Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K35
ORDERBilal Nazki, J. 1. This petition has been moved by three petitioners, who claim to be connected with the development of people belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and backward classes category. They have filed this writ petition in public interest.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the office of Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribes and backward classes development corporation (here-in-after referred to as 'Corporation') was previously located in Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The said location, according to the petitioners, was not accessible to the members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes people. On a demand made by them, the office was shifted a Krishna Nagar, Jammu, which according to the petitioners is acentrally located place. They also submitted that this location is nearer to the General bus stand and anybody coming from outside Jammu city easily reaches the office of the Corporation. The petitioners submit that the shifting of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1030
ORDERAb. Qadir Parray, J.1. Heard the petitioner in person.2. This petition for initiation of contempt proceedings is misconceived as because the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against a lawyer who is alleged to have given advice to his clients, directing them not to implement the orders of the court, thereby the petitioner wants to impress upon this court that it is the wrong advice being tendered by learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are not implementing the orders of this court passed on number of occasions in different matters and to substantiate his submissions, the petitioner has placed on record a communication, wherein the opinion tendered by Mr. Anil Bhan to his clients is being brought on record.3. The communication has been produced by the petitioner when it is neither addressed to him nor it has been forwarded to him by the respondents. Admittedly the communication made by the counsel to his client and client to his counsel is a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1029
ORDERA.B. Qadir Parray, J.1. By this petition, detention of one Mohammad Ramzan Dar son of Abdul Khaliq Dar R/O Rehan, Sopore is being challenged.2. Petition stands admitted to hearing on 7-10-1994 and in response to the notices, respondents' appeared and were given number of opportunities for filing counter, but they miserably failed to file any counter-affidavit. Not only that, they even did not make any records available for the perusal of the court despite directions issued on 28-7-1995. So the presumptions and conclusions which are to be drawn for non-production of records and non-filing of counter-affidavit is that the respondent/State had miserably failed to establish and show that due course of law has been followed while depriving the detenue of his liberty. Though the detenue is said to . be staunch, dedicated and active member of outlawed organisation of Hizbul Mujahideen, even then records have not been made available before this court not to speak of filing any counter-aff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K51
Gupta, J. 1. This appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Pattern is directed against the judgment dated I8th May, 1992, passed, by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 273/1991. The judgment under appeal, however, is not a detailed one because it is based on a judgment earlier pronounced by the learned single Judge on 8th March, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 5/1990 in the case of M/s. Inder Puri General Store v. Union of India (also reported in AIR 1992 J & K 11). 2. It shall be advantageous and desirable to take note of facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 13 and January, 1989, the city of Jammu witnessed some unfortunate communal riots involving two communities. As a result of sudden outbreak of these communal riots, a particular community suffered extensive losses with respect to its property, including damages and losses to the shops situated and located in various areas and bazards of the town. It appears that co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ523
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. The petitioner is the complainant in murder trial (Session file No. 39) pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu. He has filed this transfer application seeking transfer of the challan under Sections 302/307 RPC to the court of competent jurisdiction. The ground taken is that on 15-7-1995, one prosecution witness, Tarsem Kumar was examined by the clerk of the court and his statement, 'shrouded in mystery' was brought on record. Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sethi, also urged that once he had filed an application informing about his plans to move for the transfer of the case, the trial Judge was bound to stay his hands off in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 526 Cr. P.C. According to him, the trial Judge had rejected the prayer on the spot and ordered that 'the prosecution is granted last opportunity to produce evidence' which he could not do under law. He cited : AIR1968Cal512 in support to show that the word 'shall' used in this sub-section indicated that req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1997J& K32
ORDERA.M. Mir, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed in terras of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. Besides this, power of this Court has been invoked under Section 104 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. Under bath these provisions of law, the orders passed by the District Judge, Baramulla on 22-9-1993 and 27-4-1995 have been called in question. The order passed on 22-9-1993 directed the petitioner to pay the subsidy amount to the contesting respondents subject to his furnishing an undertaking. This order seems to have not been complied with as a result of that, order dated 27-4-1995 came to be passed on a contempt petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Both the orders are admittedly passed in terms of Rules 2 and 2-A of Order 39. Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) makes both these orders appealable. The appeal against these orders lies to the High Court itself. Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, cannot be applied to orders wherefrom appeals lie to the High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ647J& K
ORDERV.K. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent No. 1, i.e. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court from proceeding any further with the consideration of hearing of the appeal preferred before him by Respondent No. 2, J. & K State Forest Corporation against an Award passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Srinagar on December 23, 1992. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, Fida Hussain approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act ('Authority' for short) under Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Act. It is absolutely unnecessary to go into the details of the claims of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Authority passed an Award on December 23, 1992 whereby it granted an amount of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K108
ORDERB.A. Khan, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the defendants in Civil Original Suit No. 30/ 94 in which they are facing recovery of Rs. 49,69,78,632.00. They are seeking suspension of proceedings in the suit under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and alternatively for leave of the Court to allow them to file the written statement which is otherwise under a threat of closure under the per-emptory order dated 30-12-1994 passed in the suit.2. Two crucial questions that arise for consideration and determination are : (i) whether the proceedings in the suit are liable to be suspended under Section 22(1) of the Act; and, (ii) whether the petitioners deserve to be granted any extension of time to file their written statement? The answer to first question naturally turns on the interpretation of relevant Section 22(1).3. The petitioner-defendants' case is that they had filed petition No. 26 before the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K63
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. This petition has been moved by three petitioners, who claim to be connected with the development of people belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes category. They have filed this writ petition in public interest.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the office of Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') was previously located in Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The said location, according to the petitioners, was not accessible to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people. On a demand made by them, the office was shifted to Krishna Nagar, Jammu, which according to the petitioners is a centrally located place. They also submitted that this location is nearer to the general bus stand and anybody coming from outside Jammu city easily reaches the office of the Corporation. The petitioners submit that the shifting of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1437
ORDERV.K. Gupta, Acting C.J.1. This petition under Section 491,Cr. P. C. has been filed by one Mukhtar Ahmad Lone in which it has specifically been pleaded and averred that some person mentioned in the appendix to letter No. DMB/PSA/Coni794 dated 23-8-1994 from District Magistrate, Baramulla addressed to Additional Chief Secretary, Home, J&K; Government, Srinagar were being illegally detained and that their detention being without any authority of law, was not only required to be quashed and set-aside but, these persons deserved to be released from custody/detention forthwith. Copy of this communication has been filed with the petition. Specific averments have been made in the petition that the detention of these persons was absolutely illegal and unconstitutional and that it was the responsibility of the State to release them forthwith. In answer to these specific allegations, the respondents through Shri A.M. Bhat, learned Government Advocate has filed half-page objections, the relev...
Tag this Judgment!