Jammu and Kashmir Court August 1996 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.
Rajesh Gupta Vs. Jagdish Gupta
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ175
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner calls in question orders dated 12-12-1995 and 13-3-1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge), Jammu and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby some documents produced by the respondent were allowed to be taken on record in a complaint filed by him under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2 It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The substance of allegation was put to him under Section 242, Cr.P.C. Thereafter the respondent (complainant) sought to place some documents on record in support of his ease. This was allowed by the Magistrate by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court, 1987 Kash LJ 712 : (1988 Cri LJ 1141) and by overruling the objection taken by the petitioner (accused) that no such document could be permitted to be brought on record after the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.C.3. Petit...
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and ors. Vs. Vimal Kumar
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997J& K30
B.A. Khan, J. 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act to call in question the order of the trial Court dated 18-4-1996 passed in Arbitration File No. 21/95, directing the nominated authority in the arbitration clause to nominate an arbitrator other than the appellants herein within a period of one month to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. 2. Parties are involved in a dispute in respect of the alleged default committed by the respondent in payment of the licence fee of the shop belonging to the appellant-Board. Respondent accordingly seems to have filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was opposed by the appellants and the trial Court eventually passed impugned order dated 18-4-1996 asking the nominated authority (Chairman of the Shrine Board) to appoint an arbitrator other than the appellants (respondents therein). Appellants are aggrieved of this condition contained in the impugned order as according to them th...
Asha Vs. Rasaloo and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997J& K39
ORDERBilal Nazki, J. 1. The Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Hiranagar passed an order on 28-11-1973 on Mutatipn No. 406 regarding correc-tion of girdawari entries with respect to land comprised under Survey No, 460 of village Hamirpur pertaining to the year 1971. The said order was assailed in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Circle Officer, Circle No. 2, Tehsil Hiranagar. The order of Deputy Commissioner was challenged in second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, when it was transferred in terms of Section 21(5) of the J. & K. Agrarian Reforms Act to the Revenue Minister on 12-11-1979. Thereafter, on 3-7-1986 the case was transferred to J. & K. Special Tribunal for adjudication. The second appeal was treated as revision by the Tribunal in terms of mandate of Section 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. 2. 1 have gone through the memo of second appeal which was originally presented before the Financia...
Ghari Lal Vs. Surjit Kour
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997J& K72
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Petitioner obtained an ex parte decree against the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19-11-1992. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was filed after the period of limitation, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The application appears to be pending before the Lower Court. During the pendency of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the wife, (respondent herein) filed an application under Section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of the proceedings. This application was resisted on various grounds and a preliminary objection was taken that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not a proceeding within the meaning of Section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, no maintenance in terms of Section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be ordered.2. The learned Distr...
Ghulam Mohd. Lone Vs. Under Secretary to Govt. Home Department (Vig) J ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ173
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. Through this writ petition, petitioner has challenged Order No. 583 (Home) (Vig) of 1987 dated December 31, 1987 sanctioning his prosecution in pursuance of Section 6 of P.C. Act, 2006 for offence under Section 5(2) of P. C. Act 2006 and 161, RPC (Annexure 4) while posted as patwari Halqa Asham Sumbal Sonawari and trap laid for commission of offence under Section 5(2) of P. C. Act, 2006. Petitioner was placed under suspension2. For prosecuting the petitioner, sanction by respondent I was mandatory. After considering all the facts of the case respondent I declined the sanction. Since case was not found fit for prosecution, it was closed vide No. Home (AC)S-Camp/ 87-S) dated 7-10-87 (Annexure 1).3. Through communication No. Rev(NG)285/ 85 dated Oct. 16, 1987 respondent 2 asked the Divisional Commissioner to pass formal order for the re-instatement of the petitioner since the case against the petitioner had been closed by the Home Department (Vigilance) (Annexure ...
Abdul Ahad Vs. Mst. Shah Begum and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997J& K22
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the present appellant who was the plaintiff before the trial Court. He filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Poonch in-September, 1990 against the present respondents stating therein that the respondent No. 1 was his legally wedded wife. The marriage had been performed five years back. He also submitted that the marriage was entered into the register 'Nikah Khwani'. He also alleged that at the time of marriage he executed an agreement that after the marriage he would reside in the house of respondent No. 2, his mother-in-law along with wife for four years as Khana Damad, He further submitted that he resided there and cohabited with his wife during that period. He submitted that as he had gone to his house, the respondents do not allow his wife, respondent No. 1 to live with him as his wife. Therefore, he sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and also for perpetual injunction against the respondents other than responde...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›