Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J& K79
Mufti Baha-ud-Din Farooqi, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the concurrent decision of the courts below dismissing a suit for injunction. The parties are the owners of the adjourning houses. The defendant has kept four water spouts for the disposal of rain water and sewage water from the roof of his house on the compound of the plaintiff. He has also kept one gala (opening) in his house which is used as an outlet for dumping rubbish in the compound of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asked for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the water spouts and close the Gala. Their case was that the defendant had no right or title to keep the water spouts or the Gala at their present, place and they were a source of nuisance to them. In reply, the defendant pleaded that he was the owner of a two feet wide strip of land adjoining his house in the compound of the plaintiffs which has been used as a site for discharging water from the water spouts as also a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J&K70
Kotwal, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to the Full Bench for its opinion. These are: (1) Whether an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a single Judge, passed by him in first appeal against a decree or order of subordinate Court will be competent without the case being declared to be a fit one for appeal by the single Judge? (2) Whether the view taken by this Court in Satya Jyoti v. R. D. Jyoti, Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1978, decided on 14-3-1979 is correct? The facts leading to the reference have been set out in detail in the order of reference. A decree under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. was passed against the appellant by District Judge, Jammu. Appeal taken from it was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant then filed an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge. An objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the learned single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J& K64
G.M. Mir, J.1. This is a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,15,000/- from the defendants the basis being that the plaintiff has been supplying trucks to the defendants' firm for use in its Undertaking at Gantamulla, Barmulla, to execute some works there. The plaintiff's suit was that the defendants used the trucks of the plaintiff from 6-9-73 to 22-6-1974 and the total hire of vehicles during this period came to an amount of Rs. 1,41,000/-. The defendant, however, paid Rs. 6000/- as an initial payment. Subsequently defendant issued a cheque for Rs. 30000/-which was cashed by the plaintiff. Thus the total payment made came to Rupees 35,000/-. The defendant then again issued two cheques on Bank of India, one for Rs. 30,000/- and the other for Rs. 50,000/-, the first cheque was dated 19-3-1974 and the 2nd was dated 19-8-1974. Both these cheques on being presented for payment were dishonoured. The cheque for Rs. 30,000/- is Annexure-A, attached with the plaint but with regard to the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J& K82
I.K. Kotwal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act filed by fhe debtor, against whom an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the first respondent in the Court of Sub Judge, Jammu. The other respondents are the sureties. A number of objections were raised to the maintainability of the application, one of these being that the respondent firm, namely New Bharat Finance Company, Kanak Mandi, Jammu, was not duly registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The controversy between the parties, amongst others, gave rise to the following preliminary issue :'Whether the plaintiff firm is not registered in accordance with law O. P. D.'2. The parties joined the issues and led evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial Court decided all the issues against the appellant and held that the firm was duly registered. It accordingly made a reference of the disputes mentioned in the application to the Arbitrator. It is this ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1981CriLJ558
ORDERI.K. Kotwal, J.1. The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant, in Border Security Force, was suspected of having committed' embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 57,600/-. A Court of Enquiry was constituted to conduct enquiry into the matter. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Assistant Director (P) HQ IG BSF NWF, Jammu, wrote to him vide his letter dated 16-6-1978, whether he was willing to make good the loss of Rs. 57,600/- found to have been caused by him in the deal of drawal of 90,000 metres of flannelette from Army Ordnance Depots as found by the Court of Enquiry, The petitioner accepted the offer and deposited the aforesaid amount on 15-12-1978 by means of a bank draft. A charge-sheet was, thereafter, served upon him by the I. G. P., B. S.F., to stand his trial for an offence under Section 30(e) of the Border Security Force Act of 1968, hereinafter the Act, before a General Security Force Court. This charge-sheet was served upon him on 3-2-1980. He has challenged the service of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1981J& K87
ORDERI.K. Kotwal, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the owners of land which was acquired underthe Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, hereinafter the Act, by Collector, Kathua. They not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, applied to the Collector to make a reference to the District Judge, in terms of Section 18 of the Act. A reference was accordingly made wherein the only point agitated was whether or not the compensation awarded by the Collector was adequate? While this reference was pending before him, an application was made by one Mansa Ram, the respondent herein, that he too may be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, inasmuch as, he being a protected tenant qua the land acquired, was interested in the apportionment of compensation that might be eventually awarded. This application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent not being a party to the reference, he could not be made a party to the proceedings pending before t...
Tag this Judgment!