Jammu and Kashmir Court June 1981 Judgments

Tilak Raj Vs. State of J. and K. and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: [1982]49STC220(NULL)

I.K. Kotwal, J.1. The petitioner, who is an assessee and registered with Sales Tax Circle B, Jammu, has challenged the order of the second respondent, namely, Commissioner, Sales Tax, dated 10th February, 1981, transferring his case to one Mr. T. P. Singh, the then Excise and Taxation Officer, Jammu. According to him, the Commissioner had no power to transfer his case without issuing to him a prior notice of his intention to do so, and without hearing him on the point. He has also assailed the order on the ground that it is not a speaking one, in addition to the ground that even if he could have passed any such order of transfer he could have transferred the petitioner's case for a particular year only. Since the order is omnibus in nature and does not specifically speak as to for which year the case has been transferred, it is clearly in contravention of Section 13(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, and requires to be set aside...

Mst. Sundri and ors. Vs. Dy. Custodian, Evacuee Property and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Mufti, Acting C.J. 1. I regret I cannot agree wholly with the views expressed by my learned brother Anand, J. I shall elaborate on this in the lines that follow. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of brother Anand. It will be enough if only the salient facts are stated. The dispute pertains to some land which was declared to be evacuee property on the premises that it was the proprietary land of one, Begum Shair Mohammad, evacuee. On application, the Dy. Custodian released the land in favour of two persons namely, Ismail Bhat and Sultan Bhat under Section 8 of the Evacuee Property Act, The Dy. Custodian agreed with the applicant's contention that they were the owners and that Begum Shair Mohammad was only a mortgagee with possession under them. The Dy. Custodian ordered the release in favour of Sultan Bhat and Ismail Bhat upon their depositing Rs. 200/- being the mortgage money, Ismail Bhat and Sultan Bhat sold the land after it was released in their favour. The land came to be...

Ramzan Rather and ors. Vs. Khaliq Bhat and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR1981J& K84

ORDERA.S. Anand, J. 1. At this stage, this Court is called upon to decide Issue No. 10 which reads as under:--'Whether the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction has been fixed wrongly, if so what is the correct valuation? OPD'2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the documents executed by late Gani Rather, father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 4 on 15-6-1966 and 17-12-1967 are null and void in the eye of law and for further declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 are the owners of the suit land covered by survey Nos. 3545/2172 and for possession of the said land. Para 12 of the plaint reads as follows:'That the suit value for the purpose of declaration is fixed at 50,000/- on which a court-fee of Rs. 12.50 is paid and for the possession is fixed at Rs. 100/- on which a court-fee of Rs. 9.50 is paid.'3. Mr. K. N. Bhat, learned counsel for contesting defendant No. 1, has submitted that the co...

Abdul Aziz Dar Vs. Dy. Director Horticulture and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR1981J& K85

ORDER1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Director Horticulture acting as Registrar, Co-operative Societies, whereby he has superseded the petitioner's society under Section 29 of the J. & K. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The condition precedent for the exercise of the power of supersession is that a co-operative society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by law or is guilty of committing any act which is prejudicial to the society or its members or is otherwise not functioning properly. In the present case, the order of supersession proceeds on the footing that an amount of Rs. 4.41 lacs had become overdue for payment up to 30-6-1979, but the petitioner had not taken any steps to liquidate the same and that this was solely due to the negligence of the management. This is a specific charge and the society has not been ab...