1969 (8) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of dismissal order by Shri Ghatpande under Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909.
2. Defense of limitation under Section 135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909.
3. Applicability of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
4. Interpretation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909.
5. Comparison with the case of Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon regarding jurisdiction.

Analysis:

The judgment concerns an appeal from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, involving the plaintiff's claim against the Indore Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff sought a declaration that their dismissal was illegal, claiming reinstatement and salary arrears. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, which was later set aside by the lower appellate court but restored by the High Court.

The primary issue revolved around the authority of Shri Ghatpande to dismiss the plaintiff under Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909. The High Court found that there was no official appointment by the Government for Shri Ghatpande to act as Commissioner, rendering his dismissal order invalid for lack of jurisdiction.

Another significant issue was the defense of limitation raised by the Municipal Corporation under Section 135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act. The District Judge initially accepted this defense, but the High Court rejected it, determining that the suit fell under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not within the scope of Section 135.

The interpretation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Indore Act was crucial in distinguishing suits against the Municipal Council from those against its officers or servants. The Court highlighted the purpose of Section 135 to allow for corrections within a notice period, emphasizing that the plaintiff's suit did not concern acts done under the Act.

Drawing parallels with the case of Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon, the judgment clarified that actions taken without jurisdiction, such as the dismissal in this case, do not fall under the protection of statutory provisions like Section 135. The Court emphasized that the suit did not pertain to acts done under the Indore Municipal Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision, with the appellant bearing the costs.