Kerala Court January 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Parvathy Antherjanam and anr. Vs. Indian Bank, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker159
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This is an appeal arising from execution proceeding in O.S. No. 252/ 82 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. The appellants are the petitioners-jugment-debtors in Execution R.A. 12/89. The respondent is the assignee-decree-holder. The original decree-holder is the Bank of Thanjavoor Limited which was later amalgamated with Indian Bank with effect from 20-2-1990. The decree was assigned to the Indian Bank thereafter.2. In O.S. No. 252/82 a decree has been passed for realisation of Rs. 75,774/ - together with interest. The defendants 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid amount. In execution proceeding the decree-holder filed an application for attachment of 8 items of immovable properties belonging to the original judgment-debtors 1 to 5. That application was allowed. The 5th judgment-debtor in the meanwhile died and his legal heirs were impleaded as judgment-debtors 6 to 11.3. The contention raised by the 5th judgment-debtor was that he wa...
Arya Antherjanam Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker309
Usha, J.1. Orders passed by the District Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 are under challenge in these revision petitions. In C.R.P. Nos. 99, 191, 228, 306, 347 of 1994, 1358 and 2079 of 1995, the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'Board', challenges the quantum of compensation granted by the District Judge as excessive whereas in C.R.P. Nos. 2128 of 1991, 1153, 1468, 1497, 1582, 1620, 1726, 1947 and 2049 of i995 the complaint of the petitioners is that the compensation granted was inadequate. Apart from claiming enhanced compensation for destruction of trees standing on their property, the owners of the property claimed compensation for diminution in value of the land. When these revision petitions came up for admission before a learned single Judge, the Board took up a contention that dictum laid down by a decision of this Court in K.S.E.B. v. C...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. E.K. Andrew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas537(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O. P. No. 7316 of 1991, quashing exhibit P-8 order of the Union of India, the first appellant in this appeal. The second appellant is the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent is the writ petitioner, who challenged exhibit P-8 order rejecting an appeal filed under Section 36AA(3) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').2. The respondent was appointed as the Chairman, Bank of Cochin Limited (now merged with the State Bank of India) on June 18, 1979, initially for a period of two years. Later the appointment was extended from time to time, which was approved by the Reserve Bank of India. However, on November 18, 1982, the Reserve Bank of India issued a notice (exhibit P-1) to the petitioner under Section 36AA(2) of the Act to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the chairman of the bank, within a peri...
Dr. Sini Vs. B. Suresh Jyothi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker160
Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (H.M.A.) No. 398/95 filed before the Family Court, Trivandrum and she is also the respondent in O.P. 372/95 pending before the same Court. The appellant seeks that both these proceedings be transferred to Family Court, Kollam. The contention of the appellant is that the presiding Judge of the Family Court has passed certain comments adverse to the interest of the appellant and she apprehends that she will not got justice from the Court. The learned Single Judge held that no personal bias or ill-will is attributed against the presiding officer of the family Court and on the basis of flimsy ground the case cannot be transferred to another Court.2. We heard the appellant's counsel. The counsel contends that the opposite party had telephoned to the appellant's father that the husband would secure favourable orders from the family Court. It is to be noticed that the appellant had no case that the presiding officer of the family Cou...
A.K. Azad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR349(Ker)
N. Dhinakar, J.1. This original petition is to quash exhibit P-7 order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax refusing to waive a sum of Rs. 20,383 as interest on the assessed taxable amount. The petitioner's contention is that as he has obtained stay of the recovery, the authorities ought not to have levied interest on the taxable amount. Counsel appearing for the Department submits that the levy of interest is automatic and it is axiomatic and it does not depend upon the whims and wishes of the authority. In support of his contention, he relies upon Sub-section (2A) of Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows :'(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest paid or payable by an assessee under the said sub-section if he is satisfied that- (i) payment of such amount has caused of would cause genuine hardship to the assessee ; (ii) default in the payment of the amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›