Jammu and Kashmir Court March 1982 Judgments

S. Chela Singh and ors. Vs. S. Tejinder Singh

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR1983J& K10

ORDERMufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag.C.J.1. This revision arises out of a suit for the eviction of the defendants from a double storeyed house situate in Jammu city, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant-defendant No. 1 has sublet the house to defendants Nos. 2 to 7 in contravention of the terms of the lease deed dated 4th Bhadoon, 2008 (BK) which expressly provide that the tenant shall not sublet the house or any portion thereof to any person without the permission of the landlord. The defendants have resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the sub-tenants are necessary parties and that the suit is bad because all the sub-tenants have not been impleaded as defendants in it. The trial Court has held that the subletting in this case is a ground of eviction under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, (shortly 'the Act') which comprehends the creation of unauthorised sub-tenancy by a tenant in the sense that he ...

Mohd. Aslam Shah Vs. Mst. Nilofar and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR1983J& K63

G.M. Mir, J.1. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the statements of the parties had to be recorded before the proceedings could start as the matter in fact related to the conjugal relationship of the parties. The trial court directed that the parties should appear before it for getting their statements recorded. An application was moved by the non-applicant herein i. e. Mst. Nilofar to the effect that she being pardhanishin lady, she be examined on commission. This was done under Section 132 C.P.C. The same was objected to by the other side as it was stated by the non-applicants herein before the trial court that Mst. Nilofar was a student and was doing law in the University and as such, she was not a pardhanishin lady and the protection Under Section 132 C.P.C. could not be availed of by her. The trial court of theCity Munsiff Srinagar, by virtue of Us order Dt. 13-11-1981 allowed the application of Mst. Nilofar and permitted her to be examined on commission. Even a C...

Kh. Abdul Rehman and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: (1982)28CTR(J& K)268

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for declaring the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income Tax Payers) Act, 1974 to have been passed without jurisdiction, and as such not applicable to the State of J & K.2. The learned counsel for the Union of India, Mr. K. N. Raina, has instead of filing a reply affidavit, openly at the bar conceded the legal position on the basis of which the writ petition has been filed. In fact it was he who drew the attention of the court to various Entries in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, especially to the Entry 20 and to the Entry 97. His argument is that these Entries, especially, Entry 20 was not applicable to the State of J & K in a modified form, it would not cover the impugned Act, and, under these circumstances without following the procedure laid down in Art. 370, the impugned Act could not have been made applicable to the State of J & K3. It has also been submitted by the ld. counsel for the Union of India that the impugned Act came into f...

United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Lakshmi Shori ...

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Anand, J. 1. A common question of law as to whether it is open to an Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an appeal filed in the High Court, arises in the three appeals which are under consideration by us. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because when one appeal i. e., Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 80 of 1977 came up for disposal before a Division Bench of this Court, comprising Mian Jalal-ud-Din, Chief Justice and Mir J., their Lordships were of the opinion that there was some divergence of opinion on this subject in the different High Courts in the country and consequently they made the following order of reference on 27th October 1979. 'The point sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that it is not open to the appellant to c...

United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Shori Ganjoo an ...

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: [1984]55CompCas251(NULL)

Anand, J.1. A common question of law as to whether it is open to an insurance company to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an appeal filed in the High Court arises in the three appeals which are under consideration by us. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because when one appeal, i.e., Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 80 of 1977, came up for disposal before a Division Bench of this court, comprising Mian Jalal-ud-Diu, Chief Justice and Mir J., their Lordships were of the opinion that there was some divergence of opinion on this subject in the different High Courts in the country and, consequently, they made the following order of reference on October 27, 1979.' The point sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents.A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that it is not open to the appellant to cha...