Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 164 in The Manipur Municipalities Act,1994. [Entire Act]
Municipal Board Benares vs Krishna And Co. on 3 January, 1934
795, and Municipal Board, Benares v. Krishna & Co. (1935) 22 A.I.R. All. 760. Having carefully considered all the cases, I find that they do not lend any support to the learned counsel's contention and have no application to the facts of the present case. It is in my opinion perfectly clear that Section 164 cannot possibly apply to the present case because the claim to recover an amount as refund of octroi duty under the Rules referred to above does not involve any objection to valuation or assessment or the questioning of the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed. In fact no question either of valuation or assessment or of the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed arises at all in the present case. All that the plaintiff seeks is to recover a certain amount to which he says he is entitled under the rules laid down in the Municipal Accounts Code. The learned Counsel for the applicant had to concede in the course of his arguments that Section 164 does not apply in terms to the present ease and further that there is no provision either in the Municipal Accounts Code or in the Municipalities Act under which a person entitled to refund of octroi duty can enforce his right if it is unjustly or arbitrarily denied by the Municipal Board, Nor is there any provision for any appeal to any authority prescribed by the Municipalities Act against such a denial. A person entitled to refund of octroi duty under the statutory right conferred upon him by the Municipal Accounts Code must be deemed to have a remedy in a Court of law unless it is found that his claim is barred either expressly or by necessary implication by any provision contained in the Municipalities Act or in the Municipal Accounts Code. In the present case, the applicant has entirely failed to show that there is any such provision as would bar the plaintiff from enforcing his right in a Court of law. It must therefore be held that this suit was not beyond the cognizance of the Civil Court. None of the cases relied upon by learned Counsel for the applicant has decided anything to the contrary.
Section 188 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Municipal Board vs Abdul Aziz Khan on 16 March, 1934
8. Upon this principle the claim of the Municipal Board, Bareilly, in that case to recover certain octroi dues by means of a suit in the Civil Court was repelled. This decision necessarily implies that where no special remedy is provided for the enforcement of a liability imposed by a particular statute the ordinary right to institute a suit in the Civil Court remains intact. In the present case it is admitted that there is no special remedy provided either by the Municipalities Act or by the Municipal Ac counts Code for the enforcement of the right to refund of octroi by a person who acquires that right. It follows therefore that the case relied upon by learned Counsel for the applicant affords no authority in the present case for holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Section 151 in The Manipur Municipalities Act,1994. [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
Banwari Lal vs Municipal Board Of Cawnpore on 24 November, 1924
9. This has obviously no application to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, I find that the matter in dispute is set at rest by the Pull Bench decision of this Court in Munna Lal v. Municipal Board, Cawnpore (1936) 23 A.I.R. All. 676. In that case the plaintiff who had been assessed to house and water tax claimed remission from the Municipal Board for a certain period during which his house had remained unoccupied and upon his claim being rejected brought a suit in the Civil Court to enforce his right. The suit was resisted by the Municipal Board on the ground that the cognizance of the Civil Court was barred by Section 164, Municipalities Act. This contention was repelled by the majority who held that the statutory right for remission or refund created in favour of the taxpayer by Section 151, Municipalities Act, was enforceable in a Court of law and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a claim was not ousted either expressly or by necessary implication by anything contained in Section 164 of the Act. That decision in my opinion fully governs the present case. I therefore reject the applicant's contention that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court.
Section 188 in The Manipur Municipalities Act,1994. [Entire Act]
1