Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Kerala State Electricity Board vs C.P. Sivasankara Menon on 29 July, 2008

The Executive Engineer vs Ameensab on 16 July, 2013

In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, it is made clear that as and when HT lines are drawn on the properties and the compensation to affected land owners is to be determined by applying yield method, the Court below shall not apply the order impugned herein. The Court below, in future cases, shall apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. C.P. Sivasankara Menon, 2009 AIR SCW 388 and pass orders.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Doddakka on 6 August, 2014

16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in WP.39979/2013 14 the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs V S Somashekharaiah on 29 May, 2019

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as 4 (1997)2 SCC 693 -6- income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Sujatha - Full Document

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 29 May, 2019

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE 4 (1997)2 SCC 693 -6- ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Sujatha - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Sri.A.Venkateshreddy on 7 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District 7 Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs A P Manoharachar on 7 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri K R Divakar on 11 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS - (2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree 8 ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Hayathamma on 11 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived WP.52775/2013 8 as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs H Muddaiah on 11 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District WP.52780/2013 8 Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri K R Jayanna on 11 August, 2014

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document
1   2 3 Next