Jammu and Kashmir Court January 2002 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.
Abdul Majeed Khan S/O Ab. Aziz Khan Vs. State of Jandk Through Pr. Sec ...
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)JKJ532
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Through the medium of this petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely, Abdul Majeed Khan, has sought indulgence of this court for quashing of proceedings in case titled as State v. Abdul Majeed Khan, for offences Under Section 420,467 and 468, RPC and 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, pending decision before the learned Special judge Anti-Corruption, Srinagar (Kashmir).It is inter-alia maintained in the petition that the petitioner was serving as clerk in the Ancilliary Medical Training School, Srinagar in the year 1981 where from he has since retired on superannuation. That the said Ancillary School is under the control of the State Medical Faculty headed by Director Health Services, who is its ex-officio president. The faculty is run with a view to impart training and conduct examinations of various Ancillary Medical Branches such as Nurses. Ancillary Nurses, Mid wives, Dental Technitians, Medical Assistants etc. That the candidates ar...
Firdous Ahmed Bhat Vs. Mst. Mehmooda
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1989,2003(1)JKJ432
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Through the medium of this petition 488 Cr.P.C. maintenance proceedings launched by wife and son of the petitioner and presently on the file of the City Munsiff Magistrate Srinagar are prayed to be quashed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. In term of the petition allegation and submission of the Ld. Counsel the application has been taken cognisance of proceedings initiated and interim maintenance orders passed without jurisdiction in as much as the proceedings in this case are not taken against the husband in the district where he resides or last resided with his wife and the child. The counsel cites 1999 SLJ : J&K; 492 for the preposition that the allegations as given in the application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. are to be taken exfacie for exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Section 488(8) of Cr.P.C. while there can be no dispute with the preposition that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and proceedings in a monthly allowance applic...
Riaz Jan Mast Vs. Asif Javeed and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)JKJ143
ORDERSyed Bashir-ud-din, J.1. Respondents sons of Javeed Rasool moved an application in the Court of District Judge, Srinagar for possession of items of property specified in the application against their uncle Javeed Riyaz under Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1977, here-in-after for short 'Act'. The District Judge Srinagar on the basis of material on record on the belief that the applicant's prima facie, as successors to their father Javeed Rasool, did have interest in the specified Matrooka Property and in case they are left to ordinary course of regular suit, material prejudice would be caused to them and on satisfaction of other requirements, issued notice and proceeded to determine summarily their right to possession. On enquiry.after considering the pleadings, copies of the documents and other material on record the District Judge Srinagar came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to the possession and have an immediate right to possession of residential/com...
Ammanullah Khan Vs. State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3279,2003(1)JKJ527
1. The subject Ammanullah Khan is detained by District magistrate, Srinagar under his order No. DMS/PSA/210 dated 31-03-2000 under Section 8 of the J&K; Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state. This order subsequently approved by the govt. is under challenge in this petition. Though number of grounds are urged in support of the contention that the order and the consequent detention in question is vitiated but the counsel restrict his submissions to and processionally following grounds to question the detention:- i) First, that the detenue is illiterate and not able to understand English language. The grounds supplied todetenue in English language are not intelligible to him. The order of detention, as also the material referred in grounds has not been supplied to him. In that manner the order as detenue. Thereby the detenue is prejudiced and disabled to make representation to Govt. against the order of detent...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›