Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1991 Supreme(SC) 68

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : N.M.Kasliwal
State Of Kerala
Versus
Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited
Case No. : 4109 of 1984
Date of Decision : 2/7/91
Advocates Appeared: Balakrishnan S. : Francis V.J. : Ganesh S. : Iyer G.Vishwanatha : Joseph Joy : Krishnan Baby : Nambiar K.R. : Nariman F.S. : Parasaran K. : Pillai P.K. : Sukumaran S. : Varma A.K. : Verma A.K.

Advocates:
A.K.VERMA, BABY KRISHNAN, F.S.NARIMAN, G.VISHVANATHA IYER, JOY JOSEPH, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.R.NAMBIAR, P.K.PALLI, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.GANESH RAO, S.SUKUMARAN, V.J.Francis

The court held that timber planted by a grantee within a concession area is subject to charges, rejecting the contention that such timber is exempt from such levies.

Headnote:(A) Concession Area - Charges on timber - Contention that timber planted by the grantee in the concession area cannot be charged - Court disagreed with the contention. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the levy of charges on timber within a concession area. The respondent contended that timber planted by the grantee in the said area should be exempt from such charges.

Findings of Court:
The court rejected the respondent's contention that timber planted by the grantee in the concession area cannot be charged.

Issues: Whether charges can be levied on timber planted by a grantee in a concession area.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the argument for exemption of timber planted by the grantee in the concession area from charges is untenable, following the precedent established in a related matter.

Result: Appeal allowed. Suit dismissed with costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Dispute concerning the liability for charges on timber planted by a grantee within a concession area. (Para 1 )

2. Contention that timber planted by a grantee in a concession area is not subject to charges. (Para 1 )

3. The court rejected the contention regarding timber charges, deciding the matter consistently with a related appeal. (Para 1 )

4. Timber planted by a grantee in a concession area is subject to charges based on the reasoning in related precedents. (Para 1 )

5. Appeal allowed and respondent's suit dismissed with costs. (Para 1 )

6. Whether timber planted by a grantee in a concession area can be charged?

Yes, the court held that timber planted by a grantee in a concession area can be charged, rejecting the contention that such timber is exempt from charges. (Para 1 )

(1) WE have today pronounced judgment in State of Kerala v. Kanan Devon Hills Produce Co. Ltd For the reasons given in the said appeal this appeal has to be allowed. Mr Nariman. learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company raised an additional point in this appeal. He contended that Kuttikanam cannot, in any case, be charged in respect of such timber which was planted by the grantee in the Concession Area. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was decreed by following the judgment of the Kerala High court from which civil no. 1277 of 1979 arose. This appeal has to be dealt with in the same manner as civil no. 1277 of 1979. We allow the appeal with costs. The suit of the respondent is dismissed with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 5,000.00.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document