Kerala Court April 1985 Judgments
Mary Teresa Dias Vs. the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker245
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The petitioner, an Advocate, enrolled in 1964 was a junior Government Pleader in the High Court from 1974 to 1976 and now holds the post of the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Ernakulam from 21-2-1984. She is an Anglo Indian belonging to the Latin Catholic community. She was one of the applicants for the post of a District Judge and her name was, however, not recommended by the High Court to the Government, though the panel of names submitted included fourteen names. The selection was based on an interview conducted by three senior Judges of this Court. The petitioner contends that hosed on her performance at the interview, she was awarded very high marks to merit her inclusion within the first five and thus she was entitled to be selected on merit. But still her name was not recommended, even though the selection committee found 15 persons including herself 'eligible for consideration'. The majority of the committee held that the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas590(Ker); (1986)55CTR(Ker)92; [1985]155ITR510(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. A Division Bench of this court has doubted the correctness of the decision in ITO v. Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P.) Ltd. : [1982]134ITR132(Ker) and that is why this case has come up before a Full Bench.2. The Palai Cental Bank Ltd. (In liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the company), was assessed to income-tax for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, allowing permissible deduction to the extent only of Rs. 7,500 for each year as against the claim of the official liquidator for much larger deductions. In appeal by the official liquidator, the AAC allowed the deductions claimed and the taxable income of the company in liquidation was reduced considerably. In further appeal, at the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders of the AAC and allowed deduction to the extent of Rs. 10,000 for each year. Fresh demands were made by the ITO for payment of the tax assessed in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal and the en...
Tag this Judgment!Manmadhan Vs. Krishnappan Unni
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ63Ker
Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 35 of 1978, Additional Sub Court, Alleppey, is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the sole respondent. The suit was filed for recovery of money on a dishonoured cheque. On 18th June, 1976 the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 13,179/-, which he had with him to the defendant. For the due repayment of the amount, the defendant issued a cheque on the same day for the said amount. Later, on the same day, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he would be getting a sum of Rs. 23,000/-on 10th September, 1976 and requested the plaintiff to present the cheque thereafter. On 12th September, 1976 the plaintiff presented the cheque before the bank. It was returned, since no funds were available to the credit of the defendant. After giving oral notice of dishonour to the defendant, the plaintiff filed a complaint before the criminal court. It was dismissed, stating that the remedy...
Tag this Judgment!Edakkavil Karimbuvalappil Abdulkhader Haji Vs. Thalakkal Kunhammad and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker3
Narendran, J.1. Questions of considerable importance in the law of Arbitration arise for consideration in this case. The questions are : (1) Whether the dismissal by court of an original petition by the Arbitrator under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to enlarge the time for making the Award, will amount to 'superseding an arbitration' and whether an appeal will lie under Section 39 of the Act from the order of dismissal; (2) whether the Arbitrator can file an appeal from an order of the Court refusing to enlarge the time for making the Award; and (3) when the Arbitrator dies pending the appeal can any of the parties to the Arbitration agreement get himself transposed as the appellant. A question whether an Award passed in violation of an injunction restraining the Arbitrator from passing an Award has to be ignored also arises in the case.2. This appeal was filed by the Arbitrator against the order of the Court below dismissing his original petition for enlargement of time for ...
Tag this Judgment!Kochira Krishnan Vs. Joseph Desouza
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker63
Sukumaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against ah order of the Court below by which an application, LA. No. 160 of 1985 for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code against the respondent therein had been dismissed by the Court in the light of the disposal of the appeal itself.2. The present proceedings had their origin in a suit for injunction instituted by a kudikidappukaran against the landowner. According to the kudikidappukaran he was entitled to purchase 10 cents of land. Initially his application had been allowed. It is unnecessary to refer to the subsequent and somewhat strange happenings before the authorities under the Land Reforms Act, including the mystery involved in the disappearance of the files before the Land Tribunal. (The fact that no superior authorities have paid any attention to the disappearance of Government files is itself a disturbing feature). The extent which could be purchased by the kudikidappukaran is an issue now pending considera...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Construction Co. Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker142
Balakrishna Menon J.1. This reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 55(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act (the Act for short) is for decision on the question of the proper stamp duty payable on a documentproduced by the Hindustan Construction Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) before the District Collector, Idukki for determination of stamp duty under Section 31 of the Act. The Deputy Collector (General), Idukki who is vested with the powers of the Collector under the Act, referred the case to the Board of Revenue under Section 54(2) of the Act expressing his opinion that the document is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 6(2) of the Schedule of the Act. The Board took the view that the document in question is a mortgage deed liable to stamp duty under Article 37(b) of the Schedule of the Act, and declined the Company's prayer to refer the case for decision by this Court. In O. P. No. 1393 of 1980-N filed by the Company, a learned Judge of this Court by judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue, Kerala Vs. Hindustan Construction Co., Bombay
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker286
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This reference by 'the Board of Revenue under Section 55(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act (the Act for short) is for decision on the question of the proper stamp duty payable on a document produced by the Hindustan Construction Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) before the District Collector, Idukki for determination of stamp duty under Section 31 of the Act. The Deputy Collector (General) Idukki who is vested with the powers of the Collector under the Act, referred the case to the Board of Revenue under Section 54(2) of the Act expressing his opinion that the document is chargeable to stamp duly under Article 6(2) of the Sch. of the Act. The Board took the view that the document in question is a mortgage deed liable to stamp duty under Article 37(b) of the Schedule of the Act, and declined the Company's prayer to refer the case for decision by this Court. In O.P. No. 1393 of 1980 filed by the Company, a learned Judge of this Court by judgment dt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.P. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR467(Ker)
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench, has referred to this court, the following question of law which is said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I.T.A. No. 54 (Coch)/76-77, dated October 12, 1978, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty had to be levied with reference to return filed on December 31, 1965, notwithstanding the fact that in the return filed on January 5, 1970, the assessee had returned as total income only the income as originally assessed of Rs. 49,710 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. For the accounting year ending with March 31, 1965 (for the assessment year 1965-66), the assessee-firm filed a return on December 31, 1965, showing an income of Rs. 33,979. The assessment was completed on June 13, 1966, on an income of Rs. 49,710. Annexure 'A' is the copy of this order of assessment. In...
Tag this Judgment!Vayalele Veettil Balakrishna Nambiar Vs. R. Madhavan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ109
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner and his sister Madhavi Amma (grandmother of the respondent) are residing in house No.C.P.3/48 in Cherukunnu Panchayat. Respondent is residing at Cannanore and he is not having any right over the above building. There is some existing dispute between the petitioner and Madhavi Amrria regarding title and possession over the abovesaid building and the land. In that connection some civil suit is also pending.2. A tree standing close to the building is alleged to be in such a condition as to attract the provisions of Section 133(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'. On the basis of an information received, by a petition filed by the respondent, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for reports from the Police as well as the concerned revenue authorities. On getting satisfaction that the conditions contemplated under Section 133(1)(d) exist, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order and issued no...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC5
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to afford a paternal or supervisory power to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, lack of proper precautions, etc., which has resulted in some injury or undeserved hardship. To appeal is a statutory right. But that is not the case with revisional jurisdiction. In revisional jurisdiction, it is for the Court to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some real substantial injustice has been done. Violation of fundamental rules in the matter of appreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice is one of the instances where the High Court is justified in interfering for the purpose of revising the decision of a subordinate court in order to correct the injustics that has happened. If a particular fact is decided totally in the absence of evidence or misconstruing the evidence on record totally, the High Court may be justified in interfering. At the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »