Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Feb-02-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ411
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. Way back in December, 1968 petitioner herein instituted a civil suit against respondents their predecessors in interest for partition of moveable and immoveable property comprising of a three storied house 24' x 16' and land measuring 134 kanals and seven marlas situated at Buchwara, Srinagar under of Khewat No. 16 and Khasra No. 104, 151 to 155 158,169, 180, 18, 218, 228, 240, 278,281,303,308,311,272,373,287,452,516 and 520 (old), Khewat No. 14, survey Nos, 104, 591/151,153,593/152, i54,165, 168, 631/169,180,187,238, 240, 272, 278. 281, 634/303, 677/613/387, 678/613/387, 679/613/387, on various grounds mentioned in memo of plaint mainly based on inheritance. While the suit was being tried in this Court on original side with issues framed as far back as in August, 1969 and plaintiff leading her evidence, under interim order of 9.12.1970 while observing that there were chances of amicable settlement this Court deferred the trial and on application of parties appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Nov-20-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2040
ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against him by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sub-Judge, Samba on respondent's complaint wherein he had been accused of committing offence punishable under Section 228 of the Ranbir Penal Code, in that, while appearing as Defence Counsel, Lt. Col. (Retd.) G.R. Bishnoi, the petitioner had passed derogatory remarks against all the members of the Court including the Senior Member and Judge Advocate, and while acting rudely, shouting furiously during the course of the proceedings, he had questioned the very integrity of the Court. He had, despite caution having been sounded to him several times during the proceedings, refused to carry out the orders of the Court.2. Petitioner's learned Counsel Sh. Arora submitted that respondent's complaint was not maintainable because before filing the complaint, the respondent had not complied with the provisions of Rule 150 of the Army Rules in holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)JKJ20
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Contempt Court is justified in determining on what price the proprietory rights are to be conferred upon the petitioners2. The learned Single Judge who heard the contempt case has passed an interim order on December 16,. 2004 which is as good as a final order holding that the respondents (contemnors) cannot demand more than Rs. 2 lacs per kanal to transfer the proprietory rights in favour of the petitioners.3. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officers have come up with this appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Judge in the contempt proceedings, contending that Contempt Court has no jurisdiction to determine the amount to be paid by the petitioners for transfer of proprietary rights.4. Writ petition No. 933/95 was preferred by the petitioners (respondents herein) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the leased land measuring 6 kanal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ354
Nirmal Singh, J.1. Petitioner who came to be enrolled in the Army on 4th of October, 1978, was discharged from service on 21st of August, 1981, on compassionate grounds at the request made by the petitioner. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps on 31st of May'82, and served upto 1987, when he suffered from intense pain in the head and applied for medical leave which was granted to him. Before the petitioner could recover and join back his duties, he received a communication dated 25th of May'88, from the respondents that the petitioner has been discharged from service on medical grounds. Petitioner thereafter applied to respondents for grant of disability pension, which was rejected. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2012/01, which was disposed of vide judgment dt. 27th of March02.2. The case of the petitioner is that after the writ petition aforementioned was allowed by this Court, the respondents implemented the judgment and released service as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!