Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975

M. Sadasivan Nair vs S. Rajamma on 5 February, 2002

Indeed, according to Shri Parasaran an appellate court should interfere with the judgment under appeal not because it is not right, but when it is shown to be wrong, as observed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras (1975) 2 SCC 730. As to this observation, the contention of Shri Vaidyanathan is that what was stated therein was meant to apply when this Court examines a matter under Article 136. We do not, however, think if this meaning can be ascribed to what was observed.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajee vs Baburao on 11 August, 1995

Indeed, according to Shri Parasaran an Appellate Court should interfere with the judgment under appeal not because it is not right, but when it is shown to be wrong, as observed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras . As to this observation, the contention of Shri Vaidyanathan is that what was stated therein was meant to apply when this Court examined a matter under Art. 136. We do not, however, think if this meaning can be ascribed to what was observed.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajee vs Baburao on 11 August, 1995

Indeed, according to Shri Parasaran an appellate court should interfere with the judgment under appeal not because it is not right, but when it is shown to be wrong, as observed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras . As to this observation, the contention of Shri Vaidyanathan is that what was stated therein was meant to apply when this Court examines a matter under Article 136. We do not, however, think if this meaning can be ascribed to what was observed.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sagar Builders vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2020

14. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in {(1975) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES – 730} (THE DOLLAR COMPANY, MADRAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS), cannot be countenanced for the reason that purchase by the land owner in that case was very recent to the date of 4 (1) Notification. In the case on hand, sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellants, in the year 1997, whereas the acquisition was in the year 2002. It appears that developments which have taken place very recently. From the records, we could see that certainly there are some developments which have taken place. Secondly, as stated http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 A.S.812 of 2009 earlier, even the land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration of the said data sale deed which is of a plot. In fact, most of the sale deeds rejected and approved by the Land Acquisition Officer are only for a very small extent. These factors by themselves would clearly show the potential value of the land. We also note that no such plea has been raised on behalf of the respondents by placing reliance upon the sale deeds of the appellants and in fact, valuation has been fixed based upon the data sale deeds taken by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Krishna Oil Mills on 6 February, 1998

"14................ Though the appellate court is within its right to take a different view on a question of fact, that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at the finding in question............. The appellate court should interfere with the judgment under appeal not because it is not right, but when it is shown to be wrong, as observed by three Judge Bench of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras .................
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lanco Packers And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 24 December, 1997

"............. though the appellate court is within its right to take a different view on a question of fact, that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial Judge in arriving at the finding in question............an appellate court should interfere with the judgment under appeal not because it is not right, but when it is shown to be wrong, as observed by three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras .............."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corp. Ltd vs Khan Chand Bajaj & Anr on 18 December, 2019

The same view was taken by the Three Juges Bench in 'Dollar Company Vs. Collector of Madras', (1975) 2 SCC730, wherein it was held that the market value is the price what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing vendor, which 93 of 102 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2019 04:52:33 ::: RFA No.2517 of 2011 and other connected appeals -94- is to be assessed on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 9 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ranbir Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 31 January, 2020

39. The principle of the potentiality of the land was settled way- back by the Apex Court in 'Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras' 1975 (2) SCC 730, wherein it was held that the market value was to be judged on the principle of what a willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor and the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the property of a recent date. Proximity to the highways and reference to piece of land sold would serve as a guide for fixing the value of the acquired land, which were factors which were necessary to be kept in mind.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next