Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ6
J.P. Singh, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed by Jammu Province Migrant Committee and 676 persons, hailing from District Doda and District Poonch of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, projecting their sufferings and hardships to which they have been put to because of the unabated activities of the extremists in their respective areas.2. The petitioners, belonging to the poorer strata of the society, are dependent on their bread only on the availability of some or the other menial work at the places of their residence. They say that it was because of the activities of the militants, who had been indulging in merciless killing of innocent, that they had to leave their home and hearth in search of some safer places in Jammu Province.3. Petitioners' grievance in these writ petitions, in nut shell, is that though entitled to treatment similar to those who had migrated from Kashmir Province, they had been denied this relief because the authorities had turned a deaf ear to their ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ44
J.P. Singh, J.1. Javed Iqbal has filed this petition through his father, seeking quashing of District Magistrate Jammu's order No. 03/PSA of 2007 dated 23.6.2007besides a direction to the respondents to pay him Rs. Two lacs as compensation for his illegal detention.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite quashing of petitioner's earlier detention order No. 09/PSA of 2006 dated 24.5.2006 issued by District Magistrate Jammu by this Court on 18.5.2007, the petitioner was not released from custody and was rather taken in custody by Police Station Joint Interrogation Centre Jammu in FIR No. 1 of 2007 under Sections 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 120B, and Section 121 RPC. While he was in custody with the police, the District Magistrate issued yet another order for his preventive detention. The grounds on the basis whereof this second detention order had been issued, while reiterating all the earlier grounds, added an additional ground in the grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ198
J.P. Singh, J.1. Aggrieved by learned Munsiff, Kathua's order of September 15, 2007, allowing plaintiff/respondent, Prabha Bakshi's application for production of additional evidence, the petitioners/defendants have approached this Court for setting it aside, on the ground, that the trial Court had illegally exercised jurisdiction in permitting plaintiff/respondent to lead additional evidence, when her seven years old suit, seeking partition of a two storeyed residential house, belonging to one Sat Paul Sharma, had been slated for final hearing.2. To appreciate the submissions made at the Bar, reasoning giving by learned Munsiff, in allowing the application needs to be noticed. This reads, thus:I have considered the respective contentions of the counsels for the parties. It would be profitable at this stage to briefly state the facts of the plaintiffs case, that one Sat Paul, out of his free will and consent married with plaintiff at Partap Garh, Jammu, on 20.6.1980 performing all the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2008J& K52,2008(2)JKJ566
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This civil revision is directed against Sub Judge Jammu's order of September 3, 2007, staying petitioner's suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. While directing the stay of petitioner's subsequent suit the learned Judge has taken the following view:The parties are litigating under the same title. The object of this section is to prevent two Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue. It is based on the principle that one cause be finally determined in one proceeding and by one Court alone.Having gone through the pleadings of the parties in the instant suit as well as those in the earlier suit, the certified copies of which have been placed on record by the defendants I am in agreement with defendants that whatever averments are maple in the instant suit by the plaintiff are already there in his counter-claim to the suit of the defendants which is prior in time having been fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008ACJ2753
J.P. Singh, J.1. Ashok Puri was travelling along with Surinder Kumar Waza, Amrik Singh, Raj Nath Nehru, Bhupinder Kumar and Amar Nath in a motor vehicle Tata Sumo No. JK 02-J 4985 on 2.12.1998, when it met with an accident at Vessu Nursery, Qazigund, Kashmir. The widow, minor son, minor daughter and mother of Ashok Puri, filed a compensation claim of Rs. 20,00,000 for the death of Ashok Puri, with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu.2. Assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000, monthly economic loss to the family at Rs. 10,250 and applying 14 as against 16, the prescribed multiplier in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, loss of dependency of the family on the income of the deceased was determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 17,22,000. Adding Rs. 15,000 as loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses, the Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 17,57,000 as compensation to the claimants for the death of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ121
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. Service Selection Board by its advertisement notice No. 01 of 1999 dated 9-3-1999 invited applications from the eligible candidates for 275 posts of Teachers in District Cadre Rajouri. The percentage for category-wise reservation of the posts was as follows:Scheduled Caste : 08% i.e. 23 postsScheduled Tribe : 10% i.e. 27 postsSocially and educationally backward classes: i. Week and under privileged classes (Social Caste): 02%ii. Residents of areas adjoining line of actual control: 03%iii. Residents of Backward area : 20%Open Merit: 57%2. The eligibility qualification as prescribed was '10+2' with with 50% marks and above. However, bar of 50% marks will not apply to graduates and above. The experience is to be given preference. The Service Selection Board also published the following selection criterion:(i) Basic qualification : 40 Points,(ii) Graduation : 10 Points.(iii) B.Ed : 10 Points,(iv) Post Graduation : 10 Points(iv) M.Ed. : 10 Points.(vii) Viva Voce : 20 Poi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ379
M. Yaqoob Mir, J.1. Business concern run under the name and style of M/S Dale Agro Industries situated at Industrial Estate of J&K; Industrial Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) Rangreth, District Budgam, of which petitioner and respondent No. 1 are the owners-cum-partners has been established for manufacturing of food procession. Dispute in between the partners has given rise to litigation i.e. respondent (plaintiff) has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying therein that the petitioner (defendant) be asked to render the accounts as per the terms and conditions of partnership deed and has also prayed that petitioner (defendant) is not entitled to transfer or sell the goodwill, name and style of business including the customers of the said firm, except in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) who has a preferential right. Further more respondent (plaintiff) is entitled to the said business establishment in the capacity of exclusive owner petitioner (defendant) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ387
M. Yaqoob Mir, J.1. Order dated 30.12.006 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge Bejibehara) is impugned. By medium of this Revision petition reversal of same is sought.2. Parties are married to each other. From the wedlock three children are born, who are in the custody of the respondent. Petitioner putting up in her parental house, claimed to have been neglected by the respondent, which prompted her to initiate the proceedings in terms of Section-488 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after conducting the full trial has dismissed the application for grant of maintenance, as according to Learned Magistrate, the petitioner without any just cause has refused to live with the respondent.3. Heard and considered. Appearing counsel for the petitioner projected that order granting maintenance was to be passed in accordance with Sub Section-1 of Section-488 Cr.P.C. Then at the stage of enforcement question of refusal on the part of the petitioner to live with the respondent could be consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ391
M. Yaqoob Mir, J.1. Instant revision is directed against the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Id. District Judge, Budgam, whereunder order passed by the Id. Sub Judge, Budgam dated 7.6.2004 has been up-held.2. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective, it shall be quite advantageous to precisely notice the factual background of the case:3. One Syed Ahmad Shah has died leaving behind land measuring 47 kanals and 14 marks including two storeyed building situated at village Reshipora, Budgam. Petitioner is the son, respondent No. 1 and 3 are daughters, whereas, respondent No. 2 is the widow of the deceased. Respondent No. 1 Mst. Ameena (plaintiff) has filed suit for declaration partition and permanent injunction, qua the suit property, i.e., property left behind by the deceased Syed Ahmad Shah. Alongside suit, application for temporary injunction has also been filed. Interim temporary injunction, after dispensation of prior notice to others-ide in terms of Order 39 Rule 3, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ382
M. Yaqoob Mir, J.1. Order dated 01.03.2007 passed by learned Sub-Judge, (CJM) Anantnag, has been questioned through the medium of petition bearing OWP No. 134/2007 same has been disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.3.2007 which is impugned herein.2. By virtue of order impugned learned Single Judge, has opined that appropriate remedy against the impugned order was to approach the same court or to file the appeal. Both the remedies are envisaged by C.P.C. remedy for impleadment is also available before the same court.3. During the pendency of the LPA, appearing counsel for respondents, Mr. M.A. Rathore, AAG, while producing copy of the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by Sub Judge (CJM) Anantnag, whereby suit has been dismissed as withdrawn and all interim/interlocutory orders have been vacated, submits that no cause survives for the appellants, therefore, LPA may be dismissed.4. Mr. Reshi, appearing counsel for the appellants submits that improvement i.e. in the shape of...
Tag this Judgment!