2 weeks, 1 day ago

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Annual Digest [Part I]

Live Law

Judgments/Orders: Labour Commissioner Competent To Review Ex-Parte Awards Passed Under Workmen's Compensation Act: J&K High Court Case Title: Sahil Gupta Vs UT of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 1 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Labour Commissioner is competent to review his ex-parte orders, while hearing an application to set aside such ex-parte award. Clarifying the limitations of the court after the pronouncement of a judgment and its powers to review the same Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “The Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and the doctrine can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on certain grounds only" Non-Disclosure of Selection Criteria In Advance Doesn't Automatically Disqualify Process, As Long Criteria Is Fair: J&K High Court Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 35 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the non-disclosure of selection criteria in advance does not automatically invalidate a selection process. However clarifying the circumstances under which an appellate court can allow parties to introduce new evidence during an appeal Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “Normally an appellate court should not allow additional evidence to be produced and decide an appeal on the basis of the material on record…yet said Order 47 Rule proceeds to carve out an exceptions and enumerates the circumstances in which an appellate court can permit leading of additional evidence under clause, or of sub rule of Rule 27” Dossier Seeking Preventive Detention By 'Name-Calling' Without Supporting Facts Leads To Fragile Detention Order Which Can Be Quashed: J&K High Court Case Title: Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 37 Quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a preventive detention order based on mere hunches and speculations from law enforcement authorities cannot be justified. A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “Onus is equally upon the Government to enquire from the Divisional Commissioner/District Magistrate passing the detention order as the case may, as to whether any representation has been submitted by a detenue against his/her detention.the omission is going to be very fatal to the very validity of the preventive order even if approved and/or confirmed by the Government and/or the Advisory Board” Cannot Utilise Previously Invalidated Grounds To Detain Individual For Issuance Of Fresh Detention Order: J&K High Court Case Title: Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 68 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes. J&K Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner's Suo-Moto Power Conditional On Hearing, Can't Modify Orders Without Giving Opportunity To Parties: High Court Case Title: Mst Khalida Vs Financial Commissioner Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 111 Underlining the Financial Commissioner's power to exercise suo-moto revision in a land dispute case under the J&K Land Revenue Act 1996 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while the Commissioner has this authority, it cannot be used to bypass the principles of natural justice, which require a party to be heard before an order affecting their rights is reversed or modified.