Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1971CriLJ158
ORDERJaswant Singh, J.1. This is an application to revise an order dated 7.11-1969 passed by the learn, ed Sessions Judge, Udhampur, up-holding the order dated 20.2.1969 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the order of maintenance paased against him under the provisions of 8. 438 of the Criminal P.C.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this application are :-In 1963 the respondent made an application Under Section 488 of the Criminal P.C., for maintenance allowance in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. On 28-8-1965 the parties arrived at a settlement on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/. per month be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner complied with this order for a little over a year but discontinued the payment thereafter. On 7.3-19.67 he made an application before the Magistrate praying that the order of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
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
Reported in : AIR1985J& K74
ORDERMazhar Ali Shah, J.1. The petitioner after getting his medical training from Banaras Hindu University in an intergrated course of Medical Science, Banaras University got conferred upon him the degree of Ayurvedacharya with Modern Medicine and Surgery in the year 1948, copy of the certificate is enclosed with the petition as Annexure 'A' issued on Dec. 2, 1948. The petitioner was selected as Assistant Professor of Psychology in the government Ayurvedic College, Jammu, from which he retired. In the course of his professional duties, the petitioner has been adopting both the Allopathic as well as also the Ayurvedic system of medical care for individual to individual depending upon the nature of illness. It is further submitted while the petition was filed, the petitioner was running his clinic at Muthi, Tehsil Jammu after his retirement as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was working in Ayurvedic College, at Jammu which is affiliated to the University of Jammu, SMGS Hospital Jammu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1988CriLJ582
A.S. Anand, C.J. and R.P. Sethi, J.1. The point of law on which the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench differed in their opinion is : whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI) constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the 1946 Act) has jurisdiction to investigate cases under the Ranbir Penal Code and the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short the P.C. Act) and to file the final report before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption in a case where one of the accused is an Indian Army Officer? Whereas Brother Bhat, J. held that it does not, Brother Sethi J. held otherwise. In view of this divergence of opinion the case has been referred to me.2. The question being essentially legal, reference to some salient facts would suffice.According to the prosecution case the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 120-B, R.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1989J& K43
Bhat, J.1. These four appeals are being decided by a common judgment. Appellant in all these appeals is the preemptor. He brought four different suits on the basis of right of prior purchase in respect of four different sale deeds against four different vendees. The trial court directed the appellant to deposit the l/5th of the probable value of the suit property in cash under Section 21 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act This order was made in all the suits on 21-12-1984. The appellant, pre-emptor, however did not deposit the said amount. Instead he moved an application for permission to furnish security in lieu of 1/5th of the probable value. This application was dismissed in all the suits. Thereupon the appellant seems to have taken a revision to the High Court. The High Court directed the trial Court to pass a reasoned order and remanded that case back to it after setting aside the order under revision. All the suits were, later on transferred to the file of the District Judge.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1991J& K20
ORDERM.A. Shah, J.1. Petitioner a valid by profession duly registered under Section 16 of the J & K. Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act (XXVI of 1959), for short hereinafter called the Act of 1959 under No. 125 on 8-2-1972 at Jammu. He is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 in seizing certain drugs on November 15,1977, from his premises at Gole Market Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Petitioner, therefore, prays in this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution for the quashment of seizure with a further prayer for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 1 and its officers restraining them from any such action under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The petitioner is resisted by the respondents though they have not filed their counter, however, learned Additional Advocate-General, placed reliance on the objections filed on 28-3-1978 and the provisions of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1992J& K7
ORDERS.S. Kang, C.J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3-1-1987, passed by the learned Munsif Sub Registrar, Jammu, whereby he has decided issue No. 3, preliminary issue, against the plaintiff-petitioner.2. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment against Kidar Nath, defendant, in relation to residential premises situated in Raghunath Bazaar, Jammu, on various grounds one of them being that the defendant-tenant had committed three defaults within a period of 18 months in payment of the rent in spite of a notice and had incurred a liability for ejectment under Section 11(1)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. In his defence he raised a number of pleas. He, inter alia, pleaded that the plaintiff had not served a valid notice as contemplated by Clause (1)(i) of Section 11 of the Act because he had given a notice requiring the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
S.C. Mathur, C.J.1. A single individual, Sukesh Chander Khajuria, has filed this writ petition seeking ban on private medical practice by doctors in the service of the State Government and for creation and assurance of proper, adequate and hygienic medical facilities for the citizens of the State. The petition has been claimed to have been filed in public interest. The petitioner has claimed himself to be a social activist and President or member of several social organisations. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may be stated:2. Government doctors likely to be affected by the petition fall in two categories: (1) those posted at Primary Health Centres and Hospitals; (2) the posted at institutions imparting medical education . Doctors belonging to the second category are governed by Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1879. Said doctors along with other Government servants are governed by Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and Public Servants...
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 : 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!