Jammu and Kashmir Court September 1981 Judgments

Bansi Lal Vs. Pushpa Devi

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1982CriLJ1081

ORDERAdarsh Sein Anand, J.1. The respondent had been awarded maintenance allowance Under Section 488 Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. She applied for a increase in the said allowance by filing an application Under Section 489, Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jammu, vide his Order dated 23-10-1980 held that the circumstances had changed and on account of those changed circumstances, enhancement in the maintenance allowance was warranted. He accordingly increased the maintenance allowance from Rs. 30/- to Rs, 70/- per . with effect from the date of the application under Section ; 489 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the petitioner husband approached the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, against the order of enhancement, but his revision was dismissed. He has now come to this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.2. The short, though important, question which requires determination in this petition is : Whether the Court has power to order alteration of allowance to be pa...

Mazahar Ali and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1982CriLJ1223

ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. The petitioners were chal-laned by the police of Police Station, Bakhshinagar, Jammu, and the challan was filed in the court. Charges for offences Under Sections 304/34 & 218 R.P.C. have been drawn up against them. They have approached this Court seeking bail during the pendency of the trial, since their prayer for being admitted to bail was rejected by the trial Court.2. Shorn of details the prosecution allegations against the petitioners as emerging from the police report are that on 26-5-1981, petitioner No. 1 Maz-har Ali Shah, while posted as S. H. O. Police Station Bakhshinagar, Jammu, went to Janipora at about 2.30 P. M. where one Moti Ram approached him and complained to him that one Inderjit a Harijan, was standing in the lane and was abusing him and threatening to beat him. Petitioner Mazhar Ali Shah thereupon called Devi Chand constable petitioner No. 2 and directed him to catch hold of Inderjit and produce him. On seeing the police coming towards him, I...

Moti Lal Vs. Badri Nath and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order dated 24-11-1980, of the Addl. District Judge, Srinagar, dismissing a receivership application. The plaintiff has brought a suit against the defendants for partition of immovable property and dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in the court of the Addl. District Judge, Srinagar. Here we are con-cerned with the partnership business only. The appellant-plaintiff moved an application before the trial court for appointment of a receiver in respect of the partnership business. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that no receiver can be appointed whereit has the effect of dispossessing the defendants,2. The case of the plaintiff is that the parties are the members of joint Hindu undivided family. They are carrying on business for the sale and purchase of wines, novelties, including stationery etc. under the name and style of 'Nishat Wines', The funds for the business were obtained fr...

Sardar Ali. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1982CriLJ644

ORDERAdarsh Sein Anand, J.1. Faced with the position that no revision lies against an order of framing a charge, by virtue of amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, barring the maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders, the petitioner has taken recourse to Section 561-A Cr. p. C. for seeking the quashing of proceedings pending against him before the Municipal Magistrate, Jammu. The charges Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have been framed against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner sold milk which, according to the Public Analyst, was adulterated and of sub-standard quality.2. Mr. Amrish Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a seemingly interesting question which, of, course, does not bear close scrutiny. According to the learned Counsel since in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Central Rules) in so far as the same apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, no standard has been p...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Manzoor Ahmad and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Anand J. 1. The short, though meaningful, question involved, for the present, in this appeal is whether the time spent by the appellant in obtaining copy of the award is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). Brief facts necessary for the determination of this aforesaid question require a notice at the initial stages.2. Claim petition No. 159 of 1978 was filed by the wife and children of Moh'd Akram Shah who died as a result of an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 8-12-78 allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further allowed simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim up to the date of payment as well as the costs admissible under rules. Aggrieved by the award, the Union of India filed an appeal in this court on 20-3-79, In the memorandum of appeal it was stated that...

Haji G.M. Bhat Vs. G.H. Nehvi

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDERMufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J. 1. By means of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the following order passed by the 2nd Addl. Munsif, Srinagar, passed on 21-10-1978, in a suit for possession based on right of prior purchase.'Perused the application and the main suit. Application supported with an affidavit. Prima facie case appears in favourof the plaintiff. Issue notice to the opposite party for objections, if any. Meanwhile the parties be directed to maintain status quo on spot till the next date of hearing. Put up with the main suit.'The sole ground urged in support of this revision is that the land in suit is agricultural land and, consequently, the civil court had no power to try, much less, pass any interim order in the suit. For this, reliance has been placed on Section 19 (3) (e) of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. At the relevant time Section 19 (3) (e) was as under.'(3) The following applications, suits and proceedings shall be dis...

Jagdish Raj Kohli Vs. Lekh Raj Suri and Sons

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDERI.K. Kotwal, J. 1. The short question, thatfalls for determination in this revision petition is: Can an appellate court byway of interim relief restore possession of the suit property to the defendant appellant who has been evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed against him by the trial court, on mere filing of the appeal against the said de- cree, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C.?2. The revision petitioner before me is the plaintiff in whose favour a decree was passed by the trial court of I Addl. Munsiff Srinagar on 27-10-80, ejecting the defendant from a shop leased out to him. Execution of the aforesaid decree was taken out by the petitioner on 4-11-1980. Execution application having been made within a period of one year from the date of the decree, the court executing the decree passed an order on the very same day that possession of the suit shop be handed over to the decree holder. A direction was issued to the Nazir to go on spot and ...

Chuni Lal Chowdhry Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDERMufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J. 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Sub Judge, Judge Small Causes Court, Srinagar, on 24-11-1980, striking out the defence. The order followed the defendants' failure to file the written statement despite the fact that they were given several opportunities to do so. The effect of the order clearly is not only to prevent the defendants from filing the written statement but also to disable them from taking part in the proceedings. The question is whether a court is competent to make such order upon the defendant's failure to file the writtenstatement within the time prescribed by it.2. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425, it has been observed;'We have already seen that when a summons is issued to the defendant it must state whether the hearing is for the settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the suit (Order 5, Rule 5). In either event Order 8, Rule 1 comes into play and if the defe...

The East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. the State of Jammu and Kashmir

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: [1982]49STC1(NULL)

I.K. Kotwal, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 286, 343, 250, 341, 342, 337, 362, 363, 332 and 283 of 1980 and Writ Petition No. 77 of 1981, the decision whereof turns upon the constitutional validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.2. By enacting the Act, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, respondent No. 1 herein, seeks to impose tax on amenities and services provided to customers, resident or casual, by a hotel-keeper. This tax, in terms of Section 3, which is the charging section, is to be charged on the basis of tariff at the rates specified in the schedule to the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 makes provision for exemption in favour of the Government and certain banks and institutions. Tariff has been denned by Clause (u) of Section 2 to mean 'rent or other charges, by whatever name called, received or receivable by the hotel-keeper in consideration of amenities and ser...