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

1961 Supreme(Ker) 15

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM, S.VELU PILLAI
Kerala State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Varghese Thomas – Respondent


Advocates:
C.M. Kuravilla, for Petitioner in CRP 143/60; George Vadakkel, for Petitioner in CRP 211/60; T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer and R.C. Plappilly, for Petitioner in CRP 263/60; N.K. Varkey and T.P. Varghese, for Petitioner in CRP 310/60; C.M. Kuravilla, N. Krishnaswami Iyer and K.V. Surianarayana Iyer, for Petitioner in CRP 369, 548, and 742/60; C. George, for Petitioner in CRP 406/60; George Vadakkel and M.A. Joseph, for Petitioner in CRP 474/60; K.S. Paripoornan and P.V. Thomas, for Petitioner in CRP 557/60; K.N. Narayanan Nair and N. Sudhakaran, for Petitioner in CRP 807/60; C.K. Sivasankara Panikar, P.G. Purameswara Panicker and P.J. Punnen, for Petitioner in CRP 899/60; S. Narayanan Potti, N.K; Varkey, P.P. Mathai and P.P. Sankara Pillai, for Petitioner in CRP 927/60; M.S. Kurien and M.S. Cheriyan, for Respondent in CRP 143/60; K.V. Surianarayana Iyer, for Respondents in CRP 211, 263, 310, 474, 557, 807, 899. and 927/60; C.M. Kuruvilla and N. Krishnaswami Iyengar, for Respondents in CRP 406/60; K.S. Sebastian and P.K. George, for Respondent in CRP 742/60; M. Kumaran and M. Raghava Menon, for Respondent in CRP 369/60; Government Pleader, for State.

Judgement

S. VELU PILLAI, J. :- These civil revision petitions which have been referred to a Division Bench, and others which are posted before us, have arisen out of orders passed by District Judges under S. 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, settling the compensation payable under S. 10 proviso (d) of that Act, for damage caused to owners of immovable properties, in taking electric supply lines across their properties, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, or by S. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

The Kerala State Electricity Board, to be referred to as the Board, which was constituted on April, 1957, and in whom, the liability to pay compensation is now vested, was not a party to some of these civil revision petitions. At the time they were referred, Shri K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, appearing for the Board agreed, that it may be impleaded as a party, and accordingly the referring order itself directed its impleadment. At the hearing of these and the other civil revision petitions now before us, Shri K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, appeared for the Board and we hereby order, that the Board be recorded as a party respondent in all the ci













































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