Skip to content


The Collector of Chingleput for the Secretary of State for India Vs. Subraya Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad181
AppellantThe Collector of Chingleput for the Secretary of State for India
RespondentSubraya Mudaliar
Excerpt:
madras salt act iv of 1889, sections 16(a), 18 and 27 - no compensation under section 18 when license cancelled under section 27--civil procedure code, act xiv of 1882, section 244. - - 1. the district judge is in error in saying that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under section 18 of madras act iv of 1889. that section has no application to a case like the present in which the license has been cancelled under section 27 of the act......value of the land as a site for salt manufacture is not to be taken into account. the commissioner is to value the proprietary right at his discretion, and, if the valuation is not accepted, the licensee may resort to the court for the determination of the amount.2. in the present case the commissioner fixed rs. 2, as the value. the licensee does not accept it. the district munsif is a court of competent jurisdiction and has the matter before him in execution of the decree. he should therefore proceed to determine the proper value of the proprietary right on such evidence as may be adduced before him by either side and direct payment thereof by the defendant.3. we modify the order of the district judge accordingly. costs in ail courts will be provided for in the fresh order of the.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge is in error in saying that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under Section 18 of Madras Act IV of 1889. That section has no application to a case like the present in which the license has been cancelled under Section 27 of the Act. In such case, the licensee is only entitled under Section 16(a) to the value of the proprietary right in the land, and in calculating such value the value of the land as a site for salt manufacture is not to be taken into account. The Commissioner is to value the proprietary right at his discretion, and, if the valuation is not accepted, the licensee may resort to the Court for the determination of the amount.

2. In the present case the Commissioner fixed Rs. 2, as the value. The licensee does not accept it. The District Munsif is a Court of competent jurisdiction and has the matter before him in execution of the decree. He should therefore proceed to determine the proper value of the proprietary right on such evidence as may be adduced before him by either side and direct payment thereof by the defendant.

3. We modify the order of the District Judge accordingly. Costs in ail Courts will be provided for in the fresh order of the District Munsif.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //