Jammu and Kashmir Court February 1985 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.
Darshan Kumar Mahajan and Etc. Vs. Station Master, Rly. Station and or ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1986J& K74
ORDERMazhar Ali Shah, J.1. The above said three writ petitions raises identical question and the controversy also relates to the similar facts, which are heard together and are hereby disposed of by u single judgment.2. The case in brief of the petitioner is that he is a local merchant, who imports coal within the State of Jammu and Kashmir from various Slates in the country for the purpose of loading coal from Railway Station Jogi Gopha to North-east Frontier Railways located in Assam. The Wagons were allotted to the petitioner with the directions to load the same with an area of 42.6 square meter cc 53 tonnes up to the height of 1.35 meter, vide memo dt. 19-5-1983. The wagon was despatched to Bari Brahmana Railway Station in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the transhipment of the above said local under a valid Railway receipt duly executed and signed by the petitioner in token of despatch of consignment. This is an admitted fact that the railway receipt, which is issued to the pet...
Mst. Sarswati and ors. Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Bhadarwah and ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986J& K95
ORDERA.S. Anand, Actg. C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24th of Sept., 1983, in file No. 6/Suit 1980, rejecting the application for recall of the order dated 10-11-1980. The circumstances under which the revision petition has arisen are as follows : --A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12-1-1979 in respect to land measuring 2 kanals comprised in Kh. No. 1515 min situate in Nagar, Bhadarwah. During the acquisition proceedings before the Collector, respondent No. 1, an application came to be made by Ghulam Hussan respondent No. 2 on 16-8-1979 alleging that the land be not acquired as he was a tenant of the land. The said application was rejected by the Collector holding that respondent No. 2 Ghulam was not a tenant of the land. The acquisition proceedings culminated in award being made by the Collector on 24th of March 1980, awarding a sum of Rs. 11,500/- as compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners were not sa...
Mohd. AmIn and anr. Vs. Dalip Singh and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1985J& K93
ORDERS.M. Rizvi, J. 1. This is a motion for admission of a Civil Revision directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, dated 7-5-1984, affording anopportunity to the respondents-plaintiffs to lead evidence in rebuttal. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed a suit for declaration. The trial Court framed several issues in the case placing onus of some of them on the plaintiffs and of some others on the defendants. The plaintiffs produced some evidence. On 8-12-1983 the evidence of the plaintiffs came to be close by the Court order, except the statement of the plaintiffs. On the next date fixed by the Court the plaintiff was not present and the Court closed his evidence. Thereafter the defendants produced their evidence. On 7-5-1984 the defendants closed their evidence and the Court directed the plaintiffs to lead evidence in rebuttal. By this order the defendants have felt aggrieved and hence the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the p...
Ghulam Rasool Dar and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1091
M.L. Bhat, J.1. These two revision petitions came up for consideration before a Single Judge of this Court Anand J. (as his Lordship then was). His Lordship referred the matter to the Division Bench to consider:1. Can the revisional power of the High Court under Section 435 Cr. P.C. be controlled by the nature of the property involved in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C.?2. Whether such a classification is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India?3. Whether the powers of the High Court under Section 439 Cr. P.C. can be controlled by Section 435(4) Cr. P.C?The aforesaid questions were of considerable importance. Therefore an authoritative pronouncement of a larger bench was required to be given.2. The two revision petitions arise out of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. decided by Executive Magistrates. The land in dispute was covered by the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, therefore Executive Magistrates alone had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›