Jammu and Kashmir Court January 1997 Judgments

Mst. Bimla Devi Vs. Bimal Kumar and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR1997J& K105

ORDERR.C. Gandhi, J. 1. The suit in which this revision has arisen was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff Bimia Devi seeking declaration and perpetual injunction claiming that she being the widow of Chuni Lal son of Amar Singh by virtue of a 'will' executed by the deceased Chuni Lal is entitled to the property after his death and a mutation on the basis of the 'will' already stands attested in herfavour. The suit was resisted by the other side and the trial court upon the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and one of the issues so framed is that,'Whether deceased Chuni Lal executed will on 15-12-1973 in favour of the plaintiff and what is its effect on the suit. Opp'The parties led their evidence and the suit has been transferred to the Collector, Agrarian Reforms after holding that the validity and execution of the 'will' stand proved and consequently what is the effect of the will on the suit property. While dealing with this proposition, the trial court observed that Se...

Divisional Manager (Extraction), J. and K. State Forest Corporation an ...

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDERR.C. Gandhi, J.1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the order dated April 13, 1995 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda), whereby he has allowed the applications of the claimants, Manzoor Ahmad and Mohd. Shafi awarding compensation of Rs. 45,000/-(including costs Rs. 200/-) and Rs. 35,500/-(including costs of Rs. 200/-) determining the wages at Rs. 30/-to Rs. 35/-per day, their age 24 years and 20 years and loss of earning capacity 40% and 50% respectively.2. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the injury caused is a vis-major and the employer cannot be held liable for compensation. The loss of earning capacity determined is imaginary and not based upon any legal evidence. The claimants were not in the employment of the appellant either through contract or directly employed by the respondents nor they have received any injury.3. I have heard the learned counsel for theparties and peru...