1949 (1) TMI 9 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of tax assessment by Buxar Municipal Commissioners for rise and oil mills.
2. Jurisdictional dispute regarding the location of mills within municipal limits.
3. Interpretation of Section 377, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act regarding the bar on suits.
4. Request for remand and appointment of a pleader commissioner for investigation.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff challenged the tax assessment by the Buxar Municipal Commissioners on his rise and oil mills, claiming it to be illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff sought a declaration and a permanent injunction against tax collection. The defendant contended that the tax assessment was valid and invoked Section 377, Municipal Act as a defense. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, rejecting the defense's arguments.

2. The appellant argued that the mills were within Ward No. 7 of Buxar Municipality, referencing a government notification defining the ward boundaries. However, the court found discrepancies in the notification and the actual location of the mills on the survey map. Despite the absence of a municipal map indicating jurisdiction, the court concluded that the mills did not fall within the municipal limits. The appellant's failure to produce crucial evidence weakened their case.

3. The appellant contended that the suit was barred under Section 377, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. However, the court clarified that the section pertains to tortious acts, not contractual disputes. The plaintiff's suit for a declaration of illegal assessment and an injunction did not fall under the scope of Section 377. Legal precedents were cited to support this interpretation, emphasizing the maintainability of such suits beyond the statutory time limit.

4. The appellant requested a remand for appointing a pleader commissioner to investigate the mills' location, but the court deemed the request untimely at that stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decree, dismissing the appeal with costs. Both judges, Vaidynathier Ramaswami and Syed Jafar Imam, concurred on upholding the lower court's decision.