Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ368J& K
Gupta, J.1. In this batch of petitions referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Benches from time to time, the following questions are required to be decided by us:-1) Whether Chapter IV of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 34 of 1948) (hereinafter to be referred as Act) is ultra vires the Constitution of India or not? 2) Whether Regulation 10 B of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as Regulations) is ultra vires the 1948 Act or the Constitution of India or not? 3) Whether the respondents can insist on contributions being made by the employees or the employers, as required under Section 39 of the Act, without correspondingly providing benefits to the employees? 4) Whether the employees or the employers or both have any option to pay or not to pay the contributions as envisaged under Section 39 of Act? 5) Whether the notices of demand issued from time to time by the respondents calling upon the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K39
ORDERS.M. Rizvi, J. 1. By medium of this writ petition, a direction is sought to be issued to the respondents to substitute the name of the petitioner in the Arms Licence Number 4/ix/80/F. No. 11020/55/75-GPA-ll(v) dated 20-9-1980, issued under Section 5 of Arms Act, read with Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, and allow him to exercise all the powers of licencee for the purpose of managing and owning Shiva Gun Factory, and to have physical possession of the premises along with all stores, workshop, equipments and other allied items. 2. In the petition, it is stated that the late Shri Dharindra Brahamchari invested 87.5% of the total capital for the running of Shiva Gun Factory, and for this purpose, a partnership deed was effected by him with one Dharam Chand. Dherindra Brahamchari is said to have become one of the licencees in the licence issued under the Arms Act and the Rules made thereunder, whose name also exists therein. He however, bequeathed his share to the petitioner in the said Gun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K57
Khan, J. 1. It is about a contract allotted to the appellant by the India, Oil Corporation (IOC) to carry and handle High Speed Diesel (HSD) to the second Gas Turbine unit (PDC Unit-II) set up by the State Power Development Corporation at Pampon: ' Kashmir). The contract was ordered to be quashed by the writ Court in OWP- Nos. 602/94 and 649/94 filed by respondents 1 to 47 herein, by a common judgment dated 14-11-1994 with a further direction to the IOC to allot the contract by floating public tenders. 2. The present appeal is taken against this judgment and the principal question that falls for determination is whether the action of allotting contract is bona fide, fair, reasonable and in tune with the public interest or whether it smacks of some bias, favouritism or arbitrariness affecting such interests in the process? 3. The matter is engulfed in a jungle of facts, though some of the facts relevant for our purpose are undisputed. Both the appellants and respondents 1 to 47 (writ-pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1995CriLJ4067
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioners have been apprehended in FIR No. 294 registered under Section 302/34, RPC 4/25 Indian Arms Act. Petitioner No. 1 has been arrested on 14-1-1994 and petitioner No. 2 on 13-1-1994. The challan (charge sheet) by the concerned police against the petitioners was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu on 18th of March, 1994 and is pending before that Court.2. That the petitioners moved an application for bail on 4-6-1994 before the learned Sessions Judge. The bail was claimed on two grounds: (i) As the police had failed to complete investigation within sixty days of the arrest of the petitioners, therefore petitioners were entitled to be granted bail in terms of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.; (ii) that even on facts there was no prima facie case against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 17-8-1994 dismissed the bail application and rejected the contentions of the petitioners. The petitioners have now approached this C...
Tag this Judgment!