Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.86 seconds)
Documents citing Arya Antherjanam vs Kerala State Electricity Board, ... on 5 January, 1996

M.Mohamad Kaja Maideen vs The Chairman on 19 September, 2019

A reading of the dictum laid down in the above judgments would show that once the powers are conferred upon the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not apply and hence, in my considered opinion, the prior consent of the owners of the land is not mandatory for the Board to enter into the lands for the purpose of placing the http://www.judis.nic.in 11/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 electricity line or electricity poles for the transmission of electricity.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Vinod And Ors vs Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. And ... on 24 February, 2023

28. There is no doubt that due to erection of towers and passing of high tension wires, there might be a diminution in the value of the lands of the petitioners. Admittedly, there was no compensation assessed or paid by the respondents to any of the petitioners, either for erecting the tower or drawing of wires in the lands of the petitioners and held that due to drawing of high tension wires in the lands of the petitioners and erecting of towers, there would be diminution of value of the lands, as such, the petitioners are entitled for damages. Reliance can be placed upon the dictums of the Kerala High Court in the case of Arya Antherajnam v. Kerala Electricity Board, Trivendrum, reported at AIR 1996 Kerala 309 and in the case of Kerala Electricity Board v. Cheriyan Varghese and others, reported in AIR 1989 Kerala 198.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prema V. Shetty And 3 Ors vs Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 26 September, 2023

33. The learned Arbitrator for the purpose of considering on whom the duty to prove mitigation of loss lies has relied upon various decisions reproduced in Paragraph 74, 75 and 76 of the Arbitral Award. Further, I find from the decisions relied upon both on behalf of the Petitioners and Respondent that there are conflicting views taken with regard to the onus of proof of mitigation of loss. This has also been noted in the decision of Kerala High Court in Arya Autherjanam (supra) relied upon behalf of the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

T.S.T.Kaznavi vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 January, 2008

23. While construing the provision of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, along with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, a Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Arya Antherjanam vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandraum (AIR 1996 Kerala 309 (FB)) held that in respect of cutting of trees for the purpose of erecting transmission lines, the land owners are entitled to claim compensation for diminution in market value of the property. The Full Bench has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 40 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Tony Abraham vs The Superintending Engineer on 11 April, 2011

"23. While construing the provision of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, along with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, a Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Arya Antherjanam vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandraum (AIR 1996 Kerala 309 (FB)) held that in respect of cutting of trees for the purpose of erecting transmission lines, the land owners are entitled to claim compensation for diminution in market value of the property. The Full Bench has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - B Rajendran - Full Document

S.A.Hakim vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2015

A reading of the dictum laid down in the above judgments would show that once the powers are conferred upon the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not apply and hence, in my considered opinion, the prior consent of the owners of the land is not mandatory for the Board to enter into the lands for the purpose of placing the electricity line or electricity poles for the transmission of electricity.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Radhey Shyam Gupta vs Tpddl on 8 February, 2024

40. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW­1/23 being the circle rates in Delhi w.e.f. 05.12.2012 vide notification No.F.1(152)/Regn.Br./Div.Com./HQ/2011/ 780 dated 04.12.2012 to show as to the prevailing circle rates of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property falls in the category F and the minimum rate for valuation of land for residential purposes per sq. meter is Rs.47,200/­. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as prayed for at the rate of Rs.50,000/­ per month. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the observation made in the judgment as relied upon by the plaintiff himself i.e. Arya Antherjanam v. Kerala State Electricity Board (AIR 1996 KERALA 309) wherein it was held:­ CS No.31798/2014 Pg 35 of 38 Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited In K.S.E.B. v. Cheriyan Varghese 1989 (1) Ker LT 451, this specific question came up for consideration of a Division Bench. It was held as follows (at p.208 of AIR):­ "16. We are clearly of the view that apart from the compensation for the damage done by the cutting of trees, the owner of the land is also entitled to compensation for any diminution in the value of the land that he has suffered for the reason of the drawal of overhead powerlines across his land. The diminution is value is to be determined with reference to the market value of land without trees before and after the drawal of lines."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next