9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e identical, so a single judgment will dispose of both appeals. In the suits, challenge was to two shove-cause-notices both, dated 23rd May 1994 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act ( BMC Act for short) by the respondent/ corporation to the respective appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why unauthorised extensions made by them to their existing shops should not be removed or demolished. The said two show cause notices after hearing the respective notices culminated in two separate orders, both dated 2nd September 1994, passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, who was pleased to hold that the appellants being in possession and occupation of the unauthorised and illegal structure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective replies. They were heard by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, who, after hearing them was pleased to pass orders on 2nd September 1994 directing both of them to remove their respective illegal structures forthwith. Thus notices issued under Section 351 of the BMC Act were culminated in the orders directing removal of illegal structures forthwith. Thus the threats to demolish or remove illegal structures through the orders in question were clear and unequivocal. No further action or warning under the BMC Act is contemplated. The next action contemplated is the execution of the said orders passed under the provisions of the Act. 6. In the light of the above facts, if one turns to the judgment of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted running from 2nd September 1994. The suits, thus, ought to have been filed within six months next after the accrual of cause of action. As already found, cause of action for filing suits having been accrued on 2nd September 1994, any suit beyond period of six months can hardly be said to be within a period of limitation. Thus the trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that both suits were barred by limitation. 8. Having considered the submissions and examined the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra), first of all I must make it clear that this judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present appeals. In the case of Virendra Singh (supra) the notice alone was a subject matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the execution of this Act. (a) ..... (b) unless it is commenced within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action. The bare reading of the above section would clearly show that the limitation would start running, immediately, after the accrual of cause of action. Six months will have to be counted from the date of accrual of cause of action. There is no scope to postpone the commencement or starting point of limitation. The statutory provision cannot be interpreted in a manner which will introduce element of uncertainty. This principle has been stated by Lord Shaw in the following words : Where words of a statute are clear, they must, of course, be followed but in their Lordships opinion, where alternat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an effective infringement of his legal right. The effective infringement of legal right would depend upon the facts of each case including the quality mode, manner and effectiveness of the threat administered. The learned Single Judge while taking above view relied upon the following judgments of different courts. In Mt. Bolo v. Ml. Koklan , it is observed as follows: -- 'There can be no right to sue unless there is accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In AIR1932Mad589 Kandasami Piliai v. Munisami Mudaliar , the above Privy Council decision was followed and the same principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accrual of right to sue means accrual of cause of action for the suit. 12. Applying the above principles to the facts involved in the present appeals, the notices issued under Section 351 were followed by order dated 2nd September 1994 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay directing removal of illegal extensions forthwith with further overt act i.e. threat in the nature of direction to the Ward Officer, H-West Ward to demolish the same at the risk of and cost of the notices. The threat given was emphatic, effective, clear and unequivocal. In this view of the matter, I do not think that on the facts of the present appeals, the judgment of single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of National Sports Club would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
