Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1912 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1912 (12) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Legality of the apportionment of police costs among inhabitants of a district.
2. Liability of the Secretary of State for the money unlawfully taken from the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the apportionment of police costs
The case involved a dispute regarding the apportionment of police costs among the inhabitants of a district in Eastern Bengal and Assam. The Government, under Section 15 of the Police Act, 1861, increased the number of police in certain areas due to the conduct of the inhabitants. The apportionment of costs was to be done by the District Magistrate, but it was carried out by a Deputy Magistrate. The appellants challenged the apportionment, which was upheld by the District Magistrate. The court held that the apportionment was not legally realized from the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the amount assessed was not lawfully recovered.

Issue 2: Liability of the Secretary of State
The second question raised was whether the Secretary of State was rightly sued for the unlawfully taken money. The court considered the liability for the money incurred by the Government of India, regardless of whether it was lawful or not. The court reasoned that if the money was at the disposal of the Local Government and applied by its officers according to law, the Secretary of State, who controls the revenues of India, is the appropriate entity to be sued. The court emphasized that the Secretary of State could be held liable for money raised under the law for the benefit of the Local Government. The suit against the Secretary of State was deemed correct, and the appeal was allowed, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legality of the apportionment of police costs among inhabitants and the liability of the Secretary of State for the unlawfully taken money. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the apportionment was not legally realized and that the Secretary of State could be sued for the money taken.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates