Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Sep-14-1982
Reported in : AIR1983J& K16
1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against an order of the learned Acting Chief Justice purported to have been passed by him in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The proposition that no appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent lies against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, has not been disputed by Mr. Raina. His contention, however, is that the order could have been and has in reality been passed by the learned Judge in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction alone, in that, he has modified the award in exercise of his appellate powers Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The order having been in reality passed by him on first appeal and which ought to have been passed by him under Section 39 alone, an appeal against it was clearly maintainable under Clause 12.2. Right of appeal is determined by what the court against whose order the appeal is filed purported to do and not by what it should hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Oct-05-1982
Reported in : AIR1983J& K44
Kotwal, J.1. This is a minor defendant's appeal, against a decree for specific performance of an executory sale in respect of immovable property, passed by the trial court in a suit brought against him and his father, the father being shown therein as the guardian of his minor son, the appellant.2. Respondents 1 & 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, sued the appellant and respondent No. 3, his real father, in the court of District Judge at Sri-nagar for specific performance of an agreement to sell a building situated at Maisuma, Srinagar, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, said to have been executed by respondent No. 3 in their favour on 19-2-1970, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of the appellant as his natural guardian, alleging therein that respondent no. 3 was the sole owner of the suit property and that the appellant was only a benamidar. It was further alleged that out of the total consideration of Rs. 30,000/- only Rupees 10,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-01-1982
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas251(NULL)
Anand, J.1. A common question of law as to whether it is open to an insurance company to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an appeal filed in the High Court arises in the three appeals which are under consideration by us. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because when one appeal, i.e., Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 80 of 1977, came up for disposal before a Division Bench of this court, comprising Mian Jalal-ud-Diu, Chief Justice and Mir J., their Lordships were of the opinion that there was some divergence of opinion on this subject in the different High Courts in the country and, consequently, they made the following order of reference on October 27, 1979.' The point sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents.A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that it is not open to the appellant to cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-01-1982
Anand, J. 1. A common question of law as to whether it is open to an Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an appeal filed in the High Court, arises in the three appeals which are under consideration by us. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because when one appeal i. e., Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 80 of 1977 came up for disposal before a Division Bench of this Court, comprising Mian Jalal-ud-Din, Chief Justice and Mir J., their Lordships were of the opinion that there was some divergence of opinion on this subject in the different High Courts in the country and consequently they made the following order of reference on 27th October 1979. 'The point sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that it is not open to the appellant to c...
Tag this Judgment!