Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: jammu and kashmir Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.015 seconds)

Jul 17 1992 (HC)

Jagat Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Jul-17-1992

Reported in : 1994CriLJ175

orderr.p. sethi, j.1. the petitioner khazan chand, an addl. deputy commissioner, in revision petition no. 1/92 and petitioners jagat singh and others in bail application no. 110/91 are alleged to be the kingpins of a criminal conspiracy by which the state is alleged to have been defrauded to the tune of rs. 1,51,23,000/-. they are involved in what is popularly known as 'birpur land scandal case'. the petitioners in both the cases have prayed for the grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest in terms of section 497a, cr.p.c. none of the petitioners has so far been arrested by the investigating agency.2. the facts of the case as disclosed by the investigating agency are that the land measuring 2253 kanals 12 marlas situate at village birpur, tehsil jammu, was requisitioned for the use and occupation of the indian army by the deputy commissioner, jammu, under the provisions of the requisitioning and acquisitioning of the immovable property act, 1968, in the month of july, 1977. the land included 1600 kanals out of the land comprising survey no. 1035. it is alleged that the said land was initially shamlat deh. 374 kanals 18 marias out of this land was transferred in favour of the state under the big landed estates abolition act, through a mutation, annexure r1. it is further alleged that being banjar qadim i.e., unclulturable, 2192 kanals 16 marlas out of remaining 2274 kanals was transferred in favour of the state and reserved for grazing purposes of the village community .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1992 (HC)

Tara Chand and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : May-21-1992

orderr.p. sethi, j.1. petitioners' father, namely, charan dass alias changru, who was a tenant of mst. d.d. rani, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5, is stated to have relinquished his tenancy in favour of said mst. d.d. rani, on 18-7-1972 before the asstt. commissioner, kathua. on the basis of relinquishment deed, mutation is stated to have been attested by tehsildar, kathua, on 20-2-1973 under no. 93. charan dass died in the year 1981 and his sons thereafter challenged the aforesaid mutation before the deputy commissioner, who, transferred the appeal to the asstt. commissioner for disposal according to law. the appeal was returned back to the deputy commissioner stating therein that as it pertained to correction and should report to the agrarian reforms commissioner, who was competent to hear the appeal. on receipt of the appeal the deputy commissioner sentthe same to the joint agrarian reforms commissioner for necessary action. the joint agrarian reforms commissioner again returned the case to the deputy commissioner for disposal under law. the deputy commissioner thereafter heard the parties and vide his order dated 15-1-1987, set aside the mutation no. 93 and remanded the case to the tehsildar. the order of the deputy commissioner was challenged in appeal before the divisional commissioner, who, vide his order dated 6-6-1988 dismissed the appeal against which the revision petition was filed before the financial commissioner, who, vide the order impugned in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1992 (HC)

Ghulam Fatima Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Feb-17-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2719

orders.m. rizvi, j.1. by medium of this petition for a writ of heabeas corpus, the detention of manzoor ahmad kha, alias bitto, under section 8 of the j. and k. public safety act, (hereinafter referred to as act), has been challenged on various grounds as enumerated herein.2. the counter has been filed by the addl. chief secretary (home) denying the allegations made in the petition.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. i have examined the record produced by mr. jalali. i have gone through the file also.4. the first argument of mr. qureshi was that the order impugned has been passed by the addl. chief secretary (home), who has no power under the act, to do so, and therefore, it was invalid.5. in the counter it is stated that the order has been passed by the govt, and the addl. chief secretary has only authenticated the same.6. from the perusal of original record produced by mr. jalali (file no. home-lsd-355/90), i have not been able to find the original order which was supposed to be signed and/or approved by the governor himself. the grounds of detention on the file also have not been signed and/or approved by any authority, which in the present case were required to be considered by the governor himself for his subjective satisfaction, as the order of detention has been allegedly passed by the government, the respondents were directed by the court to produce the record pertaining to the detention of the detenu. they were required to produce the record in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 1992 (HC)

Smt. Kanta Rani Vs. Som Nath

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Jun-04-1992

m.l. koul, j.1. this civil second appeal owes is origin to civil suit no. 36 of 1973 on the file of learned sub-registrar, jammu,who on the trial of the suit filed by the appellant smt. kanta rani 'here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff against the respondent som nath' here-in-after referred to as the defendant' in a suit for ejectment had held that there was no reasonable requirement proved by the plaintiff to occupy the suit shop, on the basis of personal necessity, and the defendant would have been placed in a dis-advantageous position in case a decree for ejectment was passed in favour of the plaintiff.2. in this regard, first appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in the court of learned sub-judge (c.j.m.) jammu, who concurrently upheld the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff had failed to prove her personal necessity, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.3. aggrieved of the said judgment and decree of the learned sub-judge (c.j.m.) jammu, dated 5-3-1981, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the courts below have committed an error in deciding that there was no reasonable necessity proved by the plaintiff to occupy the suit shop, and the finding of the trial court, and the first appellate court was perverse, for they have mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence produced by the parties. even on the grounds of plaintiffs requirement of the shop on the basis of her husband's inability to provide income for the family, the courts below have failed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1992 (HC)

Smt. Raj Bhatia Vs. Smt. Chander Kanta

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : May-12-1992

orderr.p. sethi, j.1. while deciding the preliminary issue, the trial court vide order impugned in this revision petition, held the suit to be maintainable and directed for recording of the plaintiffs evidence. the order impugned is stated to be contrary to law and not sustainable. 2. the facts giving rise to the filing of thepresent revision petition are : that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for ejectmenton 6-10-1985 which was withdrawn and afresh suit was filed on 25-8-1990 seekingeviction of the petitioner allegedly on identical grounds. the defendant pleaded that thesuit of the plaintiff was not maintainable inview of the provisions of order xxiii, the plaintiff had not reserved any right tofile a fresh suit on the same grounds. the trialcourt came to the conclusion that as the freshsuit has not been filed on the same cause ofaction, it was maintainable and could not bedismissed. 3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. order xxiii, rule 1, c.p.c. provides that at any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim and the court, if satisfied, that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there were other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, for the subject matter or part of the claim, grant him the permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon such part of the claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1992 (HC)

Mohammed Sadiq Bhat Vs. State of J. and K.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Apr-02-1992

Reported in : 1993CriLJ2722

orders.m. rizvi, j.1. by medium of this petition for a writ of habeas the detention of mohd. sadiq under section 8 of the j. & k. public safety act, hereinafter referred to as act, has been challenged on various grounds as enumerated therein.2. the petition was admitted to hearing on 20-6-1990. mr. panth govt. advocate, appeared for the respondent on 16-7-1990 and was directed to file the counter. he filed the counter very late on 26-4-1991. in the counter, the respondent has denied the allegations as made in the petition, but have admitted to have detained the detenu on 30-4-1990 under the provisions of the act.3. i have heard that learned counsel for the parties at length. mr. mansotra, was directed to produce the detention record, but he failed to do so.4. this petition can be decided on a sole ground that admittedly specific grounds of detention have not been furnished to the detenu, depriving him of his constitutional right to make a representation against his detention.5. in the grounds of detention it has been clearly stated that the specific grounds of detention were not furnished to the detenu so that the ongoing investigation of various cases is not hampered in any manner.6. in the counter also filed by the addl. chief secy. (home), it has been admitted that the specific grounds of detention were not furnished to the detenu. what specific grounds of detention have been withheld from the detenu has not been spelt out anywhere either in the grounds of detention, or in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1992 (HC)

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Pradeep Kumar Kapoor and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Mar-25-1992

order1. in a suit filed under order xxxvii, c.p.c. for the recovery of rs. 8,541.90 the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for the production of some cheques and specimen signatures card allegedly issued and signed by defendant no. 1. the application was rejected vide the order impugned herein mainly on the ground that as the plaintiff has failed to show any good ground for the non-production of documents at the earlier stage the prayer could not be allowed. it is submitted that the court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly requiring interference by this court.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. order xiii, rule 1, c.p.c. provides that the parties or their pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely. rule 2 of order xiii, however, provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof and the court receiving any such evidence shall record reasons for so doing. it is enjoined upon the parties to lay their documents before the court at the earliest possible opportunity. the rule is peremptory necessitating for production of the documents at the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1992 (HC)

Ram Lal Vs. Mahatma Darshan Amar Anand

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Jun-05-1992

orderb.a. khan, j.1. this revision petition raises ah interesting question how far is the court bound to decide an issue as a preliminary issue?2. petitioner is facing a suit for eviction. following two issues were framed by the trial court and treated as preliminary issues:i) whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit as the property belongs to the custodian? opd ii) whether the suit is not maintainable forlack of necessary parties? opd 3. subsequently, respondent-plaintiff filed an application praying that these two issues be not treated as preliminary issues. his application was allowed. petitioner is aggrieved of this and has filed this revision petition. he says that trial court should have treated these issues as legal issues and should have decided these as preliminary issues. this in short is controversy involved in the present petition.4. order xiv, c.p.c. deals with framing of issues in the suit and rule 2 is relevant for our purposes. it reads as under :--'2. where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined'.5. as would be seen, the provision confers a discretion on the court in the matter. whether to treat an issue as an issue of law and to try .....

Tag this Judgment!

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