Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)K.S.E.B. vs Cheriyan Varghese And Ors. on 10 February, 1989
In K. Section E. B. v. Cheriyan Varghese, 1989(1) Ker LT 451: (AIR 1989 Ker 198), this specific question came up for consideration of a Division Bench. It was held as follows (at p. 208 of AIR):--
Section 51 in The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Section 42 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Kerala State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Varghese Thomas And Ors. on 24 January, 1961
In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Varghese Thomas, 1961 Ker LT 238 : (AIR 1961 Ker 237), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider in detail the basis of quantification of compensation for destruction of fruit bearing or yielding or income producing trees standing on the land through which electric supply lines were drawn. This Court took the view that it is not the rule of capitalisation that has to be followed, but, on the other hand, compensation has to be fixed as the present value of an annuity which gives a return at the rate of 5% per annum. The reason for rejecting the method of capitalisation was that such method 'fails to take note of what is so obvious, that the tree would cease to be productive after a certain number of years and yet, what is paid, amounts to investment of capital, yielding what is the equivalent of the net annual rental, in perpetuity'.
Section 79 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980
In M. Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. v. The Coffee Board, Bangalore, AIR 1981 SC 162, it was clarified that the principle of mitigation of loss does not give any right to the party who is in breach of the contract but it is a concept that has to be borne in mind while awarding damages.
Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar vs Hindusthan Building Society Ltd. on 1 September, 1959
But a contrary view has been taken by the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay in Sundaram Chettar v. Chokalaingam Chettar, AIR 1938 Mad 672, Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar v. Hindustan Building Society, AIR I960 Cal 214 and K.G. Hira Nandani v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co., AIR 1969 Bom 373 : (1969 Lab IC 1324).