Jammu and Kashmir Court July 2004 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.
Jai Beverages Private Limited Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)JKJ47
S.K. Gupta, J.1. The main issue involved in both the writ petitions (OWP No. 613/2002 and OWP No. 1166/2002) pertains to the interpretation of SRO-247 dated 20-08-1998 (hereinafter SRO-247) issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter Jammu and Kashmir Government) regarding Sales Tax exemption allowed to a category of Industrial Units in the State called 'prestigious units'. According to the averments in the petitions, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with a view to promote industries in the State and for generation of employment and its over all economic development, formulated a new Industrial Policy 1998-2003, vide Government Order No. 202-Ind of 1998 dated 27-05-1998. By the aforesaid new Industrial Policy, the State proposed to grant number of incentives to attract the entrepreneurs from within and outside the State to establish their industries. This Policy was followed by various statutory notifications including Notification SRO-247, whereby exe...
Madan Lal Sahani and ors. Vs. Satpal Sahani and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)JKJ183
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. These two civil revisions involve common question and, as such, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The question which arises for decision is whether proceedings in the suits instituted by the respondents are to be stayed in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants (Stay of Proceedings) Act, 1997, The petitioners who are defendants in the court below filed application for stay of proceedings which was rejected by the impugned order. The suits were filed seeking eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. It is not in dispute, having regard to the definition of 'immovable property' in Section 2(b) of the Act that eviction suits between landlord and tenant are otherwise covered by the Act.3. The relevant provision which is contained in Section 3 of the Act runs as under:'Stay of proceedings against Migrants.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, all proceedings pending or he...
Yog Raj Vs. Kuldip Raj Gupta
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2005J& K70,2004(3)JKJ138
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. These six Civil Ist Appeals and three Cross Appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned District Judge Jammu dated 25.9.2002 whereby six Civil suits filed by the respondent against the appellant have been decreed. BACKGROUND. 2. Respondent-plaintiff, Kuldip Raj Gupta, is the owner of the shop situated at City Chowk Jammu. He mortgaged the said shop with possession to the appellant-defendant, Yog Raj in April 1973 through a registered mortgage deed in consideration of Rs. 5000/- for a period of three years. The rental of the shop was fixed at Rs. 100/-P.M. to be paid by the defendant-appellant which was, however, equated with interest computed at Rs. 1000/-monthly to be accrued to the mortgagor-plaintiff on the said amount of Rs. 5000/-. In this way actually nothing was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of rent of the shop during the period of mortgage. On 3.11.1993 the respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession of the shop a...
Northern Sanitation Vs. Hotel Corporation of India
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR276(J& K),2004(3)JKJ154
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. The Arbitrator, Shri M.L. Bhat, has filed his award on 12.8.1996 for making it rule of the court. On filing of the award notice was issued to the parties. The petitioner-contractor has not objected to the award but the respondent-corporation filed an application Under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside of the award. The petitioner-contractor objected to the objections i.e. application Under Section 30/33 AA inter alia on the ground that it was time barred and as such could not be taken into consideration. A Learned Single Judge by his order dated 22.7.1998 accepted the plea of the contractor-petitioner and held the same to be time barred, consequently dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of application Under Section 30/33 the respondent-corporation went in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the learned Division Bench by its order dated 5.8.2002 allowed the appeal and held the application Under Section 30/33 to be within...
Mohd. Rashid Shaheen Vs. State of J and K and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)JKJ319
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. The petitioner retired from the post of Naib Tehsildar from the Revenue Department, after reaching the age of superannuation on 30-09-2003, as his date of birth, as per the matriculation certificate submitted by him at the time of entry into Govt. Service, was 6-9-1945. The petitioner, while was in service, in the year 1989 applied for correction of his date of birth, claiming the same to be 25-06-1949, on the basis of school Leaving Certificate issued by the Head Master Govt. High School, Shahdrah Sharief. No order was passed on the said application of the petitioner perhaps the same was considered by the respondents to be a time barred application.2. In the year 1995, the Govt. issued SRO 310, whereby amendments were made in the Civil Service Regulations. After the amendment, Article 35-AA, which was introduced, provides as follows:--'35-AA. Determination of Date of Birth-Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 6.4 and 6.5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Financial co...
Ganesh Dass Vs. Kuldeep Raj
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)JKJ555
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. Isher Dass Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/Plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession against the appellants/defendants on the plea that plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop, which his father Ram Chand had purchased from its erstwhile owner Faquiru by virtue of a Sale-Deed dated 17th of Kartik 1966 BK, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 99/-. To prove the title plaintiffs produced the original Sale Deed with his suit with a sanction for re-building of the same granted by Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Basohli dated 13.08.1969. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants with their predecessor-in-interest came in possession of the suit shop on 18.07.1970 by virtue of an un-registered mortgage deed duly executed in consideration of Rs. 500/- by the plaintiff in their favour. An attested true copy of the Register of Petition Writer, the scribe of the mortgage deed, was also produced with the suit. The marginal witness was Dina Nath. At the time of filin...
Pawan Kumar Vs. S. Harcharan Singh
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)JKJ208
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 19/12/2003 of the 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jammu whereby the application of the respondent, accused, seeking dropping of the proceedings initiated on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been allowed on the ground that the earlier complaint on the same cause of action instituted by the complainant against the accused in which the cognizance was taken by the Court has been dismissed in default of the appearance of the complainant and dismissed the complaint.2. The sole controversy in this case centers around the narrow compass that whether a complaint once dismissed by a Magistrate for default can be refiled. It appears from the record that earlier complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood dismissed in default on 14/08/2001. The application seeking restoration of the dismissed complaint was filed before...
Mohd Sajjad Bhat Vs. State of J and K
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)JKJ159
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 561A Cr.P.C. has beenpreferred with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 06-11-2003 passed by Special Court, constituted under POTA, in File No. 108/Appeal, titled Mohd. Sajjad Bhat v. State, whereby appeal for release of vehicle has been dismissed. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, in resume, may be noticed.2. A vehicle Maruti Versa Temp. No. DL-IK Temp-4252 was seized from the petitioner under FIR 102/2002 for offences under Sections 3/4/5 POTA. Mohd. Sajjad Bhat, accused, had approached the Designated authority for the release of the vehicle seized in the aforesaid case in his favour being its owner. Designated Authority held that the car seized under the aforesaid FIR was purchased from the money acquired by the petitioner from the terrorists' proceeds.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Designated Authority, the petitioner impugned, its correctness before the Special Court, constituted under POTA, in filing an app...
Smt. Sudharshana Vs. Rakesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)JKJ36
S.K. Gupta, J.1. Through the currency of this revision, the petitioner/decree-holder seeks the reversal of the order dated 9th February, 2004 propounded by Sub-Judge, Katra, whereby he has declined the prayer for the delivery of possession of land aggregating two kanals two marlas contained in Khasra No. 119 located in Katra in execution of decree dated 25-01-1986 passed by Sub-Judge, Reasi, in suit No. 23/Civil of 1976 and further for setting aside the order dated 21st May, 2001 of the Sub-Judge, Reasi, Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision, in resume, may be noticed. 2. A civil suit was commenced by the petitioner for possession of land explicitly delineated in the title of the revision, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. Sub-Judge, Reasi, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner in her favour, vide his judgment and decree dated 25-01-1986. The decree was appealed against by the judgment-debtors before the High Court in Civil Second Appeal No. 21/1988, but remained unsu...
Parvez Ahmed Vs. Safeena Bi
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)JKJ243
S.K. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner (non-applicant) has assailed the correctness of the order dated 22.12.2003 propounded by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, by virtue of which the revision preferred by him against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, dated 24.7.2003 has been dismissed.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may tersely be noticed;Respondent (applicant) Safeena Bi (minor) through her mother has initiated an application, seeking maintenance allowance under Section 488 Cr. P.C. against her father in alleging therein that she was born out of the illicit sexual relationship between her mother and the petitioner (non-applicant). It is stated that her mother and the petitioner (non-applicant) were studying together in the School and it was at the time the non-applicant promised to marry with her mother and developed illicit sexual relations with her mother as a result of which she was born on 28.4.2003. The petitioner (non-applicant) has now ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »