Jammu and Kashmir Court April 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bharat Kiln Vs. Officer I/C Dmo and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K68
ORDER1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. They have obtained on lease private land for extraction of brick clay to be used by them for the manufacture of bricks in their respective brick kilns. They have in fact already extracted brick clay from such lands. Brick clay has been declared to be a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Geology and Mining Department has issued notice to the petitioners asking them to stop the extraction of brick clay from the aforementioned lands and also to pay cost and royalty for the brick clay already extracted by them. The pattern of the notice in each case is the same. By way of specimen we reproduce here the notice impugned in Writ Petition No. 391/80.'DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINING. JAMMU,No. DM/J&K-43;/80-81/179 Dated 11-7-1980 Shri M/s. Bharat Brick Kiln Digiana, Teh. Jammu. Jammu SUBJECT: ILLEGAL EXTRACTION OF MINOR MINERALS Dear Sir.You have been f...
Military Estates Officer Vs. Zamindaran Air Field
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K91
1. By an Act called 'the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968' (shortly, the Act), the State Legislature has made provisions for the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property in connection with the purposes of the State or of the Union. Section 21 provides for the requisition of the property at the instance of the Union and says as under :'21. Requisitioning of property at the instance of the Union.-- (1) Where any immovable property situate in the State is required by the Union Government in connection with the purposes of the Union and a requisition in that behalf is received by the Government, the Government shall notify that such property be requisitioned. 2. Upon such notification the provisions of the Act shall apply in the same manner as they apply in respect of the property requisitioned for the purpose of the Stale.'2. Section 7 provides for the power of the State Government to acquire the property which has been previousl...
Kashmir Motor Drivers Association and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K100
ORDERJ.K. Kotwal, J.1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners, out of whomthe first petitioner, namely, the Kashmir Motor Drivers Union, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1956, which operates as many as 486 passenger buses, and the second petitioner, namely, the Western Bus Stand is a union of transporters, which also operates 490 passenger buses owned by different owners is the State of Jammu and Kashmir, have challenged the revised tariff recommended by the Tariff Advisory Committee, for short T. A. C., respondent No. 2 herein, which has been made applicable with effect from 1-2-1982. Precisely speaking, the grounds of challenge are as follows:--(1) The revised rates of premia we highly arbitrary and unreasonable, which have been enforced without any rational basis and without following the guidelines provided therefor by Section 64-UC of the Insurance Act of 1938. Respondent No. 3, namely, the General Insurance Corporation of India, being t...
P.C. Oswal Vs. S.P. Mehta, Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(J& K)194,[1983]142ITR574(J& K)
1. The common question of law arising for our determination in this group of writ petitions is :'Whether the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Central Act No. XXVII of 1957), in so far as it purports to be applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is constitutionally valid ?'2. The ground of challenge urged in the petition is that Parliament has no legislative competence to enact the said Act in relation to our State. Section 3 of the Act declares that there shall be charged for every assessment year a tax in respect of the net wealth, on the corresponding valuation date, of every individual, HUF and company at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule. The expression 'net wealth' is defined in Section 2(m) as meaning 'the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in...
Kamla Rice Mills and ors. Vs. N.A.C.R.S. Pura and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K76,[1983]53STC241(NULL)
Mufti, C.J.1. The dispute in these cases relates to the levy of Dharat under Section 77 (2) read with Section 284 of the Municipal Act. Whereas. Section 77 provides for the power of Municipal Council to impose taxes within the municipal area, Section 284 provides for the power of the Govt. to impose similar taxes in respect of any areas declared to be notified area under Section 283 of the Act. Under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 77 the Municipal Council is authorised to impose octroi on the animals and goods brought within the octroi limits, for consumption, use or sale therein. The Notified AreaCommittee, R. S. Pura has been authorised by the Govt. 'of lavy a tax called 'Dharat' resembling 'Octroi' on animals and goods brought within the notified area limits for consumption, use or sale therein.2. The petitioners are the owners of the rice mills situate within the limits of Notified area R. S. Pura. In the course of their business, the petitioners purchase paddy and bring...
Mohd. Ramzan Magrey Vs. Taja and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K70
A.S. Anand, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 18-2-1982, passed by District Judge, Anantnag, in an application under the Guardians and Wards Act. The application was filed by the father of a minorchild Jahangir Ahmad seeking custody of the minor and for a declaration to the effect that he is the guardian of the child and for his appointment as such a guardian. The mother of the child not only resisted the application but also prayed instead that she be declared and appointed as the guardian of the minor and the custody of the minor be got delivered to her The learned District Judge vide impugned judgment and order dt. 18-2-1983. dismissed the application of the father and granting the prayer of the mother appointed her the guardian for the person of minor Jahangir Ahmad. The custody of the minor was also directed to be delivered to the mother. The father is aggrieved of the order and hence this appeal.2. The brief facts leading to the present litigation ar...
Mulkh Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1794
I.K. Kotwal, J. 1. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order of a General Court Martial, for short G. C. M, convicting him under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for short Official Secrets Act, read with Section 69 of the Army Act and sentencing him to eight years' rigorous imprisonment besides dismissal from service.2. Briefly put, the petitioner's case is that on 9-12-1977 he was placed under arrest by the Commanding Officer, 57 Field Regiment. While in military custody, he was tortured by Maj. S.S. Jolly, Maj Malhotra and a few other army and staff officers of the Commanding Officer, 6th Battalion of the Jat Regiment, respondent No. 5 herein, and forced to sign confessional statements and other blank papers. Summary of evidence was recorded at his back and he was not given any opportunity to either cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, or to examine his own witnesses in defence. This was contrary to Rules 22, 23 and 180 of the A...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1368
I.K. Kotwal, J.1 Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order bf a General Court Martial, for short G.C.M. convicting him under Sections 39(a) and 52(a) of the Army Act and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment, besides dismissal from service. Briefly put, the facts of this case are as follows:2. The petitioner's case is that he. is an illiterate person, who can only write his name and army number in Roman English. He was enrolled in Indian Army in the year 1971 as a Mechanical Transport Driver.' In May 1976. he was falsely implicated in a theft case pertaining to an army vehicle. He was taken into custody and under duress compulsion and torture, made to sign some letters, statements and other documents by the Officer Commanding 133 Signal Regiment, respondent No. 4 herein, and two others, namely. Adjutant Quarter Master and M. T. O. of the Unit. Summary of evidence was recorded in his absence, but the statement that he had made dur...
CaptaIn Randhir Singh Vs. Smt. Sadhna Chopra
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984J& K27
ORDERI.K. Kotwal, J.1. Decision of this appeal turns upon the short question as to whether or not a District Judge has jurisdiction to try a petition under Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriages Act, 1980, hereinafter, to be referred to as the Act, for a decree of divorce, wherein the petitioner hasalso claimed a decree under Section 33 of the Act, for the return of property, the value whereof exceeds Rs. 20,000/-.2. The respondent brought a petition under Section 13 of the Act against the appellant in the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, claiming against him; firstly, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties, and secondly, a decree for return of some cash and other movable property, the value whereof she herself put at more than Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant appeared, but did not file his detailed written statement to the petition, and merely raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the petition on the ground...
Sewa Ram Nagial Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1788
I.K. Kotwal, J. 1. By virtue of this writ petition the petitioner challenges an order of a General Court Martial, for short G. C. M., convicting him under Section 63 of the Army Act and Section 3(i)(c) of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923, for short, Official Secrets Act, read with Section 69 of the Army Act, and cashiering him and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:2. The petitioner as his case shows, was posted as General Staff Officer, 3(Intelligence) at XVI Corps Head Quarters, when on 14-9-1975, he was directed to go to Delhi to clear some doubts about him, which had arisen in the mind of the officer, who was interrogating GNR (GD) Aya Singh of 253 Medium Regiment. He reached Delhi on the following day and reported at Raj Rifles Centre, where he was immediately taken into custody. Later on, he was according to him, charged under Section 63 of the Army Act and Section 3(i)(...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »