Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu marriges validation of proceedings act 1960 Court: kerala Year: 2001

Jan 05 2001 (HC)

Musthafa Ummer and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-05-2001

Reported in : [2001]248ITR436(Ker)

..... authority exercising pre-emptive powers of purchase under section 269ud of the income-tax act, 1961, are under challenge. the validity and propriety of exhibits p-7, p-9, p-9(a) and exhibit p-11 as also the further proceedings pursuant thereto are questioned in this original petition filed by the power of attorney ..... they had been given an opportunity for hearing, but it appears that the first respondent had proceeded with the proposal and passed an order for preemptive purchase in exercise of the powers under section 269ud of the act. exhibit p-9 is the said order. the petitioners had made a further representation to the ..... 3, 1999, requiring the delivery of possession of the property. the original petition has been filed at this juncture.7. the petitioners submit that the proceedings issued by the first respondent were illegal and unwarranted. the main contention is that the orders suffer from errors apparent on the face of the records ..... that the case was covered by the decision of the supreme court in c.b. gautam v. union of india : [1993]199itr530(sc) . the proceedings also referred to an inference of a presumption that undervaluation had been done with a view to evade tax.11. it is found that the representation submitted by ..... and the consideration wasshown as issue of 6,69,910 shares of rs. 10 each of palm court hotels (p.) ltd. exhibit p-8 further proceeded to say that though the property is situated in cochin city, it was lying on a by-lane which connects chitoor road to m. g. road .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 2001 (HC)

Augustine P.L. Vs. Secretary, Labour and Rehabilitation Department

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-14-2001

Reported in : (2002)ILLJ51Ker

..... the second respondent has a statutory obligation to entertain ext. p1 petition. if a workman or an employee having valid grievances raised a dispute before a statutory authority, the authority has a legal obligation to look into it and proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions. the second respondent ought to have realised the fact that the question whether the ..... regarding the illegal termination of his service, before the second respondent- district labour officer, ernakulam, under section 12 of the industrial disputes act. that petition is produced as ext. p1. but instead of initiating conciliation proceedings with regard to ext. p1 petition, the second respondent issued a letter to the petitioner informing that the petitioner can filea claim petition ..... of 1999. petitioner is the appellant. the original petition was filed for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to proceed with ext. p1 petition submitted by the petitioner under section 12 of the industrial disputes act and for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash ext. p2 letter issued by the second respondent ..... petitioner. the petitioner continued his work till april 21, 1998. according to the petitioner, the third respondent firm is an industry coming within the definition of the industrial disputes act.3. according to the petitioner, the third respondent denied employment to the petitioner without any reasons. it is further stated that the third respondent denied his wages for the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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