Kerala Court June 1995 Judgments
K. Balakrishnan Nair and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Ker)354; [1995]215ITR213(Ker)
N. DHINAKAR J. - This miscellaneous case is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 95 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The petitioners are the second and third accused in the said C.C. and that they are the partners of a firm, which is shown as the first accused in the said complaint. The proceedings against the petitioners and the firm were instituted for offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on an allegation that the first accused, namely, the firm, and the petitioners who are the partners of the said firm have made an attempt to evade tax for the assessment year 1988-89.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner of Income- tax, by his order dated November 3, 1992, accorded sanction of prosecutes the petitioners and that the Commissioner violated the principle of natural justice, in that he did not issue any notice to the petitioners and her them before the said sanction order was passed. In support of...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ781
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by the brother of the detenu T. P. Abdul Majeed. On 27-6-1992 T. P. Abdul Majeed (hereinafter referred to as detenu) arrived at the International. Airport, Trivandrum to receive Moidu, who was coming to Kerala from Dubai. Moidu paid customs duty for 3031.6 grams of gold at Rs. 66,695/-. The detenu was to receive Moidu to help him to convey the duty paid gold to Coimbatore as directed by one Shaffi. Moidu had concealed 2869 grams of gold in the form of two sheets, which were later on detected by the officials of the respondents. Relying on the statement of Moidu detenu was also arrested and his statement was obtained. Detenu has retracted from it later.2. Detenu was arrested on 26-6-1992 and he was later released on bail. On 17-2-1993, the Deputy Collector of Customs passed adjudication order (Ext. P4) dropping the proceedings against the detenu. In Ext. P4 the Deputy Collector arrived at the conclusion that the deten...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Mrs. Elizabeth Jacob and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas494(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The decree holder is the petitioner. It is a bank. The decree was one for recovery of money in enforcement of a mortgage. In execution the hypotheca was brought to sale. It was sold on June 15, 1987, for a sum of Rs. 20,001. The sale amount was not sufficient to discharge the decree debt. Judgment-debtor No. 1 and a stranger who claimed that the property had subsequently been agreed to be sold to her filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The sale amount and 5 per cent. thereof was deposited. The executing court set aside the sale on November 21, 1987. For the balance due under the decree, the decree holder filed E. P. No. 251 of 1991. The decree holder sought to attach the property of judgment-debtor No. 1 which had earlier been mortgaged and sold in enforcement of the mortgage decree. This was, on the basis that the property belonged to the judgment-debtor on the sale being set aside and since the property had not...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ160
K.T. Thomas, J.1. One Rajan Pillai, styling himself as 'a fugitive criminal', appeared in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 8-4-1995 and sought for bail. Learned Magistrate released him on 'interim bail' on certain conditions and proceeded to report to the Central Government of the surrender of that person (who would hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner). A learned Judge of this court, while holding sittings during mid-summer vacation, came to know of the order and called for the records of the case immediately for examining the records. Later the records were examined by another learned Judge who was holding sittings during the latter half of the midsummer vacation. Learned Judge, after expressing his own tentative opinion, referred the questions involved in the case to be considered by a larger Bench. This is how we are called upon to deal with the matter.2. We heard Shri M. Rethna Singh, learned Public Prosecutor (who is also the Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Suraiya S. Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4088
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. The petitioner has filed the habeas corpus petition for the release of her husband Shamshudeen (detenu) and to set him at liberty.2. On 12-5-1989 a person by name Shanavas landed at Trivandrum Air Port from Abu Dhabi. He had with him three bags which included a card board box. He did not have the baggage tag ticket for the said box. On the information given by him that the box belonged to his relative H.K. Shamshudeen (detenu) the card board box was opened in his presence and it was found that it continued 10 gold biscuits concealed at the bottom of the box. Statement was recorded from Shanavas to the effect that he carried the card board box at the instance of the detenue who is his brother-in-law's brother. Detenu stated that the gold under seizure was purchased by him and he concealed it and gave the same to his relative. On 13-5-1989 the detenu was arrested. Later he was released on bail. Though on 22-5-1989 the residence of Shanavas and detenu were searc...
Tag this Judgment!Vysya Bank Ltd., Ernakulam Vs. Kalapurakal Industries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker117
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant, the Vysya Bank Ltd., the original plaintiff, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in so far as the trial Court has granted relief of payment of decree amount in instalments. The question raised is whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to grant a decree for payment of the decree amount in instalments invoking Order 20, Rule 11, C.P.C. in the case of a mortgage decree. 2. The plaintiff-bank has instituted the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs.43,62,919/- together with interest from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of plaint schedule properties, whichincluded immovable properties. When the suit came up for final hearing before the trial Court on 18-6-1994, the defendants filed a statement withdrawing their contentions and agreed to decree the suit. But they requested the trial Court for payment of the decree debt in instalments. It was stated by the defendants that since the first def...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajagopalan Nair and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker389
ORDER1. This is a petition by five petitioners who are, in addition to being the members of the co-operative bank (Ayiroo-para Farmers Society Bank), elected members of the Board of Directors in pursuance of the election held on Feb. 13, 1994. Along with these five petitioners eight others were also elected to constitute what is known as the Board of Directors. They approached this court for a challenge to Ext . P1 which is an order of the joint Registrar of Co-operative Socieites, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No. 2) acting under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, proceeding to remove the Board of Directors in the said society and as a consequence appointing part time administrator, ostensibly for a period of three months, till the newly elected committee is in a position to take charge. There is no dispute that the Joint Registrar passed the impunged order (Ext. P1) on Feb. II, 1994 (Saturday) appointing the administrator in pursuance thereof almost only for ...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Shaji Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC101
Pareed Pillay, C.J. 1. Appellant filed the original petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order of the first respondent and also seeking for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to issue to him a duplicate certificate of registration in respect of his autorickshaw KL-8/B 9473. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition holding that Ext.P3 order does not warrant interference in view of the rival claim made by the second respondent.2. It has come on record that with respect to the vehicle in question there is an agreement of transfer dated 7th August, 1994 in favour of the 2nd respondent. As against the claim of the appellant for obtaining a duplicate registration certificate the 2nd respondent took up the stand that it cannot be issued to the appellant as the vehicle was already transferred to him. The 2nd respondent contended that on the strength of the agreement the original registration certificate was given to him by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sarasamma Vs. Vikraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC447
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. These two appeals were referred to the Division Bench by reference order dated 15.2.1994.2. A.S. 396 of 1985 arises out of the judgment in O.S. 554 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Trivandrum and A.S. 48 of 1985 is against the judgment in O.S. 1 / 82 in a probate proceeding on the file of District Court, Trivandrum. We shall first deal with the facts involved in A.S. 396/85. The suit O.S. No. 554/81 was filed by one Lakshmy Gomathy and her two children. There are two sets of defendants. Defendants 1 to 6 are Kunji Sarasamma and her children, Defendants 7 to 10 are one J. Madhavi and her children. In the appeal there is a triangular con test between the first defendant and the 7th defendant as to who is the real wife of one Rama Krishna Panicker, who was a driver in the K.S.R..T.C.3. Plaintiff-Lakshmy Gomathy and her children filed the suit alleging that they are the true legal heirs of deceased Ramakrishna Panicker. The main allegations in the plaint were to th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and ors. Vs. K. Kerala Varma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker138
Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. Appellants challenge the judgment in O.P. 7438 of 1994. The learned Judge allowed the Original Petition and quashed Exts. P8 and P9 notices issued by the Taluk Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Taluk Land Board has the power to review the decision taken by the State Land Board. Ext. P-5 is the order of the State Land Board dated 15-2-1972 determining the extent of the land the respondents have to surrender. It is many years thereafter that Exts. P8 and P9 notices were issued by the Taluk Land Board. That has been done by invoking the power under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.3. Contention of the appellants is that the learned Judge erred in holding that the Taluk Land Board has no power to initiate proceedings under Section 85(9A) in respect of an order passed by the State Land Board. It is contended that the powers under Section 85 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »