SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Guj) 13

N.M.MIABHOY, M.U.SHAH
MULSHANKAR SOMNATH BY HIS HEIRS BAI SARASWATI – Appellant
Versus
AGENT,bharatkhand TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.S.NANAVATI, N.C.SHAH

N. M. MIABHOY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 15th September 1958 of the learned Joint Judge Ahmedabad in Compensation case No. 137 of 1958 arising under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereafter called the Act ). The case raises the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation between a landlord and his tenant. The facts which need be stated in order to dispose off the two appeals are as follows. The Government acquired 4363 square yards from out of survey No. 2 which measured 10164 square yards and 10252 square yards from out of survey No. 3 which measured 23716 square yards. The total amount of compensation which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the aforesaid two areas was Rs. 1 4 877 paise. Two sets of parties laid claim to the aforesaid amount of compensation. One was the Bharatkhand Textile Manufacturing Company Limited Ahmedabad. Admittedly that Company was the lessee of the two survey numbers. The lease deeds under which the company claimed title as a lessee are Exs. 27 and 28 both dated 7th July 1930 and both drawn up in identical terms except in regard to the stipulation regarding the amount of r












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top