Jammu and Kashmir Court November 2003 Judgments

Riaz Jan Mast Vs. Asif Javid and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(1)JKJ552

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. District Judge, Srinagar passed an order on 29.2.2002 holding petitioners before District Judge and respondents before this Court entitled to the possession and to inmedacy of right of possession of residential/commercial building situated at Hari Singh High Street except the shop used to conduct business of 'M/s Metal Mart'. With regard to other properties the District Judge held that the party has no claim to actual possession on merit and left same for determination in regular suit. The proceedings have been taken and the order passed under J&K; Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977. Against this order revision was filed in this Court. By a detailed order of January 9, 2002 revision petition was dismissed as not merited after the above order of the District Judge was found within para-meters of law and jurisdiction and as one covered by the prescribed statutory procedure.Against this order the review petitioner filed SLP (875/02). The Supreme Court vide ...

Vipan Kumari Vs. Garish Kumar Sharma

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(1)JKJ543

S.K. Gupta, J.1. This application has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002 passed by the District Judge, Rajouri in petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act, 1980), in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is urged that the applicant and her counsel were under the impression that for filing the appeal, the period of limitation provided is 90 days, though, in fact, for appeal against a judgment and decree passed under the Act, 1980, period of 30 days is provided for under Section 34(4) of the Act. The applicant further submitted that on account of financial constraints, she could not contact the counsel for filing the appeal within the time and pleaded that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but on account of the circumstances set out in the application, Despite opportunity, objections have not been file...

Mohd. YasIn Vs. United India Ins. and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: III(2004)ACC43,2004ACJ1026,2004(2)JKJ524

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of Motor Vehicle (Auto Rikshaw) involved in the vehicular accident that took place on 5.5.2001 causing death of one Abdul Rashid Bhat, who's wife and minor son and daughter, filed a claim petition before MACT at Srinagar. During the pendency of proceedings interim relief of Rs. 50,000/-, on the basis of no fault liability, was awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1.9.2003. In the order, the liability to pay the interim relief was fixed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the answering respondent to the claim petition. However, the Insurance Co. sought correction of the order in as much as the no fault liability was mistakenly and erroneously fixed on the Insurance Co. when there was no basic contract of insurance between the Insurance Co. and the vehicle owner.2. The Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties, corrected the order to fix the liability for interim compensation on answering respondent No. 3, the o...

Braham Parashar Vs. University of Jammu

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

S.K. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner is a student of M.A.M. College, Jammu and appeared in and passed B.A. Part-I examination with subjects General English, English Literature, Political Science and Hindi. Thereafter, he was admitted in B.A. Part-II in the said College and subject Hindi was changed to Philosophy, as the combination of subjects as in B.A. Part-I was not available in the College. It is stated that, subsequently, before appearing in the examination in B.A. part-II, the petitioner's subjects were changed to Hindi from Philosophy under the instructions of the University. The University allotted Roll No. 134065 to the petitioner, who appeared in Part-II with subject Philosophy, since subject Hindi along with combination of subjects of Part-I was not available in B.A. Part-II. The result of the petitioner, however, declared 'Later on'. Vide Communication dated 1-8-2002, the University called upon the Principal, M.A.M. College, to submit the internal assessment marks of the petitioner ...

Lasu Sheikh and ors. Vs. Ramzan Parray

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(1)JKJ617

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Revision petitioners 1 to 3 have filed suit for declaration and injunction to challenge sale deeds executed on 4.4.1970 and 4.8.1970 as devoid of any legal force and to restrain Ramzan Parray defendant to the suit (respondent to the revision petition) to interfere with the possession of the land subject of matter of suit. The property belongs to one Ali Sheikh who died issueless and the plaintiff and proforma defendants (revision petitioners) claim to have succeeded to the entire matrooka estate of said Ali Sheikh legal heirs. The sale deed purportedly executed by said Ali Sheikh in favour of the defendant/respondent as above is prayed to be declared (on pleaded grounds) as null and void, and devoid of any legal force. Respondent/ defendant has contested the suit as well as the revision petition. He claims to be the lawful owner of the property after the two sale deeds were executed by said Ali Sheikh in his favour. He has also pleaded that he is in possession ...

Mohd. Abdullah Hafiz Vs. State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(2)JKJ551

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. Police party headed by Dy.S.P. of P/S Awantipora intercepted goods vehicle with the registration mark and No. JK02-6747 on National High Way within jurisdiction of the Police Station and recovered 14 bags 'phokey' (husk powder) from the vehicle. Driver of the vehicle Bashir Ahmed Bhat, conductor Mohd. Maqbool Bhat and one Abdul Majid Makroo who were in the vehicle were arrested and contraband goods seized. Case was registered as FIR No. 105/2003 Under Section 18/20 NDPSA (hereafter called Act) and 3/18 M.V. Act read with Section 34 and 207 RFC. Subsequently the owner of truck applicant Mohd. Abdullah Hafiz was also taken in custody. Said applicant Mohd. Abdullah moved an application for bail. The application was dismissed by the Ld.District & Session Judge, Pulwama by his order dated: 11.9.2003. Against this order present revision is filed.2. Public Prosecutor despite repeated opportunities has failed to file objections. Challan has been produced in court again...

Manzoor Ahmad Shah Vs. Sameena

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(2)JKJ537

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.1. In proceedings Under Section 488 Cr.P.C No. 2 of 2002 on the file of 3rd Addl. Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, an application for interim maintenance No. 8 of 2002, was moved by Sameena on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son Manzoor Ahmad, against respondent her husband and the ward's father. In maintenance proceedings, the evidence of petitioner is in pipe-line. However, interim application has been disposed of by order dated 26.8.2002, where under interim monthly maintenance allowance is allowed in aggregate Rs. 800/-(Rs. 400/-each to wife and son) from 5.3.2002, the date of application, with attached condition that 'in case of failure to deposit the maintenance monthly, Rs. 100/- is to be levied on the aggregate amount of maintenance.' This order has been subject of revision proceedings before 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, to the extent of interim maintenance to wife and levy portion of the order.2. The Court of 2nd Addl.D&S; ...

Autar Krishan Babu Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Director Est ...

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(2)JKJ568

S.K. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from evicting the petitioner from Government Quarter No. 539-W, located at Top Sherkhanian, Jammu. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, in brief, is that he is a Government employee and migrated from Kashmir Valley in 1990. The petitioner is stated to have shared the Government accommodation allotted to his brother-in-law. That after the premises was evicted by his brother-in-law, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the premises exclusively. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are now out to evict the petitioner from the said premises, without adopting due course of law.2. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents in their demurrer on variety of grounds. It is stated that the Government accommodation was allotted to one Romesh Kumar Koul, Accountant i...

Jagdish Kumar Vs. State of J and K

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: AIR2004J& K105,2004(2)JKJ47

S.K. Gupta, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the report of respondent-2 bearing No. 418-420/RPC/RSP dated 24-10-2002, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari in alleging that the report has been based on deep rooted conspiracy. It is further stated that the document produced by the petitioner with regard to proof of his being permanent resident of the State is genuine, but yet respondent-2 made a false and frivolous report contrary to the record and tainted with mala fides, illegality and arbitrariness on account of old enmity with the family of the petitioner because of a land dispute between them. That respondent-2 has played a mischief by misplacing facts, on the basis of which permanent resident certificate was issued, with a purposive intent to harass and humiliate and harm the petitioner, who has been selected and appointed as a teacher and, at present, working in Government Primary School, Kotli Mirdian, R.S. Pura.2. Respondent-2 in his ...

Ram Murti and ors. Vs. Dev Raj and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 2004(2)JKJ67

Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2nd August 2003 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Rajouri, whereby the application of the petitioner, seeking execution of the decree has been dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide order dated 22nd July 1991, in the following terms :-'In view of the admission and undertaking of the defendants, it is declared that land in dispute comprising of Khasra Nos: 941, 941/3 and 941/4 are in possession of the plaintiffs as owner with which the defendants have no concern. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to seek injunction in the event of any threat to his legal right. With these observations, the file is consigned to records.'2. After passing of the said Judgment, a decree came to be framed which admittedly, was not in accordance with the Judgment. However, on the strength of that decree, an execution application was filed and demolition of the construction raised by the Judgment debtor over the suit ...