Skip to content


Jammu and Kashmir Court November 1994 Judgments Home Cases Jammu and Kashmir 1994 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.016 seconds)

Nov 24 1994 (HC)

Chander Kishore Gulhati Vs. Sh. Virinder Kishore Gulhati and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR1996J& K14

Gupta, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in an application relating to the grant of temporary injunction (CMP No. 86/94) arising out of Civil Original Suit No. 35 of 1994. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant herein Shri Chander Kishore Gulhati filed a civil original suit against the respondents for partition of the properties mentioned in the title of the suit Which included the firm M/s. C. L. Gulhati and Sons owning the National Garage Building at B.C. Road, Jammu and land and structure at Gangyal, Jammu. The rest of the properties may be described as under :-- (i) Flat No. 12A at Vandana Building,New Delhi, (ii) Saraswati Real Estate -- 50% holdingin Sandeep Building, Bombay by arrangement with G & N Construction, Bombay, (iii) Palam Motels-Land at Bijsasan with Project for Motel property, (iv) Samrat Builders and CVS Builders --owning Stutee Apartment, Bank...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1994 (HC)

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. the State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2057

ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner was first sentenced to 6 years RI under Sections 307/34 R.P.C. in file No. 59 of 1976 by Add. Sessions Judge, Jammu. He was later sentenced to 6 months' RI for the same offences in a separate trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu. He filed Crl. first Appeal Nos. 52/80 and 17/ 81. In the first appeal his sentence of 6 months' RI was upheld but in the second it was reduced to 3 years. It was not, however, provided whether the sentences would run concurrently. He has now filed this petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C., and prays for the two sentences to be ordered to run concur rently and not consecutively.2. It is the common ground that the petitioner had not asked for this either before the trial Court or the Appellate Court. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether he could do so now by approaching this court in an independent proceedings and purportedly under Section 397 Cr.P.C.3. According to Mr. Gandhi he was disabled to do so for having tailed to...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //