Kerala Court May 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.M. Mathen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR459(Ker)
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The questions of law referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, on a direction given by this court in O.P. No. 2755 of 1975 are the following :--' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the Explanation to Section 271, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,000 levied under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessment appeal given after the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's penalty order cannot be considered for deciding the penalty appeal ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not committed any fraud, gross or wilful neglect is based on valid materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ' 2. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Vs. Hassan Koye
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1996
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Our learned brother, Bhat, J. doubted the correctness of the decision reported in Abdul Rahimankutty v. Aysha Beevi : AIR1960Ker101 . He referred the matter for the decision of a Division Bench. Accordingly these cases come up before us.2. An interesting and to some extent hitherto not very well indagated question in Muhammadan Law arises in these cases. Whether the marriage of a Muhammadan male with a muhammadan female pregnant through some unknown person is valid, void or irregular? A subsidiary question that has to be answered is whether the Muslims of Malabar area or for that matter any part of the State are presumed to follow Hanafi Law or Shafie Law.3. To make the case intelligible it is desirable to call attention to the brief facts. These are the facts. Cri. R.P. No. 278 of 1981 is by a wife in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cri. P.C. She was married to the respondent and she gave birth to a child. The respondent divorced the petitioner. He neglec...
Tag this Judgment!Kunju Moideen Vs. Sayed Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker48
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. 208 of 1975 of the Munsiffs Court, Palai, is the appellant. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the respondents. The plaintiff agreed to give his daughter in marriage to the second respondent. He intended to purchase an item of his property in the name of his daughter and the 2nd respondent. A sum of Rs. 3001/- was paid to the 3rd defendant through the 1st defendant. The marriage did not take place. The respondents did not return the amount of Rs. 3001/-, which was obtained from theplaintiff. The suit was laid for the recovery of the said Rs. 3001/- with interest from 14-2-1975. Respondents denied receipt of the amount. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable to recover the amount, since it was dowry coming within the purview of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The courts below concurrently found that respondents 1 and 2 received the amount. The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, found th...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Mani and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker86
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Seventeen Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India are the petitioners in this Original Petition. They seek to avoid Ext. P2 order of the Government of India and Ext. P3 Regulation issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, both on the same day viz., 19-12-1978. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, was amended by Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1 of 1981, incorporating Exts. P2 and P3 as rules under Section 48(2)(cc) of the Act, Petitioners therefore challenge the validity of Act 1 of 1981 also.2. The Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Life Insurance business ofabout 243 companies was nationalised with effect from 1-9-1956 under the above enactment, which replaced its predecessor Ordinance. Chapter IV of the Act consists of Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!immanuel Paul Chakkola Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas399(Ker); [1986(52)FLR5]; (1987)IILLJ198Ker
Sukumaran, J. 1. The two writ petitions seeking various reliefs are filed by the employees of two banks, the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. A threshold question arises in both the cases. That is about the maintainability of the writ petition itself as against the banks. Do the banks answer the definition of a State or authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, and are they, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction ?2. Sri K.M. Joseph argued the matter with considerable force, supported by a thorough and detailed study of the working of the banking institutions and the developments in the constitutional law. In one sense, it might require devoting considerable space for adverting to his very elaborate arguments, abundance of factual materials and the long passages from the case-law to which reference had been made to him. A compression of the salient aspects is, however, attempted inasmuch as the law on the point is encapsulated by the authoritative de...
Tag this Judgment!Mani J. Meenattoor Vs. Mrs. Amy Homi Colabwalla and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker149
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. To decide the two questions raised by defendant-appellant 1, it is unnecessary to state the facts of the case in detail. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:2. Defendant 2 entered into an agreement with the deceased' plain tiff 1 for the purchase of 1103.86 acres of private forest in South Wynad Taluk known as the Valiya Para Estate. The agreement provided for the sale of the land to defendant 2 or his nominees. Defendant 1 as per Ext. Al sale deed dt. 6-7-1968 purchased 490.98 acres of land from the plaintiff as advised by defendant 2 for a price fixed at Rs. 100,000/-to wards which a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was paid on the date of sale and the balance Rs. 62,000/-was to be paid within six months thereafter. Defendant 1 was put in possession of the land on the date of Ext Al itself. The period of six months fixed in Ext. Al for payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 62,000/- expired on 6-1-1969. The plaintiff issued Ext. A2 n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›