Jammu and Kashmir Court March 2001 Judgments

Yog Raj Vs. Kuldeep Raj Gupta and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR2002J& K12

T.S. Doabia, J. 1. A declaration to the effect that a decree dated 2-12-1983 passed by Sub-Registrar (Munsiff). Jammu in Civil Suit No. 515 instituted on 30-11-1983 is null and void without jurisdiction, inoperative and inexecutable and not binding on the plaintiff-appellant was sought. A civil suit was filed. This suit stands dismissed. Now this first appeal has been preferred.2. The circumstances under which this suit came to be filed be noticed.3. The appellant is in possession of a shop. This is situate at Shalamar Road Jammu. The description of this shop and the terms and conditions of the alleged tenancy are given in para 1 of the plaint. It is stated that the monthly rent was settled at Rs. 300/-. This tenancy is said to have been in the year 1971. This shop is owned by defendant-respondent No. 1. The appellant submits that he was carrying on business in this shop in partnership with other persons. The names of these partners are Rajinder Kumar, Partool Chand, Sita Devi and Shan...

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR2002J& K31

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. Petitioners submit that he applied for issuance of a route permit for plying an air-conditioned Delux coach between Railway Station, Jammu to Katra, Patnitop, Suriansar, Mansar etc. This was so applied on 31st Jan., 96. As there was delay in the matter of considering his request, he approached this Court, OWP 258/ 96 was filed. This was disposed of on 25th March. '96. The operative part of the judgment is being reproduced below :'In the circumstances, on hearing l/c for parties and going through the record before me and considering the nature of controversy, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the petitioners free to approach the appropriate authority for consideration of grant of route permits in accordance with rules and in case, requirements of such rules are satisfied, the authority concerned may accord consideration to this application.'2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions given by...

Robkar Adalat Vs. Aseem Kumar Sawhney and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2002CriLJ2382

ORDERTejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. 'Pen is mighter than sword'. This proverb seems to have been totally misunderstood by the respondent-members of Fourth Estate. One of the respondents' to this petition i.e. respondent No. 2 is a practising advocate and the other is keen to join this profession.2. The Stuart Kings, who claimed to rule by Divine Right, refused to believe that 'the King is under no man but under God and the Law.' When confronted by the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke, James-I declared 'Then I am to be under the law. It is treason to affirm it.' Do the respondents have the same notion? The members of the Fourth Estate may be under no man, but they are definitely under the 'Law'. In our democratic polity and the Constitution based on the concept of rule of law, which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic set up. 'The Law is Supreme'. Law in its wisdom considers it of greater consequence that the stream ...

Shakti Traders Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

B.P. Saraf, C.J.1. All these eight appeals under clause 12 of the Letters Patent are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.9.1999 of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants challenging the constitutional validity of the levy of additional toll at the rate of 4 per cent by the State of Jammu and Kashmir ('State') on the edible oil imported into the State for re-sale with effect from 30th May, 1997 vide SRO 184 dated 30.9.1999.The two writ petitions also involve the challenge to the same levy and the decision in these appeals will govern those writ petitions as well. Those two writ petitions are, therefore, clubbed with these appeals for final hearing and disposal. 2. The material facts are as follows. All the appellants and writ petitioners, except appellant Nos. 4 and 6, namely, M/s Daya Chand Jain (LPA No.606/99) and M/s S. K. Enterprises (LPA 116/2000) and writ petitioner, M/s Pawan Traders (OWP 595-A/98), are engaged in t...

Smt. Bholi Devi Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR2002J& K65

ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Gross medical mistake can result in a findings of negligence, being recorded. Such is the argument raised in this writ petition.2. Mst. Bholi Devi was admitted in S.M.G.S. Hospital. Jammu on 12-10-1997. It was a case of pro-lapsed uterus. She was found to be suffering from Cystocale and Rectodele.3. The fact that the petitioner came to be so admitted was sought to be established by showing the medical record i.e. admission card. She was advised to be operated upon on 15-10-1997. As per the petitioners the pre-operative investigations were carried out by respondents NOS. 3 to 7.The drug allergy of the patient was recorded in General case sheet. Mst: Bholi Devl was given 5 ml tablet of Diazepam at 6 A.M. on 14th Oct. '97. As a pre-operative measure the following medicines were recommended:(i) Tab Diazepam;(ii) Injection Voveran;(iii) Injection Glycopyriate.4. Mst. Bholi Devl was examined on 15th Oct. '97 at 12. She was shifted to the operation theatre. She was give...

Shiv Nath and ors. Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

1. An application was preferred under the payment of wages Act. This was filed by Darshan Lal respondent No.2. He was supporting the case of others also. The total amount which was claimed was Rs.39,800/-. The authority under the payment of wages Act allowed a sum of Rs.13,168/- The operative part of the order passed by the authority under the payment of Wages Act is being reproduced below:-'I therefore, accordingly pass an order of the aforesaid total amount, amounting to Rs.12,168/-(Rupees thirteen thousand, one hundred and Sixty eight only) alongwith the compensation @ 20/-each in favour of the claimants namely Darshan Lal, Moti S/o Massu, Mast Ram S/o Munshi Ram, Vasdev S/o Balak Ram and Mulkh Raj S/o Rohlu Ram to be apportioned in the manner as stated above against the non-applicants.'2. Two appeals were preferred, one was preferred by the present petitioner and other was preferred by Darshan Lal. Both the appeals came to be rejected. So far as the appeal preferred by the present ...