Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing R. Sivagnanam And Anr. vs Everest Boarding And Lodging By Its ... on 2 February, 1968

Voora Mahalakshmamma vs C. Veera Reddy on 18 February, 1994

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent as the ruling of the above case will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The above ruling deals with a case in which some portion of the building namely first, second and third floor were outside the purview of the Act and the entire market value of the site on which the ground floor stood, should be taken into account in fixing cost of the building. In the instant case, it is admitted that the ground floor was constructed 25 years back and the first floor was constructed in August, 1978. For assessing the market value of the building, as the building in the instant case is the first floor, the cost of construction of the first floor alone has to be taken into consideration as per the definition "building" which includes part of a building.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

R. Subbarajulu vs Sulaiman, Proprietor Of Naaz Dry ... on 18 September, 1981

In the case reported in R. Sivagnanam and Anr. v. Everest Boarding and Lodging by its Managing Partner, R. Manoharan (1969) 1 M.L.J. 101, a single Judge of this Court observed that there is nothing in the Act which requires the assignment of the entire land cost to the ground floor alone. The appellate authority in this case observed that there is an upstairs for the premises but no deduction need be made from the cost of the land since the value of the building is not taken into consideration. The reasoning given by the appellate authority for not taking into consideration the cost of constmction of the building and for not taking into consideration the existence of the upstairs in arriving at the value of the site are not correct. T Fence the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained and the same will have to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Voora Mahalakshmamma vs C. Veera Reddy on 18 January, 1994

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent as the ruling of the above case will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The above ruling deals with a case in which some portion of the building namely first, second and third floor were outside the purview of the Act and the entire market value of the site on which the ground floor stood should be taken into account in fixing cost of the building. In the instant case, it is admitted that the ground floor was constructed 25 years back and the first floor was constructed in August, 1978. For assessing the market value of the building, as the building in the instant cast is the first floor, the cost of construction of the first floor alone has to be taken into consideration as per the definition "building" which includes part of a building.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1