The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Dharmarth Trust cannot be treated as a purely religious or voluntary organisation and falls within the definition of an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court noted that the Trust undertakes systematic activities, employs workmen for remuneration, and renders services that extend beyond exclusively spiritual or religious functions.

Applying the dominant nature test, it held that the Trust’s operations attract labour law obligations, making it amenable to industrial adjudication.

The Court clarified that mere religious affiliation does not place an organisation outside the scope of labour legislation.

[Dharmarth Trust J&K v. Industrial Tribunal & Anr.]

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Child Welfare Committees have no statutory power to recommend punitive or legal action against educational institutions under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court set aside an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, which had directed action against a private school for allegedly expelling a minor student.

It observed that the Juvenile Justice Act does not confer any supervisory, disciplinary, or regulatory powers on CWCs over schools.

The Court emphasised that CWCs must function strictly within the limits of powers granted under the Act and cannot assume authority not expressly provided by law.

[Private School v. Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar]

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently upheld the preventive detention of Waseem Ahmed Dar under the J&K Public Safety Act, following allegations that he uploaded anti-national content on Facebook to promote terrorism and radicalize youth.

The Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition, finding that procedural safeguards were followed and the detaining authority had adequately applied its mind to the evidence, including Facebook screenshots.

It observed that preventive detention was justified to avert activities prejudicial to state security, and ordinary criminal law was insufficient.

The Court concluded there was no constitutional violation, maintaining the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a GST demand cannot exceed the amount stated in the show cause notice, and any higher demand violates principles of fairness under GST law.

The Court set aside a demand issued against a goods transport agency, after finding that authorities had raised a higher figure in the final order without allowing the taxpayer to respond.

The Court said that tax officers must strictly adhere to the limits and grounds specified in the notice, and any deviation makes the demand unsustainable.

The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. 

[XYZ Transport Agency v. Union of India]

The J&K&L High Court has held that insurers cannot rely on undisclosed or hidden exclusion clauses to reject claims when a policy is issued as a “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” that ordinarily covers risks like floods and inundation.

The Court observed that consumers’ legitimate expectations cannot be defeated by technicalities, especially when the policy itself promises coverage for events like heavy rainfall and inundation.

Reiterating that ambiguities in insurance contracts must operate against the insurer, the Bench upheld the compensation awarded to the insured family and directed settlement of the claim.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

[National Insurance Company Limited v. Mala Bashir & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that when a defect is noticed within the warranty period, both the authorised dealer and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.

The case arose after a buyer of an SX‑4 car reported persistent vibration in first and reverse gears, which the dealer failed to fix despite repeated attempts.

The Court affirmed a refund or replacement order in favour of the buyer‑complainant, as the defect arose during the warranty period.

The ruling underscores that warranty obligations extend to both dealer and manufacturer and cannot be evaded by shifting blame.

[Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court issued notice to the Union Territory of Ladakh on a plea challenging the Lieutenant Governor’s nomination of a Muslim member to a seat reserved for the principal religious minority in Kargil.

The petitioners contended that Buddhists form the main minority as per the 2011 Census and said the LG’s choice violated Section 4(2) of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, 1997.They also highlighted that the nominee had recently contested council elections.

The Court sought the UT’s response and listed the matter for December 30.

[Mohd Jaffer Akhoon v. Union Territory of Ladakh]

The J&K&L High Court has held that when a joint account carries the “either or survivor” mandate, a bank is fully discharged of liability once it releases the matured amount to the surviving account holder.

Any dispute over entitlement lies between the survivor and the legal heirs and not the bank.

Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed criminal proceedings against HSBC and a co-accused, noting that RBI guidelines clearly permit such payments and that allegations against them were vague.

The Court added that civil succession disputes cannot be converted into criminal liability for banks acting under valid survivorship instructions, calling the complaint an abuse of process.

[Shabeena Ibrahim The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limit v. Mir Usman Disooki]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that an accused seeking a passport NOC is not required to prove any urgent need for foreign travel.

Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that every citizen has a constitutional right to hold a passport, and this right cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law.

The Court said the trial court’s insistence on documentary proof of foreign travel necessity was legally unsustainable. It clarified that while deciding a passport-NOC request, the only consideration is whether the accused will remain available for trial, and no other factor should influence the decision.

Setting aside the trial court’s rejection, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

[Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan v. Union Territory of J&K]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that cross-LOC trade carried out under the 2008 SOP constitutes intra-state supply, for GST purposes, since the areas under the de facto control of Pakistan continue to remain part of the territory of J&K in the eyes of law.

The Court observed that petitioners supplying goods across the LOC during the relevant period conducted intra-state transactions and were liable to self-assess GST. It noted that show-cause notices under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, were valid and not barred by limitation.

The Court directed petitioners to file replies within four weeks and said appeals under Section 107 remain available after final orders.

[M/S New Gee Enn & Sons v. Union of India & Ors].

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that illegal acts allegedly committed when a person was a juvenile cannot be used to justify a preventive detention order under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 

The Bench quashed the detention of a 20-year-old, noting that the dossier relied primarily on an FIR registered when he was a minor. 

The Court reiterated that juveniles cannot be detained under the Act and that juvenile-stage allegations cannot contribute to the detaining authority’s “subjective satisfaction.”

The remaining grounds were found vague, lacking specific details, rendering the detention legally unsustainable.

[Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that part-time or guest faculty cannot substitute whole-time Assistant Professors in the Faculty of Law. 

The Court was hearing appeals by the University of Kashmir against a Writ Court order directing continuation of contractual lecturers until regular recruitment. 

The Bench reaffirmed that contractual or academic arrangement staff cannot ordinarily be replaced by another set of contractual employees, but clarified that the principle does not apply where engagements are not against substantive posts.

It ruled that while universities may engage experts for specialised or newly introduced subjects, such temporary arrangements cannot replace permanent faculty teaching core legal subjects.

[University of Kashmir & Ors v. Saba Manzoor & Ors]

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act carrying a maximum punishment of up to three years, such as those under Section 27(d), fall within the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate First Class empowered under Section 36-A.

Justice Sanjay Dhar rejected the petitioner’s contention that Chapter IV offences must be tried exclusively by a Sessions Court, clarifying that the trial forum is governed by the prescribed sentence, not the chapter.

The Court dismissed the petition and allowed the trial before the specially empowered Magistrate to proceed.

[M/S Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UT of J&K]

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that remarks about a woman’s childlessness, without evidence of deliberate instigation, do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

Upholding the acquittal of the husband and in-laws, the Court ruled that the prosecution must establish intentional aid, conspiracy, or active provocation leading to the suicide.

The Court noted that isolated comments, domestic disagreements, and emotional stress within a marriage cannot automatically be equated with “abetment.”

The Bench observed that infertility has multiple causes and individuals respond differently to strain, underscoring that criminal liability cannot be imposed in the absence of clear proof of mens rea.

[State of J&K v Sanjay Singh & Ors]