Jammu and Kashmir Court December 2001 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.
Romesh Lal Mottan and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3386
ORDERTejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. 'Whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward-flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast'. Such were the strong sentiments expressed by Dr. A.S. Anan.d, J, later Chief Justice of India, while dealing with the rights of a person who is subjected to custodial violence. (See D.K. Basu v. State (1997) 1 SCC 416 : (1997 Cri LJ 743).2. It is the case of the petitioners that the rights conferred upon them under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were violated in as much as not only the person but the property belonging to them was also subjected to worst type of violence.3. Before noticing the facts, it would be apt to mention that what was said by the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 : (1997 Cri LJ 743). This decision takes notice of the rights of the citizens. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforementioned case vis-a-vis rights to whi...
Puri Bros. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2001
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN82(NULL)
The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Its case is being pleaded through petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the manufacture of wheat products. It is further submitted that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had issued an incentive scheme, whereby certain subsidies were allowed to this assessee. For the assessment year 1991-92, the subsidy which was allowed was to the extent of Rs. 21,55,800 and for the assessment year 1992-93, the amount of subsidy was Rs. 32,69,797. The subsidy which was received by the assessee was claimed as not liable to taxation under the Act. Such was the plea taken before the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that under Chapter VIA of the Act, special deductions are allowed from the gross total income. These deductions are permissible to new industrial units under sections 80HH and 80I o...
Gian Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Krishan Kohli and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-26-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1914,AIR2002J& K82
S.K. Gupta, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel the appellants, Mr. Surinder Singh.2. By means of this reference, the learned Single Judge, instead of formulating a question of law in terms of Rule 18 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, (now Rule 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1998), for authoritative pronouncement to a Division Bench, reflected the matter in the penultimate para of the reference dated 19-5-1995, which reads as under :'In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, I am of opinion that every case where several legal representatives claim compensation, it should be incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the claim of each claimant separately. In this case, the Tribunal has only decided the entitlement of parents of the deceased, and he has not at all decided the claim of sisters and brother of the deceased. Since this question will govern many cases and the decision In this case will be of much public importance, I think it Just and proper to re...
Mandeep Sharma Vs. Kiran Sharma
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2002J& K90
ORDERS.K. Gutpa, J.1. Both these Revision Petitions, filed by the parties separately having arisen out of the same impugned order, shall be disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Revision No. 181/2001 as been filed by the respondent-husband, Mr. Mandeep Sharma, and Civil Revision No. 106/2001 has been filed by the petitioner-wife, Mrs. Kiran Sharma.2. Fact relevant for the disposal of these Revisions in nutshell are that, in a petition for divorce initiated by Mandeep Sharma, husband, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), Kiran Sharma, wife, put appearance and moved an application for the grant of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses both for herself and her minor male child, two-and-half-year old, in invoking the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, inter-alia pleading that she is residing with her parents along with a minor child and had no independent source of income and thus, requires Rs. 5.000/- per month for herself and the mi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›