A High Court bench has reaffirmed the settled principle that failure to comply with pre-conditions imposed by court orders, together with repeated absence of the petitioner or their counsel, justifies dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution. Existing precedent is followed, and the judgment carries binding value for similar future cases in banking and writ jurisdiction contexts in Jammu & Kashmir.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/2108/2024 of M/S SULTAN AGRO TECH PVT LTD AND ORS Vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD AND ORS (Banks) |
| CNR | JKHC010046832024 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts subordinate to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (unless/until overruled by a superior court) |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law – Writ Jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that consistent non-compliance with conditions imposed by interim orders, combined with repeated non-appearance of petitioners or their counsel during hearings, indicates a lack of intent to prosecute the writ petition. Such conduct justifies dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution. The interim directions attached to the petition also stand vacated upon dismissal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners, after obtaining a stay order upon condition of depositing 50% of the amount in question within a specified period, failed to comply for over a year. No representation was made by the petitioners on successive hearing dates. The court concluded the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that failure to comply with conditions imposed in interim court orders—such as timely deposit of amounts directed—can lead to dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution.
- Persistent absence of the petitioner or their counsel on scheduled court dates is sufficient ground for the court to conclude abandonment or lack of interest in the proceedings.
- All interim protections granted before dismissal stand automatically vacated upon such dismissal.
- Legal practitioners should ensure prompt compliance with conditional orders and consistent representation to avoid dismissal of matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that by order dated 4th October, 2024, stay of the impugned order was granted subject to the petitioner’s depositing 50% of the specified amount within two weeks.
- Over one year elapsed without any compliance regarding the deposit.
- On the last two occasions (23.04.2025 and 12.08.2025), and on the date of decision (28.10.2025), no one appeared for the petitioners.
- From this consistent non-appearance and the failure to meet the condition precedent, the court inferred disinterest in prosecuting the writ petition.
- The court exercised its procedural power to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution and vacated any subsisting interim direction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No submissions recorded; none appeared on multiple occasions.
Respondent
Represented by counsel (Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Iman Abdul Muizz, Advocate).
No specific arguments transcribed in the judgment with regard to the dismissal.
Factual Background
The petitioners obtained a stay on an impugned order, subject to depositing 50% of a specified sum within two weeks as directed by the court on 4th October, 2024. For more than a year, the petitioners failed to comply with this direction. Furthermore, there was no representation from or on behalf of the petitioners across several adjourned dates. The court concluded the petitioners were uninterested in either complying with the interim order or prosecuting the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provisions were directly interpreted or discussed in detail.
- The order was passed based on procedural law governing writ petitions, the court’s inherent powers to enforce compliance with its orders, and its discretion to dismiss matters for non-prosecution and vacate interim orders.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the decision was unanimous by the Division Bench.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established procedural principles regarding non-prosecution and compliance with interim orders.