Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Chairman, Municipal Council vs Gajireddi Seetharamayya Naidu on 2 October, 1924

Chairman, Municipal Council vs Thirunarayana Aiyangar on 15 December, 1927

10. It is unnecessary to consider in detail some of the cases quoted by Mr. Patanjali Sastri such as those in Municipal Council, Chicacole v. Seetharamayya Naidu (1925) 21 L.W. 280 Ramachandran Servai v. President, Union Board, Karaikudi (1925) I.L.R. 49 M. 888 : 49 M.L.J. 356 and Taluk Board, Bandar v. Zamindar of Chellapalli (1920) I.L.R. 44 M. 156 : 40 M.L.J. 91 It was held by Mr. Justice Oldfield and Mr. Justice Krishnan in In re Sesha Prabtt (1921) 42 M.L.J. 149. that the validity of a notification under the Act could be questioned in a prosecution launched for violation of the notification. In that case the notification' was published as if it was under the new District Municipalities Act of 1920. As a matter of fact, on the date of the notification, the District Municipalities Act had not come into force and the Court held that the notification published before the Act came into force was not a valid notification and the accused who acted in contravention of that notification was not guilty of an offence under the new Act.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ramachandra Servai vs President, Union Board on 30 March, 1925

4. Under Section 164 the petitioner is "bound" to pay such sums as may be demanded by the Local Board by way of penalty, which sum "may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided, "i. e., as in Section 221. This makes it quite clear that Section 221 only applies to the manner of recovery and Hoes not re-open the question whether the petitioner is bound to pay. Petitioner is not able to refer us to any reported case directly in support of his view. The case In re Smith (1923) 45 MLJ 731 was a case of prosecution of a person who had erected some machinery without permission of the Commissioner of Madras City Municipality, and thus was said to have contravened Section 288 of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919). There this High Court went into the question of whether such permission was required in the case and decided that it was not. We do not think this can throw any light on the proper interpretation of Sections 164 and 221 of the Local Boards Act. The same learned Judge has held in a case In re Krishnaswami (1924) 48 MLJ 132. that, in a prosecution for contravention of Section 166(1) of the Local Boards Act, it was not open to the accused to plead that the motor-bus license ought not to have been refused by the President of the Local Board. Another learned Judge of this Court has taken a similar view in a case Chairman, Municipal Council, Chicacole v. Seetharamayya Naidu (1924) 21 L W 280 a case of disobedience of a notice under Section 219(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayana Aiyar vs Y. E. P. K. R. V. Subramania Chetty on 20 October, 1926

He then accepts the view that an application by the accused for the compensation should have been dealt with as a condition precedent to enforcing the removal. This, I think, is based upon a misreading of Ex. 2, a letter which was addressed on behalf of the accused to the President of the District Board, denying that the structures complained of were encroachments and warning him that if they had to be removed he would be held responsible for all costs and damages therefrom arising. Even, however, if there was a claim for compensation it is not disputed before me that the person receiving the notice could not make it a reason for non-compliance. As has been held in Municipal Council, Chicacole v. Seetharamayya Naidu A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 584 all that the Court has to see in such cases is whether the notice was served and whether it was disobeyed.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1