Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 Section 1 Court:Jammu & Kashmir

Feb 14 2005

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mst. Misra and Ors.

  • Decided on : 14-Feb-2005

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2005(3)JKJ50

Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 30.04.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short the Tribunal) in a claim petition No. 49 Claim of 1999 titled Mst. Misra and others v. Diyan Singh and others.2. Mst. Misra widow of Gh. Mohd. Wani and Abida Nasreen, Tahira Bano, Manzoor Ahmad Wani, children of Gh. Mohd. Wani residents of Manasbal, Sumbal, Sonawari (at present Mehjoor Nagar Srinagar) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on 24.03.1999 stating therein that Gh. Mohd. Wani died in a road traffic accident on 5.02.1999 at Pandrethan. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Diyan Singh - respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal who was driving a bus bearing registration No. JK02 4303 from Srinagar to Jammu. When the bus reached M.P.Check Post Pandrethan it hit cyclist Gh. Mohd. Wani who sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on spot.3. The Tribunal fr...
Apr 16 1985

Mst. Phungan Vs. Chhajju Ram

  • Decided on : 16-Apr-1985

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR1986J& K78

K.K. Gupta, J.1. Chhajju Ram, plaintiff-respondent, Mst. Phungan and Shiv Devi d/o Phungan Devi, defendants-appellants, entered into an agreement in writing on Feb. 12, 1969, by virtue of which they agreed to sell land measuring 75 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 1, situate in village Deval, tehsil Samba for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- out of which they received an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as advance as part of the sale consideration. The plaintiff filed suit for the specific performance of the contract alleging therein that on Aug. 12, 1969, he tendered the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- to defendants and demanded execution of transfer deed but the defendants refused to do so.2. The defendants took a plea that Shiv Devi, defendant No. 2 was minor at the time of execution of the agreement and was incapable of entering into any valid agreement. The trial Court after framing preliminary issue to this effect came to the conclusion that Shiv Devi defendant was minor at the time o...
Jul 08 2003

Pran Nath Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2003

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR2004J& K135,2006(2)CTLJ97(J& K)

ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is a Civil Contractor. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was allotted various contracts some of which detailed in Paras 2 and 3 of the writ petition are :--i) CESZ-20/90-91ii) CESZ-40/94-95iii) CESZ-04/94-95iv) CESZ-21/89-90v) CESZ-12/91-92vi) CESZ-12/91-92In addition to this another contract, being contract No. CESZ-20/90 was allotted to him. In respect to this contract bill has been finalized, but in respect to the contracts referred to above the bills have not been finalized though the contracts were completed long back. It is the case of the petitioner that another Contract No. CA No. CESZ-17/96-97 : PROVN of OTM ACCN AT JAKLI RC SGR came to be allotted to the petitioner which according to him has been executed and completed but the final bill is under process. Respondents appear to have issued a letter dated 7-2-2002 whereby the petitioner was intimated that during the audit check, certain recoveries were found outstanding against ...
May 04 1996

Javid Ahmad Zargar and Ors. Vs. Attorney General of India and Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-May-1996

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1996CriLJ3006

V.K. Gupta, J.1. By this common Judgment, we propose to dispose of all the five petitions together.2. A learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble) Mir, J.) while entertaining these petitions, issued notices of show cause and passing ad-interim directions vide order dated 2nd August, 1995, referred the cases for disposal to a Division Bench in terms of Rule 14(9) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975. It is because of this reference that the cases have come up before the Division Bench for hearing and disposal.3. Notification issued vide S.O. 551 (E) dated 17th June, 1995 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, has been challenged in these five petitions. Vide this Notification, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government by Section 11(2) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as an Act for the sake of brevity) transferred some cases involving the petitioners herein pending before the Design...
Mar 30 2001

Yog Raj Vs. Kuldeep Raj Gupta and Anr.

  • Decided on : 30-Mar-2001

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR2002J& K12

T.S. Doabia, J. 1. A declaration to the effect that a decree dated 2-12-1983 passed by Sub-Registrar (Munsiff). Jammu in Civil Suit No. 515 instituted on 30-11-1983 is null and void without jurisdiction, inoperative and inexecutable and not binding on the plaintiff-appellant was sought. A civil suit was filed. This suit stands dismissed. Now this first appeal has been preferred.2. The circumstances under which this suit came to be filed be noticed.3. The appellant is in possession of a shop. This is situate at Shalamar Road Jammu. The description of this shop and the terms and conditions of the alleged tenancy are given in para 1 of the plaint. It is stated that the monthly rent was settled at Rs. 300/-. This tenancy is said to have been in the year 1971. This shop is owned by defendant-respondent No. 1. The appellant submits that he was carrying on business in this shop in partnership with other persons. The names of these partners are Rajinder Kumar, Partool Chand, Sita Devi and Shan...
Dec 07 2005

Mst. Shameema Vs. Rehman Beigh and Ors.

  • Decided on : 07-Dec-2005

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ479

Nirmal Singh, J.1. This is Civil Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated: 28.7.2001 passed by District Judge, Anantnag in Civil Appeal No. 2/appeal decided on 10.5.2001 arising out of judgment and compromise decree dated: 25.11.2000 passed by Munsiff, Anantnag in Civil suit No. 161.2. Mr. Bhat, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent before the learned District Judge, Anantnag was barred by time. The learned District Judge was not competent to eternal and adjudicate the appeal without condoning the delay. He submitted that the respondent has not moved any application for condoning the delay alongwith the appeal.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made.4. The respondent herein when filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Anantnag, alongwith the appeal, application for staying the operation of the impugned judgment was filed. On the application the fol...
Apr 08 1959

Sufi Mohd. Akbar and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr.

  • Decided on : 08-Apr-1959

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1960CriLJ223

ORDERK.V. Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is a petition asking for writs of Habeas Corpus, prohibition and certiorari.2. The petitioners who are eight in number are some of the persons against whom a prelimi- nary inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, is being held by the second respondent, in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 121-A and 120-B of the Ranbir P.O. read with Rule 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Security Rules and the said Rule 32. Some of the accused persons raised a contention before the committing Magistrate that the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act), 1956, (Act No. XLII of 1956) was in force in the State and that the inquiry should, therefore, be held in accordance with. its provisions.The committing Magistrate by his order dated 7-2-1959 overruled the contention holding that Act XLII of 1956 has not come into force. The petitioners allege that they are aggrieved by that order. They say that by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Sect...
Jul 19 2005

UCO Bank Vs. Jawahar Rice and General Mills and Ors.

  • Decided on : 19-Jul-2005

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR2006J& K57,2006(1)JKJ256

Nirmal Singh, J.1. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of M/s. Jawahar Rice & General Mills, respondent No. 1. They approached the appellant bank for grant of financial assistance. The appellant bank accepted their proposal for financial assistance and, accordingly, advanced an amount of Rs. 2,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with quarterly rests for construction of building and purchase of plant and machinery. Respondents 1 to 5 executed various documents including agreement of hypothecation of goods in favour of the appellant bank. Respondent No. 6 and Khoju Ram stood as guarantors for respondents 1 to 5 and they executed a guarantee deed that in case respondents 1 to 5 fail to re-pay the loan amount with interest they will be liable to re-pay the same. Respondents 1 to 5 did not repay the loan amount on demand, therefore, the Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs. 8,85,530.50.2. On notice defendants 1 to 5 appeare...
Mar 26 2004

State Vs. Mohd Yasin Malik and Ors.

  • Decided on : 26-Mar-2004

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2005CriLJ275,2004(2)JKJ242

Y.P. Nargotra, J. 1. In what manner the Chief Judicial Magistrate has to act when the person whom a confession has been recorded Under Section 32(1) of Prevention of Terrorist Act 2002 (POTA) before a police officer, is produced before him? Is the question arising for consideration in this case? For better appreciation of the point involved Section 32 is being reproduced hereunder: --'32. Certain confessions made to police officers to be taken into consideration-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer either in writing or on any mechanical or electronic device like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from out of which sound or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person for an offence under this Act or rules made hereunder.(2)...
Sep 25 1998

Pt. Govind Ram Vs. Ram Saroop

  • Decided on : 25-Sep-1998

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...
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //