Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... vs Gautambhai S. Patel, Through ... on 20 September, 2005
10.2 It was also argued for the appellant that the original suits were incompetent and not maintainable without notice required to be served under Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (B.P.M.C. Act). Per contra, it was argued for the respondents that such notice was required when suit was in respect of any act purported to be done in pursuance of or the intended execution of the B.P.M.C. Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of that Act. But in the facts of the present case, the action of refusing to make deductions was neither taken nor purported to ,be taken pursuant to or under any provision of the B.P.M.C. Act. Instead, it was an illegal act amounting to an offence, and hence, absence of notice did not bar the suit, according to the submission. The respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Habibbhai Gulam Mohmad v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad 1962 GLR 924.