noting that this emptiness has successfully rendered Part 92 of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 inoperative, significantly in issues involving charitable and spiritual establishments.
Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 225
Reinforcing the precept that disciplinary proceedings needn’t culminate in an elaborate enquiry when the delinquent admits to the fees, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that when the delinquent worker unequivocally admits to the fees in disciplinary proceedings, a full-fledged enquiry involving oral proof and cross-examination will not be essential.
Case Title:Syed Muiz Qadri & Ors Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 226
“As soon as it’s clearly discernible from the allegations made within the criticism that the act of the accused falls throughout the Basic Exceptions, there is no such thing as a want to attend for submission of proof on behalf of the accused in order to convey his case throughout the purview of Basic Exceptions”, held the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh whereas quashing a FIR towards a gaggle of income officers.
Case Title: Jagdish Raj Gupta Vs Purushottam Gupta
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
Reaffirming the significance of economic credibility in cheque bounce litigation, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dominated that failure of the complainant to show monetary capability to increase a big mortgage can fatally weaken the case, significantly when the accused manages to boost a believable defence.
Case-Title:ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT & ORS. Vs UT OF J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 228
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket held that non-compliance of the availability requiring designated officer to make advice to the Commissioner Meals Security for accord of sanction for prosecution towards the accused individuals inside time restrict renders prosecution unsustainable.
Eviction Is A Civil Matter, Police Cannot Meddle In Landlord-Tenant Disputes: J&K High Court
Case Title: Abdul Majid Dar Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
Reiterating a foundational precept of regulation, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that police haven’t any jurisdiction to intervene in disputes which might be purely civil in nature, together with these arising between landlord and tenant. Such issues, the Court docket noticed, fall completely throughout the area of competent civil courts and outdoors the scope of felony regulation enforcement businesses.
Case-Title: Saja Begum vs Monetary Commissioner Income J&Okay Govt.& Ors
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 230
In a ruling emphasising the the interaction between the J&Okay Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and the sooner alienation of land Act, the Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket held that any oral present of agrarian land, together with to shut relations, is impermissible with out prior approval from competent authority below Part 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
Case-Title: Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs UT of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 231
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket upheld the dismissal of a police constable holding that there was no bar in accepting the resignation on the identical day on which it was tendered, quite than deal with it as ‘intention to resign’ and watch for a two-month discover interval to run out earlier than accepting it.
Case Title: Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 232
The Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, whereas quashing an FIR registered below Sections 354 and 447 of the IPC has held that an assault or use of felony pressure to a girl simplicitor unaccompanied by a way of thinking to outrage modesty of such lady can’t be termed as an offence below Part 354 of IPC.
Case-Title: SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. Vs UT OF J&Okay & one other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a person accused of sexually exploiting a girl below the false promise of marriage, stating that there’s prima facie materials suggesting that the petitioner engaged the complainant over social media.
The courtroom added that it seems that the petitioner extracted sexual favours below the pretext of marriage, after which didn’t fulfil his promise.
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 234
Clarifying the interpretation of recruitment eligibility standards, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the place the required expertise for a publish has no direct nexus with the prescribed instructional qualification, such expertise could be validly acquired both earlier than or after acquiring the qualification.
Case-Title: BILAL AHMAD KUMAR VS UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 235
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket dismissed bail purposes filed below the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, ruling that the allegations involving restoration of explosive substances and hyperlinks with a militant module are too grave to warrant launch at this stage of the trial.
A bench of Justices Rajnesh Oswal, Sanjay Parihar noticed that the trial is underway with materials proof already recorded and the delay, if any, will not be inordinate sufficient to invoke the precept laid down in Okay.A. Najeeb.
Cannot Withold Retirement Benefits For Crime Branch Clearance: J&K HC
Case Title: Prem Kumar Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 236
A single decide bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that retirement advantages couldn’t be withheld merely on the grounds of pending clearance from crime department, particularly when the FIR has been closed as ‘not proved’.
The courtroom dominated that even when if the FIR investigations have been pending, it doesn’t quantity to ‘judicial proceedings’, and thus, can’t be used to disclaim retirement advantages. Thus, the courtroom directed the employer to supply all retirement advantages, together with curiosity.
Case Title: Basit Bashir Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket has dominated that mere medical proof confirming sexual activity is inadequate to determine guilt below the POCSO Act or rape expenses.
There have to be direct or circumstantial proof connecting the accused to the act, noticed Justice Sanjay Dhar whereas quashing expenses towards one Basit Bashir, accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting two minor women.
Case Title: Intizamia Committee Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 238
The Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held {that a} Ziyarat (shrine), Dargah, or different spiritual property that qualifies as a “Wakaf by consumer” below Part 3(d)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Wakafs Act, 1978, doesn’t require a proper declaration or notification to be handled as Wakaf.
CaseTitle: TOUSEEF AHMAD KHAN Vs UT OF J&Okay & one other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 239
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket granted bail to an accused below the NDPS Act, observing that the prosecution failed to determine prima facie possession of business amount of contraband medicine attributable to gaps in investigation and absence of essential FSL stories.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the bail software after noting that solely 3 out of 11 bottles of alleged codeine syrup seized from the accused have been despatched for chemical evaluation, leaving critical doubts about whether or not the remaining bottles contained any contraband substance.
Case-Title: RAJA ASIF FAROOQ & ANR VS UT OF J&Okay & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 240
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket quashed an FIR towards two nephews accused of outraging the modesty of their aunt and felony trespass, holding that the allegations arose out of a civil property dispute and didn’t represent a felony offence.
Case-Title: Healthium Medtech Ltd. Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 241
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket put aside fee contracts awarded by the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Provides Company Ltd. (JKMSCL) for provide of suture supplies stating “clear arbitrariness, procedural violations, and institutional favouritism” in favour of two long-time distributors.
Case-Title: MOHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK Vs MOHAMMAD AKRAM WANI & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 242
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket stated that native commissioners appointed by the courtroom are nicely inside their rights to submit a report concerning the bodily options current on the spot of land for the aim of deciding the appliance filed below Guidelines 1 and a pair of of Order 39 of the Civil Process Code 1908.
Case-Title: Mohd. Abbas vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 243
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket quashed the preventive detention of a person, calling the motion as a “punitive measure within the garb of preventive detention.”
The courtroom censured each the District Justice of the Peace, Kathua, and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua, for “abuse of place” and “malice in regulation.”
Case-Title: Court docket of its personal movement Vs State of J&Okay & Ors. 2025
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 244
In an order aiming at restoring public areas and making certain easy move of pedestrian and vehicular visitors the Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket issued complete instructions to curb unlawful encroachments by shopkeepers, distributors, and meals joints, whereas disposing of a long-pending Public Curiosity Litigation (PIL).
Case-Title: Abdul Qayoom Ganie and Ors. Vs UT of J&Okay and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 245
The Jammu & Kashmir Excessive Court docket dismissed a petition in search of quashing of a cost sheet filed towards a number of people accused of finishing up a violent assault utilizing lethal weapons, holding that the plea of alibi raised by the accused can’t be examined in a pre-trial stage below the guise of a quashing petition.
Case Title: Anish Rajulia Vs Union of India
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 246
The Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the medical rejection of a CAPF aspirant declared unfit attributable to a congenital birthmark.
A bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary emphasised that congenital situations like ‘Port Wine Stain’ can’t, by themselves, be grounds for medical disqualification except accompanied by concrete medical reasoning demonstrating useful impairment.
Case-Title: Tarmat Ltd. Vs Union of India and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 247
In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator’s payment as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award.
The problem earlier than the courtroom was whether or not a government-prescribed inside payment construction for empanelled arbitrators might override the statutory payment scale within the Fourth Schedule of the 1996
Case Title: Shamim Ahmad Parray Vs State of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
Reaffirming foundational rules of felony jurisprudence, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dominated that Part 106 of the Indian Proof Act can’t be invoked to fill materials gaps within the prosecution case except the foundational information essential to shift the onus are first firmly established.
Case Title: Bhagu Ram & Ors Vs Joint Monetary Commissioner Income Jammu and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 249
Reiterating the extensive discretionary powers conferred upon senior income authorities below Part 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Income Act, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dominated that officers such because the Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Monetary Commissioner are legally empowered to resolve issues on deserves whereas exercising their authority to withdraw and switch instances pending earlier than subordinate income officers.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 250
Reiterating the doctrine of pari delicto, the Excessive Court docket of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that the place each events are equally at fault in getting into into an unlawful settlement, the regulation won’t intervene to find out their inter se rights and liabilities.
Case-Title: Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 251
The Jammu and Kashmir Excessive Court docket has granted common bail to a person accused of murdering his spouse with a firearm, observing that the prosecution has failed to supply any clinching or credible proof connecting him to the crime.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed the bail software, holding that “in such instances of ‘no proof’, courts are obliged to take a holistic view and train discretion in favour of liberty.”
