The Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir was established by Order No. 1 of Maharaja Hari Singh on March 26, 1928. The Maharaja appointed Lala Kanwar Sain as the first chief justice and Lala Bodh Raj Sawhney and Khan Sahib Aga Syed Hussain as puisne judges.  The Supreme Court met both in the winter capital of Jammu and in the summer capital of Srinagar. The Maharaja granted a patent to the Supreme Court on September 10, 1943. The Honourable High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, while considering a civil appeal on a question of law, reiterated that when considering the application under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, only the avoidance measures made in the action are to be taken into account and that the defendant`s defence cannot be taken into account when deciding on an application under the Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. The action may be dismissed only if it is apparent from the complaints made in the context of the appeal that either there is no way or that the court does not have jurisdiction. Hon`ble Court considered a civil appeal on a question of law lodged against the order of the supplementary special judge (civil judge) R.S. Pura, on the basis of which the applicants` application had been rejected under Article 7, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure for the dismissal of the above-mentioned action (2) If a judge of a Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice was dismissed because of his absence or because of another appoint a person duly qualified to act as a judge of that court until the permanent judge has resumed his or her duties. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is the common High Court of the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It was held on the 26th.
It was founded in 1928 by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir as the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The seat of the court moves between the summer capital Srinagar and the winter capital Jammu. The Court has a sanctioned judicial staff of 17 persons, of whom 13 are permanent judges and 4 are additional judges.   Since 4 January 2021[update], Supreme Justice of the Court of Justice Hon`ble Shri Judge Pankaj Mithal.  In an application challenging the respondent`s complaint to the Court of Chief Justice Srinagar alleging the commission of offences under sections 499 and 500 OFC, as well as the order noting the offences and prosecuting the applicants, and the order of the Learned Chief Justice, Srinagar, with bail warrants issued to ensure the applicants` presence, The Honorable Single Bench of the J&K and Ladakh High Court noted that in a case where the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence gathered in support of it do not reveal the commission of a crime and constitute a case against the defendant, the High Court may exercise the powers conferred on it by Article 482 Cr.P. It is to close the proceedings against a defendant. However, the inherent powers cannot be exercised to stifle or interfere with the procedure. Hon`ble Court reiterated the relationship established by the Supreme Court in its various judgments to make it clear that the opening of criminal proceedings against a defendant is a serious matter and cannot be conducted casually and mechanically, especially in cases of defamation. 47.
As already mentioned, in the case of complaints concerning the commission of a defamation offence, a judge`s responsibility for examining the material in the file is greater. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the appeal pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Srinagar and the resulting proceedings were set aside. Provided that the President may appoint a retired judge of a High Court of Pakistan as Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court for a maximum period of three years, and that such person shall remain in office until the age of sixty-five. The puisne judge Khan Sahib Aga Syed Hussain was the first Muslim judge of the Supreme Court. He retired during the maharaja`s reign as Minister of Home Affairs and Justice of Jammu and Kashmir.  In an application filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution before the J&K and Ladakh High Court challenging the order of the learned judge of the supplementary sessions, the Ld. The court ruled on the criminal appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the order of the learned judge 1. Class (teacher), Chadoora, according to which the trial judge had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that he did not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.
Hon. Single Bench noted that there are no impediments to the processing of an application under section 227 of the 2005 Constitution in relation to domestic violence, even in the case of criminal court orders.