Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing The Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The Collector Of Hailakandi on 13 December, 1996

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Ka Helimon Diengdoh And Anr. on 12 November, 2002

30. The land acquired was taken possession by the Collector on 6.2.1970 and the awarded amount of Rs. 23,71,097.60p was paid to the claimants/respondents on 22.1.1975 without interests. The claimant/ respondents are, therefore, entitled to an interest at 6% on the above amount as per provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Section 28 of the amended Act provides for payment of interest on the excess compensation. This section provides that the rate of interest shall be 9% for a period of 1 year from the date of taking over possession of the land acquired and if the amount is not paid with 1 year, the interest at the rate of 15% P.A. is payable as per law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Manipur Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi (supra). We, accordingly, award interest at the rate of 9% on the excess compensation with effect from 6.2.1970 for a period of 1 year and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the excess compensation is deposited in the court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - B Lamare - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Shri. Raja Zuga Joshi Deceased Through ... on 17 April, 2026

(b) In the judgment of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Hailakandi, (1997) 9 SCC 673, the Supreme Court held that it was for the claimants to prove as to what would be the reasonable compensation which the land is capable of fetching in the open market. The question would be whether the land under acquisition, if put to private sale in an open market, would be capable of securing ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:00 ::: KVM 23/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc the same price as offered by way of compensation under acquisition. Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Raja Zuga Joshi Since Deceased Thr Lr ... on 17 April, 2026

(b) In the judgment of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Hailakandi, (1997) 9 SCC 673, the Supreme Court held that it was for the claimants to prove as to what would be the reasonable compensation which the land is capable of fetching in the open market. The question would be whether the land under acquisition, if put to private sale in an open market, would be capable of securing ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 23/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc the same price as offered by way of compensation under acquisition. Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramdas vs State Of M.P. on 28 February, 2003

To bolster his submission the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of K.S. Paripoorana v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 581, Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2625, Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, AIR 1997 SC 1779 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kan-haiyalal, (2000) 7 SCC 756.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Singareni Collieries Company Limited vs Nookala Lingaiah And Ors. on 19 November, 2002

In Manipur Tea Company Private Limited v. Collector of Hailakandi, , the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 23 of the Act held that the sale statistics relied on by the LAO are not a proof unless persons connected with the sale deeds and the documents also made part of the record are examined. Therefore, the sale statistics cannot ipso facto form a basis to determine the compensation. The award based on sale statistics without examining the persons connected with those sale deeds cannot form the basis for determining the compensation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chander vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 29 July, 2005

The Division Bench considering the decisions of the Apex court in Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat ; Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi ; Womar Srinivas Kimi v. Rahul Lal Bhagwan Das and Co. ; Supdt of Taxes, Dhubri and Ors. v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust and considering the provisions made in Section 28 and 34 of the Act expressed the opinion that payment of interest is not a matter of lis or controversy between the claimants and the State. Section 28 of the Act is mandatory in character, which mandates payment of interest at the rates specified therein, as also the period for which it is to be paid. It is a legislative policy to pay interest to the claimants under Section 28 and 34 of the Act. There is absolutely no discretion left with the Collector or the Court in the matter of grant of interest. Considering these aspects the Division Bench pointed out that reference court proceeded to hold that the claimants were entitled to interest even for the period of stay. The court expressed an opinion that the award before the court is unassailable for the reason that it is a legislative mandate that the claimant must be paid interest at the specified rate for the period mentioned in Section 28 of the Act. In the aforesaid case with regard to entitlement of interest for the period during which the proceedings before the reference court remained stayed, reliance was placed by the Union of India to the order passed in four reference petitions and the order made by the Additional District Judge.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next