Jammu and Kashmir Court December 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.
Officer Commanding Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)JKJ719
Doabia, J.1. The Officer Commanding, 173 Field Regiment, C/o 56 APO was maintaining an imprest account No. 9419 with the State Bank of India, main branch, Jammu. This account used to be operated by the Adjutant of the Unit and for the operation of this account, every cheque which was presented to the Bank for encashment, was required to be counter-signed by the Commanding Officer and Adjutant of the Unit. It appears that a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/-, was presented with the State Bank of India, respondent. No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) by PV Brahamchari, GNR/Clerk. This cheque was got encahsed. It is under these circumstances a suit for recovery came to be filed, It was submitted that the said cheque should not have been encashed. It was, stated that for operation of the account, two specimen signatures one of the Officer Commanding of the Unit and the other of the Adjutant of the Unit were made available to the bank. It was submitted that the cheque which was got...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ2049
T.S. Doabia, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of two sets of claim petitions; one pertains to an accident cause whereof was a bomb blast and the other deals with an incident where bullets of the terrorists sniffled life out of the passengers. Legal heirs have claimed compensation. In both sets of cases legal heirs have been successful. It is the insurance company which has challenged the decision so given.2. So far as the appeals pertaining to bomb blast are concerned, these are enumerated in Annexure 'A' appended to this judgment. The appeals pertaining to the claimants who are heirs of those who died on account of terrorists bullets find serialised in Annexure 'B'. (Annexures omitted)3. The bomb blast cases deal with incidents which took place on 7.10.1992 and 28.11.1994. The first incident as noticed above took place on 7.10.1992. At about 9.30 a.m. a bus started from Keso Manahasan to Jammu. When bus reached Digiana Ashram, a bomb exploded in it. A number of persons died and some...
Om Metals and Minerals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR168(J& K)
T.S. Doabia, J.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the prayer of the present appellants. The award was made rule of the Court. It was further directed that in case the award is not satisfied within three months from the date of the decree, then the appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of decree till the same is satisfied. The appellants have come in appeal. It is submitted that they were entitled to interest from the date of the award i.e. from 31.01.2001 and not from the date of the judgment and decree which was passed on 11.07.2000. As this has not happened the appellant has come in appeal. The operative portion of the award which was made rule of the Court is to the following effect:'We accordingly award and direct that--(1) Against all such claims of the claimant held by us as admissible, we award a combined sum of Rupees Four Lakhs only (4 Lakhs only).(2) This award shall not debar the contractor from getting payments for the w...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1008
T.S. Doabia, J. 1. The amount of compensation in an injury case can be higher than what is payable to the heirs in case where accident proves to be fatal. Judicial precedents do recognise this fact. The facts which are not in dispute are:(i) that the accident did take place;(ii) that the claimant suffered 100 percent disability. It is a case of paraplegia with fracture DV 12;(iii) that the claimant was 39 years of age at the time of accident;(iv) that monthly salary of the petitioner was Rs. 8,062.2. On the basis of the aforementioned factors and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Tribunal allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 16,45,453. This is under the following heads:(i) For treatment expenses Rs. 1,00,000(ii) For loss of earnings Rs. 2,53,953(iii) For loss of future earnings Rs. 7,09,500(iv) For future expenseson attendants Rs. 1,32,000(v) For future medical and incidentalexpenses Rs. 50,000(vi) For pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000(vii) For loss of amenities of life...
State of J. and K. Vs. Zarina Begum and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ2150,AIR2004J& K23
Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. One Mohd. Bashir was electrocuted on 2nd Aug. 96. He came in touch with a broken live electric wire, when he was proceeding towards the main road from his house in village Choktan (Kot Dhara). Negligence was attributed to the officials of the electric department and more particularly to one Slam Shah, Lineman in the Power Development Department. It was pleaded that the deceased was 30 years of age, and was earning Rs. 150 per day. The total income of the deceased was said to be Rs. 4500/- p.m.2. The defendant-State filed its written statement. It denied negligence on the part of Slam Shah. It was pleaded that, as a matter of fact, it was defendant No. 4, Abdul Khaliq who used to commit the theft of electricity from the L. T. Line by using unsafe material. It was pleaded that the accident had taken place as a result of negligence on the part of defendant No. 4 Abdul Khaliq.3. The issues which came to be framed are as under:--'(1) Whether the defendant 3 laid ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: II(2005)ACC805
T.S. Doabia, J.1. Four issues were claimed and were accordingly framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 11th July, 1986. For facility of reference, these are being reproduced below:(i) Whether the claim petition is not according to the prescribed proforma, as such petition is not maintainable?--OPR(ii) Whether on 25th June, 1985 at about 4.15 p.m. when the respondent No. 3 under the employment of respondent No. 1 drove the Bus No. 3587-JKP rashly and negligently and was going to Udhampur town and knocked down the petitioner near PHE office and caused grievous injuries to the petitioner?--OPP(iii) In case issue No. 2 is proved in the affirmative to how much claim of compensation the petitioner is entitled from whom?--OPP(iv) Relief.2. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, this was not pressed by the appellant Company and nothing is required to be said in this regard.3. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the finding recorded was that on account of rash and negligent driving of the...
Harbans Lal Vs. Amar Nath
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)JKJ355
Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.1. The present appellant figured as a plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. This was filed under Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses-and Shops Rent control Act. This was with regard to a shop situated in main Bazar Udhampur,The respondent is a tenant.2. In para '3' of the plaint, it was pleaded that earlier also a suit for ejectment was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge Udhampur, this was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.05.1963. It is not necessary to advert to further facts in this regard. Suffice it to say, that the present suit was filed after 20 years on 10.08.1983. In this suit it was pleaded that earlier the plaintiff was in occupation of a shop which was owned by his father-in-law. It was stated that a very small, portion thereof was owned by the plaintiff. This was to the extent or area having a width of 3. The rest of the shop as noticed above was owned by the father-in-law. It was further stated that the father-in-law of the plaintiff executed ...
United India Insurance Company Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)JKJ726
1. Four issues were claimed and were accordingly framed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 11th July '86. For facility of reference, these are being reproduced below: i/ Whether the claim petition is not according to the prescribed proforma, as such the petition is not maintainable?...... OPR.ii/ Whether on 25.06.1985 at about 4.15 pm when the respondent No. 3 under the employment of respondent No. 1 drove the Bus No. 3587-JKP rashly and negligently and was going to Udhampur town and knocked down the petitioner near PHE office and caused grivious injuries to the petitioner?... OPP. iii/ In case issue No. 2 is proved in the affirmative to how much claim of compensation the petitioner is entitled from whom? .........OPP. iv/ Relief'2. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, this was not pressed by the appellant Company and nothing is required to be said in this regard. 3. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the finding recorded was that on account of rash and negligent driving of the ...
Romesh Singh Vs. State of Jandk and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)JKJ344,(2004)IILLJ18J& K
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Appellant, being aggrieved of an order made by the learned Single Judge on 2.9.2002, in SWP No. 2233/2002, has preferred this appeal.2. From the record it transpired that, Daya Ram, father of the appellant, died on 08.10.88. The appellant at the relevant time was ten years of age and a student. He passed 8th class in the year 1995 and after attaining the age of majority he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the appellant that his case was recommended to extend the benefit of SRO 43, however, the Chief Engineer PWD(R&B;), after considering the case of the appellant in term of the relevant rules in force, rejected the claim of the petitioner-Appellant, after holding that he was not eligible being a minor in the year 1989 or 1991, and also not qualified for appointment after a lapse of eleven years. It is against this order, that a petition was filed, inter-alia, requesting for quashing the order and also for issuance of writ of mand...
Muzaffer Ahmad Kashoo and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Dec-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ511J& K
ORDERSyed Bashir-Ud-Din, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is in the service of respondents as Casual Labourer since 1986 and the other two petitioners too are in the service of Food Corporation of India, as Casual Labourers since 1990-91 (Annexure-A). Petitioners have been working as such as Casual Labourers and discharging duties in different capacities all along. The case of petitioners was also recommended by their immediate officers for regularisation. But, as there was no response from the other side, petitioners filed writ petition 262 of 1996, which was disposed of by Order dated September 10, 1997 by learned single Bench of this Court in terms of order as under :In the circumstances, official respondents are directed to consider petitioner's case for regularisation of their services taking in regard the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal in case Surinder Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with rules within three months fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »