Skip to content


Jammu and Kashmir Court August 1994 Judgments Home Cases Jammu and Kashmir 1994 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.110 seconds)

Aug 30 1994 (HC)

Megha Enterprises and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR1995J& K16

B.A. Khan, J.1. What is the ambit and scope of Article 181 of the J&K; Limitation Act? Does it prescribe limitation for all types of applications under all special enactments including applications under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act or for applications under the Code of Civil Procedure only?2. These questions arise out of the applications filed by the appellants under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking reference of some disputes to the arbitrator. The applications were resisted by the respondent-State on the plea of limitation and eventually rejected by the learned single Judge as time barred vide judgment dated 29-12-1989. The matter went in appeal to the Division Bench which has referred the following question 'for authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench :'Whet her Article 181 of the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act?'Before we proceed to formulate our answer, we deem it appropriate to bring out the close simi...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1994 (HC)

Mohd. Rajab Baigh Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1995CriLJ1219

ORDERG.A. Kuchhai, J.1. This application under Section 561-A Cr. PC has been filed against an order passed by this Court on 14-3-1991 in 561-A Cr. PC proceedings titled Ghulam Mohd Bhat v. Mohd Rajab Baigh (22/89). To dispose of the matter properly, I propose to give brief facts which have given rise to this application under Section 561-A Cr. PC.2. The petitioner in these proceedings appears to have lodged a complaint before the trial Magistrate regarding theft of vehicle Matador No. 1356-JKE. The trial Magistrate, appears to have issued orders under Section 202 Cr. PC for enquiry by the concerned police station. A report appears to have been submitted to the Magistrate, who considered the report of the police and disposed of the complaint in accordance with Section 203 Cr. PC. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the order, filed a revision petition before the revisional Court. The revisional Court (III Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar), after hearing the parties, setaside the ord...

Tag this Judgment!


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