Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing The Panchayat Board By Its President, ... vs The Western India Matches Company By ... on 15 December, 1938

Gunupati Alluraiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By ... on 2 February, 1962

(AIR 1958 Andh Pra 670) and the decision just cited was followed. It was held that the fact that there is under the Taxing statute a right of appeal or revision against the assessment is not by itself sufficient to take away the right of the assessee to have a recourse to a Court of law, having regard to the fact that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain such suits, and also the fact that Sec-lion 18 of the Act was not applicable to such suits, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not taken away to entertain suits challenging the legality of an assessment order under the Act. The learned Judges interpreted the words: "Suits in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act" employed in Section 18 of the Madras General Sates Tax Act as suits for compensation or damages and for coming to that conclusion, reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyuf v. Western India Matches Co., ILR (1939) Mad 566 : 1939-1 Mad LJ 588 : (AIR 1939 Mad 421), which interpreted similar words used in Section 225 of the Local Boards Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bommidala Poornaish vs The Union Of India on 27 June, 1966

In Panchayat Board, Tirukottiyur v. Western India Matches Co., AIR 1939 Mad 421 (FB), Leach. C. J., delivering the judgment of the Full Bench on the analogous provision, after examining Section 156 of the Madras Local Boards Act. 1884, which corresponded to Sec. 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920, the amendment in 1930 of Sec. 156 and the amendment in 1930 of Sec. 225 and the various decisions on the aforesaid section held that Sec. 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act is limited to suits for compensation or damages and that Section 156 prohibited any action from being brought against any local board, etc., on account of anything done or purporting to be done under the Act, the language of which is similar to Sec. 18 of the Sales Tax Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 61 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... vs A.M.N.A. Abdul Kader Tharaganar Firm By ... on 17 March, 1953

The very wording of that section will show that it is intended 'only to cover suits for compensation or damages against tortious or criminal acts committed by Government Officers or servants or by the Government itself', and that it will not cover suits for refund of taxes illegally collected or alleged to be illegally collected, or even taxes collected in excess of sheer error. That stands to sense and common sense. Supposing, for instance, a clerk in writing out a demand order, put Rs. 9,000 for Rs. 900, and the person liable to pay the tax paid Rs. 9,000, and then filed a suit a year later for recovering the difference of Rs. 8,100, it will be sheer perversity to argue that Section 18 would apply and bar the suit as it was not filed within six months. It would be clearly a case falling within Article 62 giving three clear years, from the date of the excess payment, before limitation would operate. Fortunately, in this case, it is unnecessary to continue this discussion further, as there is a ruling of a Pull Bench of this Court in -- 'Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyur v. Western India Matches Co.', AIR 1939 Mad 421 (FB) (A), which has held that Section 225, Madras Local Boards Act (14 of 1920), as amended by Act 11 of 1930, containing more or less the same provision and wording as Section 18 of the Sales-tax Act', will be limited to suits for compensation or damages and will be inapplicable to suits against a local board for refund of the house-tax alleged to have been illegally collected. The principle of that ruling will apply to all cases" of taxes illegally collected, and not merely to house-tax due to local boards or all taxes due to local boards.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Rao Sahib Sriman Mudumbi Venkata Ranga ... vs Sri Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar Garu on 21 November, 1947

9. Madhvan Nair, J., Also referred to the same decision as supporting the conclusion that an action for money had and received, "being essentially an equitable action," cannot be regarded as a suit for "damages or compensation." The decision was referred to with approval in Panchayat Board Tiuvottiyur v. Western India Matches (1939) 1 M.L.J. 588 : I.L.R. (1939) Mad. 566 (F.B.) which arose under Section 225 of the Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920).
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Panchayat Board, Razole By Its ... vs Sait Amichand Dungarmal Firm ... on 6 November, 1940

3. Mr. Viyanna for the petitioning Board has drawn my attention to the decision of the Full Bench in Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyur v. Western India Matches Co (1939) 1 M.L.J. 588 : I.L.R. 1939 Mad. 566 (F.B.). After that decision it is no longer possible for Mr. Viyanna to contend that the suits were barred by limitation under Section 225 of the Local Boards Act. Mr. Viyanna has also not argued the second point, namely, that the payments were made voluntarily. He has devoted his argument to the question arising under Section 228 (2). That provision is as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panchayat Union Council, Tirupattur ... vs C. Tirupathy on 18 November, 1969

1. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of salary for the period from 10-1-1958 to 26-4-1959. The basis of the claim by plaintiff was that his services as Headmaster were illegally terminated by the Panchayat Board with effect from 10-1-1958, and that the removal order was reversed on appeal and that consequently he was reinstated in service with effect from 27-4-1959. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground, among others, that it did not lie under Section 170 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. This defence was accepted by the trial court which dismissed the suit. The respondent was, however, successful in his appeal. The Panchyat is the appellant in the second appeal. Kailasam J., who heard the second appeal, felt the applicability of the section to the suit raised an important question of construction thereof and it should, therefore, be decided by a Full Bench. The learned Judge was also of the view that the reference was necessary as he thought that Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyur v. Western India Matches Co., 1939-1 Mad LJ 588 = (AIR 1939 Mad 421) (FB) in interpreting the scope and effect of Section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act 1920, did not deal with the bearing and construction the words "Unless it is an action for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto'' inserted in the section by an amendment of 1900.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1