Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 72 (0.54 seconds)City of Bombay Municipal (Supplementary) Act, 1888
Director Of Rationing And Distribution vs The Corporation Of Calcutta And Others on 16 August, 1960
The relevant facts are simple and are not in dispute. The
State of West Bengal was carrying on the trade of a daily
market at 1, Orphanganj Road, Calcutta, without obtaining a
licence as required under s. 218 of the Calcutta Municipal
Act, 1951 (West Bengal Act 33 of 1951) hereinafter called
the Act. The Corporation of Calcutta filed a complaint
against the State of West Bengal in the Court of the
Presidency and Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, under s. 541
of the Act for contravening the provisions of s. 218
thereof. Under s. 218 of the Act, every person who
exercises or carries on in Calcutta any trade, shall take
out a licence and shall pay for the same such fee as is
mentioned in that behalf in Schedule IV to the Act.
Admittedly for the year 1960-61, the Government of West
Bengal did not take out a licence under the said section but
carried on the said trade. The main contention of the
Government was that the State was not bound by the pro-
visions of the Act. The learned Magistrate, accepting the
said contention, acquitted the State. On appeal, the High
Court of Calcutta held that the State was carrying on the
business of running a market and, therefore, it was as much
bound as a private citizen to take out a licence. It
distinguished the decision of this Court in Director of
Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta(1)
on the ground that the said decision was concerned with the
sovereign activity of the State. In the result the State of
West Bengal was convicted under s. 537 of the Act-s. 537
appears to be a mistake for s. 541-and sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs. 250, with the direction that when realized, it
should be paid to the Corporation. Hence the present
appeal.
Province Of Bombay vs Municipal Corporation Of Bombay on 10 October, 1946
Bachawat, J. By the common law of England, the Crown is not
bound by a statute save by express provision or necessary
implication. This rule was applied to Indian legislation in
201
Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of
Bombay(1).
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 541 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Bell vs The Municipal Commissioners For The ... on 9 January, 1902
The attention of the
Privy Council was not drawn to Bell's case(7) and the
propriety of applying the English rule to Indian legislation
was not considered. Lord Du Parcq said:
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
The Province Of Bombay vs The Municipal Corporation Of Ahmedabad on 7 January, 1953
Mr. Bindra, the learned counsel appearing for the Attorney-
General sought to reach at the same result by a different
process. He argued that the decision of the Privy Council
in Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the city
of Bombay and another(1) is a law of the country. We have
already noticed the decision in another context. It
accepted the rule of construction on a concession made by
the counsel. Even if it was a considered decision on the
point, it was nothing more than an application of a rule of
construction with which it was familiar for ascertaining the
intention of statutory provisions applicable to the Bombay
city.
Builders Supply Corporation vs The Union Of India Represented By The ... on 30 November, 1964
It has been held that
the Government continues to enjoy this prerogative right of
precedence after the Constitution came into force, see
Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (7), Bank of
India v. J. Boman(8). The Crown as parens partriae had
other prerogative rights.