Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 199 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 435 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Jadunath Basak vs Mritunjoy Sett And Ors. on 7 January, 1986
The later Division Bench decision of this Court in Jadunath v. Mritunjoy, , so much relied on by the learned trial Judge, has also taken similar view.
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
Venode Kumar Jalan vs Calcutta Municipal Corporation And ... on 24 July, 1987
That is also the view we take in this case; that is also what Chatterjee, J. has held in Venode Kumar Jalan (1987) 1 Cal LT 333) (supra). But no such tax or licence or certificate can legalise any business, if it is otherwise illegitimate because of non-compliance with any other provision of the Municipal Act or any other law and can never be a substitute for any other legal requisite.
The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999
Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967
10. It is true that under S. 435 of the Municipal Act, no person shall use or permit to be used any premises for any non-residential purposes mentioned in Schedule V without licence under that section and carrying on the trade or business of motor-repairing is such a non-residential purpose under Entry No. 22(i) of Schedule V. Under our law, even a trespasser, having no title to possess, may still have a right to possess a premises against all but the true owner, and even against the real owner until the former is evicted in due course of law and even though no citation may be, necessary, reference may be made to, among others, the decision of the Supreme Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620. But can the grant or renewal of a licence under S. 435 of the Act be refused solely on the ground that the person applying therefor, though having the right to possess until evicted, has no title to possess the premises? We have our doubts, but we do not proceed to decide the question as not being necessary for our present purpose.
Corporation Of Calcutta vs Omeda Khatun Bewa on 9 June, 1955
12. Our attention has also been drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Sumenia Bewa, 35 Calcutta Weekly Notes 831, decided under the corresponding provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, which appears to us to be an authority for the view that taxes are payable by any person who exercises or carries on any profession, trade or calling as mentioned in Schedule IV, even without any place of business or any legal title to such place.