Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Firm Of Habibbhai Gulam Mohmad vs The Municipal Corporation on 31 October, 1961 cites

Municipal Borough Of Ahmedabad vs Jayantilal Chhotalal Patel on 9 April, 1947

Before dealing with the merits of the case it would be convenient to dispose of the objection to the suit based on want of notice under Section 487 This objection has been upheld by the learned Assistant Judge and the learned Assistant Judge has taken the view that notice under Section 487 was required to be given before instituting the suit. Now Section 487 in so far as it is material for the purpose of the present appeal prescribes that no suit shall be instituted against the Corporation in respect of any act done or purported to be done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been left at the Chief Municipal Office stating with reasonable particularity the cause of action and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and of his attorney advocate pleader or agent if any for the purpose of such suit. The crucial words in the section are in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act. In every case therefore where the defence of want of statutory notice is raised it must be ascertained whether the act in respect of which the suit is filed is an act done or purported to be done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act. Now the test for the purpose of determining whether a particular act is an act done or purported to be done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Act is to ascertain whether the act is the direct result of some duty cast upon the Corporation or some authority conferred upon it by the Act. If the act in respect of which the suit is filed satisfies this test Section 487 would apply and the suit would be liable to fail for want of statutory notice. This test has been approved by a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Jayantilal reported in A.I.R. (1948) Bombay 98 in the following words:
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1