Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1999J& K63
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal u nder Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Chamber on 26th of August, 1997. The said order has permitted the respondent No. 1 to file additional written statements, with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Election Petition No. 4 of 1996 titled Ram Saroop v. Returning Officer, is pending trial under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein election of the appellant has been questioned on a number of grounds. After the filing of written statement by the appellant to the said Election Petition vide order dated 22-5-1997 on an oral request having been made on behalf of the respondent No. 1-pct it Loner in the Election Petition, he was permitted to file replica to the written statement of defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K67
Nazki, J.1. There is much ado about nothing. These four appeals have been filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this court and are directed against the order rejecting the applicant's application for framing additional issues. Some facts are necessary in order to resolve controversy. Disputes arose between Irrigation Department and the respondent, these disputes were referred to an arbitrator who gave four awards. Awards were filed in this court, State filed objections to the award. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter was pending framed four issues. After the framing of the issues, an application was made by the appellant State in each case for framing additional issues and for recasting of the issues framed. The application was resisted by the respondent and the learned single Judge rejected the application. Against this rejection for framing of additional issues and for recasting of issues already framed, this appeal has been filed under Clause 12 of Letters Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1998J& K84
Kawoosa, J. 1. This review petition, seeking recall of order dated 22nd May, 1997, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, has been filed on 18th June, 1997. We don't feel the need to encumber this order with facts more than necessary; a brief resume of the relevant facts would suffice. 2. Civil Original Suit No. 22 of 1974, pertaining to 17 Kanals and 2 Marias of land situated at village Shankerpora of Tehsil Chadoora, was filed by petitioner, Haji Ghulam Hassan, before the High Court. This suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed vide judgment dated 16-11-1981 by the learned single Bench. The judgment resulted in filing of two cross appeals, one each by the petitioner and respondent herein, respectively bearing Nos. CIA No. 6/82 and CIA No. 8/82. These cross appeals were clubbed together by order dated 7-7-1986 passed by the Division Bench in CIA No. 8/82. Order dated 9-5-1989 passed on CIA No. 6/82 makes mention of the direction of the Apex Court to hear the appeals together. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1997J& K132
M. Ramakrishna, C.J.1. These three Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment made by the learned single Judge on June 27, 1989 in writ petition No. 122 of 1984. Since these appeals arise out of the said common judgment, therefore, they arc clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. Dr. Karan Singh, who was writ petitioner in writ petition No. 122 of 1984, feeling aggrieved by the judgment made by the learned single Judge, has sought for declaration that he (appellant in LPA (W) No. 60 of 1989) is full owner of the jewellery and ornaments (articles mentioned in Appendix-A and 8 of the appeal) and also further direction/order to restore and return all these articles, ornaments and jewellery to him. He has accordingly sought for modification of the judgment made by the learned single Judge by setting aside the finding and directions of the learned single Judge, who in his finding has directed that respondent No. 2 (in LPA No. 60 of 1989) alone can pass orders to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
B.P. Saraf, C.J.1. All these eight appeals under clause 12 of the Letters Patent are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.9.1999 of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants challenging the constitutional validity of the levy of additional toll at the rate of 4 per cent by the State of Jammu and Kashmir ('State') on the edible oil imported into the State for re-sale with effect from 30th May, 1997 vide SRO 184 dated 30.9.1999.The two writ petitions also involve the challenge to the same levy and the decision in these appeals will govern those writ petitions as well. Those two writ petitions are, therefore, clubbed with these appeals for final hearing and disposal. 2. The material facts are as follows. All the appellants and writ petitioners, except appellant Nos. 4 and 6, namely, M/s Daya Chand Jain (LPA No.606/99) and M/s S. K. Enterprises (LPA 116/2000) and writ petitioner, M/s Pawan Traders (OWP 595-A/98), are engaged in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1995J& K7
M.L. Kaul, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of an order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 11-2-1994, whereby Writ Petition No. 947 of 1991 title H.S. Rainal v. National Insurance Company has been transferred from Srinagar Wing to Jammu Wing of this Court, along with all connected CMPs. and contempt petitions arising therefrom.2. A challenge has been made to the passing of such order on the ground that the impugned order being a judicial order has been passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under the Administrative powers vested in him as Chief Justice of the High Court. The said order being a judicial order could not be passed in exercise of the administrative powers vested in him and his Lordships failed to appreciate and consider the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge failed also to appreciate that power to transfer cases from one Wing to another wing had not been conferred under the J and K High Court Rules and that his Lordship a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPAOW No. 146 OF 201.Sandya Devi and ors Petitioners Anil Gupta and ors Respondent !Mr. Z.A. Shah, sr. Adv with Mr. Vipan Gandotra.Mr. D.C. Raina, Sr. Adv with Ms. Ananta Raina Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prem Nath Sadotra ^Mr. M.A. Goni, sr. Adv with Mr. Ahatshan Bhat and Mr. A. S. Kotwa, Advocates. Mr. S.S. Lehar, Sr. Adv with Mr. Vandana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prana Kohli, Adv with Ms. Hancy Maini, Adv HONBLE MR. JUSTICE Virender Singh- JUDGE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR-JUDGE. Date:12. 11.2012 : : Muzaffar Hussain Attar. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal is under cloud in view of the stiff resistance offered by ld sr. counsel for the respondents 1 to 39. In order to appreciate the objection raised about the maintainability of L.P.A, brief narration of the facts becomes imperative. The trade of liquor in the State of J&K is regulated by J&K Excise Act. 1959 and Rules called J&K Liquor Licence, and Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(2)JKJ583,(2005)IILLJ1059J& K
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The dispute in the writ petition/appeal relates to the appointment of respondent No. 4, Asif Hamid Khan, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on the post of Trade Agent. In the writ petition prayer of the petitioner/appellant, Mukhtar-ul-Aziz, is for quashing the impugned order of appointment dated 13.12.1990 and for a madamus to allow him (petitioner) to continue on the post till proper selection and appointment. By order dated 12.3.1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court referred the case to larger Bench for decision on the points formulated. Feeling aggrieved by observations/findings regarding contractual nature of his employment, terminable at one month's notice by either side, the petitioner preferred appeal in hand under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The dispute being same and the appeal arising from the writ petition itself, both writ petition and appeal were taken up for hearing together.2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that on 15....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1995J& K85
Rizvi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of thelearned single Judge dated 14-2-1991, dismissing the writ petition filed by the Administrator and Executive Officer of the Municipality Jammu against the respondents and upholding the judgment and order of the J and K. Special Tribunal, Jammu dated 15-10-1990 hereinafter referred as Tribunal, Jammu. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the Letters Patent Appeal are briefly given, as under: The respondent No. 1, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, for the purposes of constructing a hotel at Residency Road, Jammu, had submitted building plans to Jammu Municipal Authorities for according sanction to the proposed construction. After proper verification and after obtaining No Objection Certificates from all concerned, the said plans were sanctioned by the Building permission Committee of Municipality and issued under No. 633 dated 17-3-1987. Allegedly, the Architect engaged by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2003J& K17,2003(1)JKJ691
V.K. Jhanji, J. 1. Alt the Letters Patent Appeals are by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. These are being disposed of by common judgment as the same involve common questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are taken from appeal titled Prem Nath v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (LPA (C) No. 8/2002).2. In the suit plaintiff alleged that he is a tenant of shop No. 3 at Mata Ka Bagh and a store room No. 14, appurtenant thereto located in Dhar Bhawan Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi, Trikuta Hills, Katra. He stated that defendants have no right to evict him forcibly from the demised premises otherwise than in due course of law. He thus sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting him from the demised premises, Otherwise than in due course of law. Along with the suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, supported by an affidavit for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting ...
Tag this Judgment!