Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.45 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) By Lrs. on 16 September, 1992
The
contention, therefore, that Hari Kishan Khosla's case cannot
be treated as a binding precedent since therein there is no
ratio but a conclusion without discussion, is not tenable
and devoid of force. In that view, it is not necessary to
discuss in extenso the effect of the decisions cited by Shri
Vaidyanathan.
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd,, Calcutta vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 11 December, 1962
In National Insurance co. Ltd., Calcutta vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India [1963 Supp.(2) SCR 9711 the
business of insurance carried on by the appellant was
nationalised under Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and
stood vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India on
and from September 1, 1956, The appointed day. The dispute
between the parties related to the compensation payable to
the appellant corporation of n such vesting and one of the
issues was whether interest was payable on such
compensation. There was no express provision for payment of
interest as the life insurance business vested in the life
Insurance corporation. The Tribunal had held that it had no
jurisdiction to award interest since there was no express
provision in the act. It was conceded during the hearing in
this Court that the corporation agreed to pay interest
awardable but the dispute was about the rate of interest,
the amount on which it is payable and the date from which it
should be given. Considering the contentions in that
background, this Court had held that the property remained
just where it was. The purchaser has the money in his pocket
and the seller has the estate vested in him but the
character changes in a court of equity; the seller becomes
the owner of the money and the purchaser becomes the owner f
the estate. On entering possession, the purchaser becomes
entitled to the rent but if he has not paid the price,
interest in equity is payable by him on the purchase price
which belongs to the seller.
Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. Etc vs National Fertilizers Corporation on 29 November, 1995
This distinction was
pointed out n catena of decisions including the one referred
by a Bench of three Judges in Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. v.
National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. &
ors.[(1996)2 SCC 71] . For parity of reasons, without
further discussion it was held that interest also was not
payable. We, therefore, respectfully agree with the ratio in
Harikishan khosla's case that the Act omitted to pay
solatium and interest , in addition to compensation. The
omission by the legislature, as stated earlier, is
deliberate.