Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Maimuma Banu And Ors on 5 August, 2003

Bhagwat S/O Nathu Patil vs Unknown on 2 September, 2008

. It is thus, clear that interest on delayed rental compensation is also payable, but the same is fixed at the rate of 6% and from 1/4/2000. The Supreme Court took the approach as many land owners approached the Court after considerable lapse of time. In our opinion, therefore, the interest on unpaid rental compensation, would be payable at the rate of 6% and that would be from 1/4/2000. It is true that we have not fixed any cut off period for payment of interest in the Judgment of Dinkar Sandipan Gholve, supra, the same is fixed now, considering the Judgment of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:49:13 ::: 26 Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v/s Maimuma Banu.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Deputy General Manager Oil & Natural Gas vs Heirs Of Decd.Kalaji Jalamji & on 7 March, 2017

18.Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia has submitted that as the Respondents claimants have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the land for the yield, the interest may be awarded @ 9% which would be just and proper. However, as the provisions does not specify regarding the payment of interest and at the same time the Respondents claimants have been deprived of their right to use and enjoy the land even during the period of temporary acquisition, it would entitle them for the interest. Even in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Maimuma Banu and Ors. (supra), the interest has been awarded @ 6%. Therefore the interest awarded Page 17 of 18 HC-NIC Page 17 of 18 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:57:30 IST 2017 C/FA/1947/2004 JUDGMENT shall stand reduced and modified to the extent of 6% instead of 12%.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Kazi Akiloddin Sujaoddin vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 3 July, 2013

12. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant applied to the 3rd respondent for grant of rental compensation on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court by its order dated 2nd August, 2008. As no reply was received by the appellant he filed a Writ Petition No.2763/2009 before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. The said writ petition was disposed of on 6th July, 2009 recording the statement of the Assistant Government Pleader that the application of the appellant would be decided on merits at the earliest. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent on consideration of the said application, by his letter dated 5th October, 2009 rejected the prayer on the ground that the order of Reference Court was under challenge before the High Court. Against the order of rejection the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.3883/2010, before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, 4th respondent filed an affidavit assailing the order passed by Reference Court. According to the appellant, there is no statement made in the said reply that the appellant was not entitled for enhanced rental compensation on the basis of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The High Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 5th October, 2010 referring to the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Maimuma Banu and others, (2003) 7 SCC 448. As the Division Bench ordered to pay enhanced rental compensation to the appellant as per award passed by the Reference Court, the respondents filed a review petition for recalling the order dated 5th October, 2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer Irrigation ... vs Mahadev Baswantrao Bidwe And Ors on 1 February, 2017

In the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Maimuma Banu and others (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been specifically observed in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment that the rental compensation is not relatable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the claimants are entitled to claim such compensation on the basis of the Government Resolutions. It is further observed in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment that the provisions of the Act of 1894 do not provide for payment of any rental compensation and such rental compensation does not have its source under the said Act, 1894. If that be so, the respondents were entitled to claim rental compensation in pursuance of the above referred Government Resolutions by approaching Civil Court. Since the rental compensation was not relatable to the Act of 1894, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for rental compensation, can not be accepted.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharda Rajendra Gaikwad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 January, 2019

8. In the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has considered the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. It is observed that though under the scheme, there is no provision to make payment of interest on rental compensation, the concerned authority the acquiring body is liable to make payment of interest. Those observations can be found in paragraphs Nos. 10 ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 23:42:16 ::: 5 wp7783.14 (J) and 11 of the case decided in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Maimuma Banu and others (cited supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T V Nalawade - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs Moghiben Wd/O. Jamtaji on 17 July, 2013

5. Learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the decision of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Maimuma Banu and others (supra) particularly paras 9, 10 and 11, and would contend that the Hon ble Supreme Court acknowledged, on equity, the grant of 6% of interest under the rental compensation. While making the said submission, it appears that the learned counsel lost the attention of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that for the period subsequent to temporary acquisition, until the land was retained, the respondent has been compensated by payment of interest at the rate of 9% on the rental compensation fixed in the award. In this view of the matter, even the equitable aspect has been considered by the applicant, and in that view of the matter, no orders as in above case are necessary.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G R Udhwani - Full Document

Building vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 2011

Maimuna Banu and others (supra), the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:01 ::: 32 Hon'ble Two Judges have considered the grievance of similar placed landowners. Possession was taken by private negotiations. Facts mentioned in paragraph no.3 show that there non-payment of rental compensation within time prescription indicated in the resolution amounted to deprivation of valuable property and in paragraph no.8 it is noted that the Act does not provide for payment of any rental compensation. In paragraph no.9 it was found illogical and improper to turn a nelson's eye to the factual position and the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that in most of the cases, rental compensation was not paid.
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next