{"id":181284,"date":"1975-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975"},"modified":"2019-01-11T12:41:16","modified_gmt":"2019-01-11T07:11:16","slug":"dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","title":{"rendered":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1670, \t\t  1975 SCR  403<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDOLLAR COMPANY, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1670\t\t  1975 SCR  403\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1977 SC 580\t (9)\n R\t    1989 SC1222\t (5)\n RF\t    1992 SC 666\t (3)\n RF\t    1992 SC1406\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition Act--Section 23-Market Value--Principle  on\nwhich Appellate Court interferes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  suit land was acquired under the Land Acquisition\tAct.\nThe  Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 800 per ground  as\ncompensation.\tThe City Civil Court awarded at the rate  of\nRs. 1000\/- per ground.\tThe High Court on appeal awarded Rs.\n1800  per ground.  The appellant himself purchased the\tsuit\nland about 10 months before the notification under s. 4\t was\nmade at a price of Rs. 410 per ground.\tThe appellant  spent\na little money on filling up the pond.\nHELD : Dismissing the appeal,\nThis  Court interferes with the judgment of the\t High  Court\nonly  if  the  High Court applies  a  principle\t wrongly  or\nbecause\t some important point affecting valuation  has\tbeen\noverlooked or misapplied.  A court of appeal interferes\t not\nwhen  the judgment under attack is not right, but only\twhen\nit is shown to be wrong. [404 E-FG]\nHELD  FURTHER-Market value is what a willing purchaser\twill\npay  a\twilling vendor.\t The best evidence of the  value  of\nproperty  is  the  sale of the very property  to  which\t the\nclaimant  is a party.  If the sale was long ago,  the  Court\nwould  examine\tmore recent sales of  comparable  lands\t a,%\nthrowing better light on current land value.  In the present\ncase,  the appellant himself purchased the land at the\trate\nof Rs. 410 per ground. [404 H. 405 A.B]\nHELD-There  is\tno  error in principle\tin  the\t High  Court\njudgment  nor has any of the limited grounds on which  these\nCourt's jurisdiction can be legitimately exercised been made\nout. [408-CD]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1968.<br \/>\nFrom the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1967 of\t the<br \/>\nMadras High Court in Appeal No. 412 of 1962.<br \/>\nN.  Natesan,  K.  Jayaram  and\tR.  Chandrasekher,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant<br \/>\nGovind Swaminathan, N. S. Sivam, A. Y. Rangam and A.  Subha-<br \/>\nshini, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKRISHNA IYER, J.-This is a pedestrian appeal by a land-owner<br \/>\nwhose  property,  having been acquired compulsorily  by\t the<br \/>\nState,\tasks  for more compensation, probably  appetised  by<br \/>\nincreases  over\t the Collector&#8217;s award granted by  the\tCity<br \/>\nCivil  Court  and  the High Court.  The\t grounds  urged\t are<br \/>\nconventional,  based on comparison of prices shown  in\tland<br \/>\nsales  in  the neighborhood and the  general  escalation  of<br \/>\nurban land values in the country.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">404<\/span><\/p>\n<p>127 odd &#8216;grounds&#8217; (a ground is around 5-1\/2 cents; actually-<br \/>\n2,400 sq. ft) were acquired in 1959 for the construction  of<br \/>\na Housing Colony for the Madras Port Trust employees by\t the<br \/>\nthen Madras State.  They comprise R. S. No. 4032\/1 and other<br \/>\nitems  with which we are not concerned, since the owners  of<br \/>\nthose items have not come  up in appeal to this Court.\t The<br \/>\nrelevant notification under s. 4( 1) was made on August\t 12,<br \/>\n1959 and so the compensation has to be pegged to the  market<br \/>\nvalue  as on that date.\t Of course, 16 years have rolled  by<br \/>\nsince,\tthanks\tto  delay  which has come  to  stay  in\t the<br \/>\nadministrative and forensic processes of our land.  That  is<br \/>\nby the way.  The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.  800\/-<br \/>\nper  ground.  The City Civil Court, approaching the  problem<br \/>\nof  valuation plot-wise, as for a housing colony,  made\t the<br \/>\nnecessary deductions involved in that process and awarded at<br \/>\nthe  rate  of Rs. 1,000\/- per ground.  The  High  Court,  on<br \/>\nappeal,\t made  an  upward  revision,  discarding  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt&#8217;s\t approach and awarded Rs. 1,800\/- per  ground.\t The<br \/>\nState has not come up in appeal, but the unquenched claimant<br \/>\nasks for more in appeal, demanding at least Rs. 2,200\/-\t per<br \/>\nground.\n<\/p>\n<p>Generally  speaking, a cardinal component in the  escalation<br \/>\nof  prices  of urban realty which does not  find  sufficient<br \/>\nexpression in the ancient Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is\t the<br \/>\ndevelopmental\t operations   inevitable   in\ta    rapidly<br \/>\nindustrialising society for which the individual owner makes<br \/>\nno  social contribution.  Be that as it may, courts have  to<br \/>\napply  the legislation as extant, it being left to the\tlaw-<br \/>\nmakers\tto harmonize social justice which individual  rights<br \/>\nby appropriate reforms.\t We have to proceed to determine the<br \/>\ncompensation  according to the canons crystallized in s.  23<br \/>\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the outset, we must warn ourselves of the broad guideline<br \/>\nthat  in an appeal from an award granting compensation\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  will not interiere unless there is something to\tshow<br \/>\nnot merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to<br \/>\nreach a different conclusion but that the judgment cannot be<br \/>\nsupported  by reason of a wrong application or principle  or<br \/>\nbecause\t some important point affecting valuation  has\tbeen<br \/>\noverlooked  or\tmisapplied.  Moreover, there  is  a  prudent<br \/>\ncondition to which the appellate power, generally  speaking,<br \/>\nis  subject.   A  court,of appeal interferes  not  when\t the<br \/>\njudgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown<br \/>\nto be wrong.  These twin principles serve as backdrop to our<br \/>\napproach to the rival contentions in the case.<br \/>\nIt is true that compensation for compulsory acquisition,  as<br \/>\ngoverned  by s. 23, gives high priority to the market  value<br \/>\nof  the\t land  at  the\tdate  of  the  publication  of\t the<br \/>\nnotification  under  s. 4, sub-s. (1).\tBut what  is  market<br \/>\nvalue ? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence<br \/>\nthat  the main criterion is what a willing  purchaser  would<br \/>\npay  a willing vendor.\tOrdinarily a party will be  entitled<br \/>\nto get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for  a<br \/>\nparticular  property, provided the transaction be bona\tfide<br \/>\nand  entered  into with due regard to the  prevalent  market<br \/>\nconditions  and\t is proximate in time to the  relevant\tdate<br \/>\nunder S. 23.  We may even say that the best evidence of\t the<br \/>\nvalue of property is the sale of the very property to which<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 405<\/span><br \/>\nthe  claimant  is a party.  If the sale is of  recent  date,<br \/>\nthen  all that need normally be proved is that the sale\t was<br \/>\nbetween\t a willing purchaser and willing seller, that  there<br \/>\nhas  not been any appreciable  rise or fall since  and\tthat<br \/>\nnothing has been done on the land during the short  interval<br \/>\nto  raise  its value (See Parks &#8216;Principles  &amp;\tPractice  of<br \/>\nValuations&#8217;  p.\t 29-Eastern Law\t House-Calcutta,-IV  Edition<br \/>\n1970).\tBut if the sale was long ago, may be the Court would<br \/>\nexamine\t more recent sales of comparable lands\tas  throwing<br \/>\nbetter light on current land value.  We emphasize this facet<br \/>\nbecause the appellant himself purchased the land in question<br \/>\njust ten months before the notification under s. 4(1), at  a<br \/>\nprice  of Rs. 410 per ground.  There was a pond in the\tpot,<br \/>\nthe  filling up of which is alleged to have cost some  extra<br \/>\nmoney  according to the appellant, but he gave\tno  evidence<br \/>\nbefore the court on this matter with the result that we\t are<br \/>\nleft  with the estimate made by the Public Works  Department<br \/>\nfor  the  filling up of the pond which works out at  a\tmuch<br \/>\nlesser\tfigure.\t In short, less than a year before the\tdate<br \/>\nof  commencement of acquisition proceedings,  the  appellant<br \/>\nhimself\t had purchased this land at a price around  Rs.\t 450<br \/>\n(making\t allowance for the pond which he had filled up)\t and<br \/>\nhe  has been awarded Rs. 1,800 per ground by the High  Court<br \/>\nInstead of wandering around neighboring lands or guessing as<br \/>\nto  what the price of the disputed land might have been,  we<br \/>\nhave  before us the actual purchase of the suit property  by<br \/>\nthe  appellant\thimself and he has not set up any  case\t of.<br \/>\nspecial features or circumstances depressing the land  value<br \/>\nor  affecting the particular transaction so that  one  could<br \/>\nignore that sale as the product of artificial circumstances.<br \/>\nWe  have  thus a situation where the law  should  express  a<br \/>\njudgment  from\tthe experience of the appellant\t himself  as<br \/>\nagainst\t  a  judgment  from  speculation  based\t  on   other<br \/>\ntransactions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Clinching   evidence  to  correct  uncertain   prophesy\t  is<br \/>\nfurnished  here\t by  the  claimant&#8217;s  conduct.\t An   actual<br \/>\ntransaction with respect to the specific land of recent date<br \/>\nis a guide-book that courts may not neglect when called upon<br \/>\nto  fix\t the precise compensation.  Viewed from\t a  slightly<br \/>\ndifferent  aspect  it  is but  fair  that  compulsory  land-<br \/>\nacquisition  while assuring a just equivalent should not  be<br \/>\nconverted  into\t an avaricious windfall.  Can an  owner\t who<br \/>\nbrought the land at Rs. 400 per ground and laid out a little<br \/>\nmore  money  on it, grouse: on the score  of  inadequate  or<br \/>\nunjust\trecompense, if within a year after his own  purchase<br \/>\nhe  is paid by the State 400 per cent of what he  spent\t for<br \/>\nthe identical land ? Neither morality nor legality is viola-<br \/>\nted  in such a case; for even a black marketeer&#8217;s bosom\t may<br \/>\nnot  be\t uneasy at the prospect of such a fortune  which  he<br \/>\ncould not have bargained for when he became the owner of the<br \/>\nland  some months before.  &#8216;It is the duty of the  state  or<br \/>\nfederal\t government, in the conduct of the inquest by  which<br \/>\ncompensation  is  ascertained, to see that it is  just,\t not<br \/>\nmerely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the<br \/>\npublic which is to pay for it&#8217; (See 27 Am Jur 2nd  paragraph<br \/>\n266,  p.  53  of  Vol.\t27).   All  things  considered,\t the<br \/>\nappellant stands self-condemned by his own deed of purchase.<br \/>\nProperty. valuation as a practiced art is greatly influenced<br \/>\nby legal and economic constraints.  But, in this case, we do<br \/>\nnot have any<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">406<\/span><br \/>\ncomplex\t  considerations   since  helpful   indicators\t are<br \/>\navailable.   Price paid-by the owner recently represents  an<br \/>\nexpression  of market value, as bow fide evidence of  value,<br \/>\nsubject,to  such  matters  as (a) the  relationship  of\t the<br \/>\nparties; (b) the market conditions and the terms of sale and\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) the date of gale.  It may not end the enquiry but goes a<br \/>\nlong way to solve the problem.\tIn this collection it may be<br \/>\nuseful\tto refer to the decision of this Court in S.  L.  A.<br \/>\nOfficer v. T.A. Setty(1) where it was observed :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It  is not disputed that the function of\t the<br \/>\n\t      court  in awarding compensation under the\t Act<br \/>\n\t      is  to ascertain the market value of the\tland<br \/>\n\t      at the date of the notification under S.\t4(1)<br \/>\n\t      and  the\tmethods\t of  valuation\tmay  be\t (1)<br \/>\n\t      opinion of experts, (2) the price paid  within<br \/>\n\t      a reasonable time in bone fide transactions of<br \/>\n\t      purchase\tof the lands acquired or  the  lands<br \/>\n\t      adjacent to the lands acquired and  possessing<br \/>\n\t      similar  advantages and (3) a number of  years<br \/>\n\t      purchase\t of   the  actual   or\t immediately<br \/>\n\t      prospective profits of the lands acquired&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t  (p. 432, para 9-emphasis, ours)<br \/>\nAppreciating  this lethal consequence, Sri Natesan,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel,  suggested rather obscurely that there\t might\thave<br \/>\nbeen  peculiar possibilities why this land was sold  to\t his<br \/>\nclient\tat  a  low price.  But\tthe  reasoning\tbreaks\tdown<br \/>\nbecause the claimant has not even hinted in his pleading  or<br \/>\ncared to testify what special circumstances played upon\t the<br \/>\ntransaction by which he got this identical land at the price<br \/>\nhe  paid.  We cannot be swayed by surmises floating in\tmid-<br \/>\nair,  particularly where the party who urges these  feathery<br \/>\nlikelihoods  stood  mute at the trial stage.  He  failed  to<br \/>\nspeak only to become a martyr for silence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sri Natesan switched on to the prices of other lands in\t the<br \/>\nlocality  to  overcome\tthe  self-created  obstacle  of\t his<br \/>\nclient&#8217;s  purchase.  This is specious logic.  When  decisive<br \/>\nevidence  of  the  market value\t of  the  land\tcompulsorily<br \/>\nacquired  is  unavailable  you seek  light  from  comparable<br \/>\nneighborhood.\tSuch  is  not the case here.   Even  so,  we<br \/>\ntraveled  with counsel on to other lands, to gather  whether<br \/>\nany grave error had crept into the High Court&#8217;s\t assessment.<br \/>\nThe  discovery made was that lands in the near\tneighborhood<br \/>\nwere sold sometime earlier at prices ranging from Rs. 300 to<br \/>\nRs.  400  and  in one case Rs. 900 (Ex.\t  R2  to  R7)  while<br \/>\ndistant neighbors like that covered by Ex.  C11 were  valued<br \/>\nby court at around Rs. 2,200 or Rs. 2,400 per ground.\tThis<br \/>\nwide  disparity may be a trifle mystifying.  Even so, we  go<br \/>\nby lands close by and not by one a mile-and-half away as Ed-<br \/>\nC11 plot.  In an industrial area, land prices are  sensitive<br \/>\nto an intricate variety of factors.\n<\/p>\n<p>Propinquity  to\t highway or ports and  many  industrial\t and<br \/>\nsocial\timponderables enter the verdict of  evaluation.\t  So<br \/>\nmuch so we cannot automatically assert, with reference to  a<br \/>\npiece of land a mile-and-half<br \/>\n(1)  A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 429.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">407<\/span><\/p>\n<p>away, that it serves as a guide for fixing the price of. the<br \/>\nsuit plot.  What. the High Court has done is to have at\t the<br \/>\nback of its mind the various sales, Exhibits R2 to R7, which<br \/>\nfall  far below the value demanded by the claimant  and\t the<br \/>\nhigh  prices  awarded by the same High Court  in  regard  to<br \/>\nother lands distances away, have regard to the then  growing<br \/>\nindustrial potential and make an intelligent guess.  May  be<br \/>\nas  the\t learned Advocate General has pointed  out,  in\t the<br \/>\nlight  of  evidence  regarding\tthe  precise  land  and\t the<br \/>\nparticular  owner, there was no justification  for  awarding<br \/>\nsuch  a\t high price as has been done but the State  has\t not<br \/>\nbothered  to come up in appeal and we cannot hold  that\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  was in error in making out of the\ttotality  of<br \/>\nmaterials  available,  a  best judgment\t assessment  of\t the<br \/>\nmarket value.  No serious flaw in principle, no omission  to<br \/>\nconsider  important  material  or like\tinfirmity  has\tbeen<br \/>\npointed out to fault the judges on the appraisal.<br \/>\nNevertheless,  Shri Natesan contended strenuously  that\t the<br \/>\nsales showing low prices were not reliable for two  reasons.<br \/>\nThey  were &#8216;distress&#8217; sales and prices had gone up from\t the<br \/>\ndates  of  those  deeds which  were&#8217;  of  1949-50.   Neither<br \/>\nargument  is conclusive.  True, a few of the  sales  suggest<br \/>\nsome pressure inducing the vendors to dispose of their land.<br \/>\nBut there are other deeds which are unblemished by any\tsuch<br \/>\ndepressant.   Having gone through the documents in  question<br \/>\nwe are satisfied that none of the sales bear marks of  throw<br \/>\naway prices.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  other argument that prices must have  inexorably  risen<br \/>\nfrom  1949  to\t1959 is\t no  axiomatic\tproposition.   True,<br \/>\ngenerally speaking, there has been an inflationary spiral in<br \/>\nIndia which has not spared really.  But there is evidence in<br \/>\nthe present case to show that between 1949 and 1952 lands in<br \/>\nthis  very area stood stationary in their  prices.   Various<br \/>\ngeo-economic  factors  have affected land  prices,  some  to<br \/>\nboost  them, others to slump them.  Therefore we  cannot  be<br \/>\npersuaded to hold that a relentless rise in land prices\t has<br \/>\ncome  to stay.\tTake but one example : If a land  adjoins  a<br \/>\nfactory\t which needs to be expanded further, a higher  price<br \/>\nmay be offered by that factory owner.  Likewise, if a  heavy<br \/>\ntax on construction of buildings or ceiling on vacant  urban<br \/>\nland  is  in the offing, prices of building sites  may\tcome<br \/>\ndown.\tIt  may\t even  be said that such  a  factor  as\t the<br \/>\napplication  of the MISA to smugglers may depress prices  of<br \/>\nmany  items,  including land and foreign  cars,\t in  certain<br \/>\nplaces.\t  Another exotic example.  In some  American  cities<br \/>\nthe  influx of certain colored races into the downtown\tarea<br \/>\nbrings\tdown the market value of real estate, under  current<br \/>\nsocial conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>While  it is true that the area we are concerned with is  an<br \/>\nindustrial  belt,  we cannot forget that there\tare  housing<br \/>\ncolonies  also\tas adjuncts so that some lands may  be\tless<br \/>\nsuitable  for industrial buildings but may still  be  useful<br \/>\nfor  workers&#8217;  houses.\t It is in evidence  that  the  plots<br \/>\nacquired here had ponds, the appellant himself having filled<br \/>\nup the pond in his plot: This shows incidentally that  high-<br \/>\nrising constructions may require pile-driving at high  cost.<br \/>\nWe  need not guess at the various chancy factors  except  to<br \/>\nstate that having<br \/>\n10 SC\/ 75-27<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">408<\/span><br \/>\ndue regard to the conspectus of circumstances, including the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  own  cost\tprice, the Court has  made  a  sound<br \/>\njudgment.   In this view, we do not think there is need\t for<br \/>\nfurther\t discussion  of the facts pressed before us  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant.  We agree with him that the purpose for which the<br \/>\nland  is acquired has no bearing on the value to  determined<br \/>\nby the Court but our conclusion remains unaltered.<br \/>\nWe see no reason, no law nor justice, to interfere with\t the<br \/>\njudgment  under appeal.\t Maybe, the appellant  is  aggrieved<br \/>\nthat  slightly\tinferior lands acquired\t simultaneously\t and<br \/>\nadjoining  his\tplot have been given the same value  as\t has<br \/>\nbeen awarded to him.  It may also be that each court he\t has<br \/>\napproached has improved upon the price awarded by he earlier<br \/>\none  and  therefore  he\t might\thave  obtained\t certificate<br \/>\nhopefully.   And looking at his lost land now, years  later,<br \/>\nwhen  real estate has risen in price much more, he may\tsigh<br \/>\nat  what  is  fixed and strive to yet more.   But  a  closer<br \/>\nexamination has disclosed no error in principle ,a the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s judgment nor has any of the limited ground on  which<br \/>\nthis Court&#8217;s jurisdiction can be legitimately exercised been<br \/>\nmade out.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appeal is dismissed but, in the circumstances,  without<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.H.P.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">409<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1670, 1975 SCR 403 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: DOLLAR COMPANY, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1975 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH GUPTA, A.C. CITATION: 1975 AIR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2591,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\",\"name\":\"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975","datePublished":"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975"},"wordCount":2591,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975","name":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-11T07:11:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dollar-company-madras-vs-collector-of-madras-on-1-may-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}