Jammu and Kashmir Court March 1986 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.
Jalal-ud-dIn Vs. Mst. Saida and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1831
ORDERG.A. Kuchhai, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order dated 16-10-84 passed by 'Judicial Magistrate Wailoo (Anantnag) in proceedings Under Section 488, Cr. P.C. and against an order dt. 10-10-85 passed in execution proceedings as also against order dt. 7-8-85 passed by Sessions Judge. Anantnag in revision against the above mentioned order,2. The brief facts which gave rise to this petition are : that the respondent filed an application Under Section 488, Cr. P.C. for maintenance @Rs. 400/- per month for herself and for minor son against the petitioner herein. It appears that court below summoned the petitioner/respondent. The respondent filed his objections, denying the allegation that he refused to maintain the petitioner-wife and the minor son out of wedlock of the parties. The parties were put to evidence. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner herein produced a divorce deed before the court below showing that he has divorced the respon...
Lal DIn Vs. Suleman and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987J& K17
ORDERK.K. Gupta, J.1. Civil suit entitled Suleman and others versus Lal Din and others is pending disposal in the Court of Sub-Judge, Poonch. During the course of proceedings before that Court, Lal Din and Feroze Din defendants moved an application under Section 10, C.P.C. for slay of the present suit as according to them, the plaintiffs had earlier instituted a suit in which the matter in issue was also directly and substantially the same as alleged in the present suit. Learned Sub-Judge after obtaining objections from the other side, and hearing both the parties, rejected the application on the grounds that parties were not the same in both the suits. Aggrieved by this order, Lal Din, petitioner-defendant has come up in revision before this Court.2. J have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, some of the defendants in the previously instituted suit are not parties in the present case and in the same way, names of some of the defendants in the present case, do not figure...
The J. and K. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of J. and K. and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987J& K18
Anand, C.J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 1 (3)(iii) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, has been called in question through this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said section is ultra vires on the ground that the protection of the Act is available only to those tenants whose annual income is less than Rs. 40,000/- and not to the tenants whose income is Rs. 40,000/- per annum or more. Submitted the learned Counsel that the classification of two groups of tenants is bad and that the classification defeats the object of the Act.2. In our opinion, the challenge to vires of Section 1 (3)(iii) of the Act is not well founded. Undoubtedly, the Act is a piece of social and beneficial legislation. The Legislature known and correctly appreciates the needs of its people. In its supreme wisdom it denied the protection of the Act to tenants whose annual income exceeds Rs. 40,000/-. Social legislation of this type is designed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›