Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ216
Nisar Ahmad Kakru, J.1. This Revision Petition has been heard at its threshold without notifying the other side. The petition owes its origin to the litigation that has started in the form of a suit, filed as far back as in the early 1985, for a decree of declaration and injunction, in respect of a plot comprising survey number 216/379, situate at village/Estate Hakkal Satwari Tehsil Jammu, culminating in a decree dated 12-3-1993. Same having gone un-assailed, attained finality, yet the judgment debtor chose not to obey it, giving rise to a motion, filed in the Court of the Sub Judge Jammu, seeking execution of the decree which was confronted with the opposition on the ground of insufficiency of description of the property but in vain, consequently success of motion, begetting a direction favouring the decree holder, requiring the Police not to allow interference by the judgment debtor with the subject matter of the decree.2. Being aggrieved, the impugned order is challenged by the jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR130(J& K),2008(2)JKJ28
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the finding of the learned Single Judge, that the court of Additional District Judge would be deemed to be a civil court of original jurisdiction within the purview of the definition of the term 'court' defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the J&K; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 is correct or not?2. Petitioner before the learned Single Judge filed an application under Section 9 of the J&K; Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu.3. Principal District Judge expressed his inability to hear the case due to personal reasons and placed the matter before this Court for entrusting the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction. The matter ultimately came up before the learned Single Judge. Objection was raised by respondent therein contending that 2nd Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ11
Nisar Ahmad Kakru, J.1. In furtherance of an endeavour to steal a march over the head of the respondent 3, the writ petitioner-appellant sought his placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on the ground that the writ petitioner and the respondent 3 were appointed as Drivers in the year 1990 and 1993 respectively, therefore, claim for placement in the seniority list ahead of the respondent 3. How far the material placed along with the writ petition helps the cause of the appellant, relevant is to reproduce the communication dated 21-01-1997:OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.(R&B;) DEPTT. JAMMU.No. 17833 Dated. 21-1-97 The Executive Engineer, Const. Division No. IV, Jammu.Subject: Establishment - S. Harjeet Singh, Driver. Ref: Representation of Harjeet Singh, driver dated Nil.S. Harjeet Singh driver has represented regarding his seniority position in the list of Drivers circulated under this office No. 15702-32 dated 19-12-1996. In this connection, it is for the information of the driv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ446
Virender Singh, J.1. The revision on hand is filed by the first informant Jeet Ram Chowdhary, (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) impugning the judgment of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 11-12-2001, whereby all the three respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused) stand acquitted in a police case bearing FIR No. 63/92 registered at police Station, Khore under Sections 109/201/498-A and 306 RPC read with Section 3/5 of Dowry Act.2. Admitted position is that State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal earned by the accused and for this reason, complainant has arrayed the State as pro forma respondent.3. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides and with their assistance, perused the record.4. The grievance projected by Mr. Kalgotra is that the learned trial Court was not legally entitled to critically appreciate and weigh the evidence of the prosecution under Section 273 Cr. PC, as according to learned Counsel, at this stage, the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3702
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. These matters has been placed before us by a learned single Judge of this Court in view of the conflicting views expressed on the question whether Second criminal revision can be entertained and adjudicated under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Smvt. 1989 by the High Court when a criminal revision against the order of the trial Magistrate has already been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge?2. Criminal revision No. 43/2002 was filed before this Court against the order dated May 13, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Lodge whereby criminal revision petition No. 108/2001 filed against the order dated March 13, 2001 of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jammu was dismissed. Criminal revision petition No. 43/2002 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge and a contention was raised that the same was not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Sardar Sardool Singh v. Teja Singh : 2001 KLJ 656 : 2002 Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR126(J& K),2008(2)JKJ5
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The only question to be considered in this case is whether an Arbitrator possesses power to grant interest? Learned Single Judge declared that it has.2. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by Union of India.3. The question as to whether an Arbitrator exercising powers under the Arbitration Act has got the power to grant interest is no more res Integra. The question has been elaborately considered by the Apex Court. Generally, the question of award of interest arises in respect of three periods, namely: (i) the period from the date of dispute to the date an arbitrator enters upon the reference; (ii) the period from the date the arbitrator enters upon the reference till the award is made and (iii) the period between the date of award and till the dale of decree or date of realization.4. The question regarding pre-reference interest came up before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ24
1. These appeals have been preferred by Additional Commissioner and Commissioner of Income Tax, aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to include the names of the petitioners in the list of candidates who had passed the departmental examination of Income Tax Officers after assigning them their appropriate place in the seniority list with consequential reliefs.2. Writ petitions were preferred seeking a direction to quash the order dated July 22,1997 by which it was decided to withdraw instructions contained in Office Memoranda, OM No. 8/12/69-Estt.(SCT) dated December 23,1970 and OM No. 36021/10/76-Estt.(SCT) dated January 21, 1977 in so far as those provided lower qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe candidates in departmental examinations for promotion. Petitioners had also sought for a declaration that they had passed the departmental examination of Income Tax Officers Group B from the last date of the examination and also for the consequential rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : [2009]177TAXMAN339(NULL)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in ITA No. 215(Asr.)/2002.2. We are in this case connected with the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Authority had made trading addition of Rs. 5,13,140 after rejecting the books of account produced by the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer, rejecting the books of account, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who had found no illegality in the order passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the books of account. Orders passed by the authorities below were questioned by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The first issue, which was considered by the Tribunal was whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 5,13,140, by rejecting the books of account and estimating the sales at Rs. 53 lakhs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ459
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. These petitions have been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Srinagar which ordered that the exempted amount of duty was required to be refunded for operationalising the exemption; education cess which was in the nature of piggy back duty on the excise duties under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles)Act, 1978, was also required to be refunded because it was not at all leviable in view of the entitlement to exemption worked out under paragraph 2 of the Notification. The Tribunal set-aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and allowed the appeals accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise has preferred thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3626
Virender Singh, J.1. Appellant, Mohd. Basharat S/o Baqa Mohd. R/o Ghani, Tehsil Mendhar (hereinafter to be referred to as an accused) has suffered conviction under Section 376 R. P. C, vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, dated 26-12-2003 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years more. The amount of fine has been ordered to be paid to the victim. Hence this appeal.2. The accused is stated to be in custody since the date of his arrest.3. Adverting to the prosecution case, in brief.4. Name of the girl is not being disclosed in my judgment. She, hereinafter, will be referred to as 'victim' only. At the time of occurrence, which is of 21-6-2001, she was of hardly eight years. The accused was of the age of 22/23 years. On the fateful day, she was grazing the cattle in her land where the accused was also grazing...
Tag this Judgment!