9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter as the appellant was not satisfied with the offer made by the Corporation he filed an application under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on 31st July 1968 making a claim for compensation. This application was opposed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on various grounds and a contention was also raised that the application was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The appellant had also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on the ground that he could not file an application earlier because of the conduct of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Officers themselves and hence there was sufficient cause for him for not making the application within the period prescribed by Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. This application was also opposed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation on the ground (1) that the provisions of Section 5 of the Lim. Act are not applicable to the application contemplated by Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act; and (2) that the application filed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Corporation authorities claiming an adjustment of amount of ₹ 17,000/- which he had to pay as arrears of property taxes in respect of the said property. He had requested the Corporation authorities to pay him the compensation after deduction of the said taxes. The appellant approached the Officers of the Corporation on more than one occasion. Ultimately he was constrained to file a suit for injunction in the City Civil Court, Bombay bearing Suit No. 7551 of 1965 restraining the respondent Bombay Municipal Corporation from recovering the alleged property taxes by attachment and sale of the properly and such an injunction was granted by the City Civil Court restraining the respondent Bombay. Municipal Corporation from taking any action for recovery of the arrears of taxes till the amount of compensation was determined and paid to him. Such an injunction was continuing on the date when the application under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was filed. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellant has contended that he was under the impression that it was the duty of the respondent Bombay Municipal Corporation to determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipal Corporation Act, is concerned in our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Act reads as under: 504. If in any case not falling under Section 491, any person is required by this Act, or by any regulation or by-law framed under this Act, to pay any expenses or any compensation, the amount to be so paid and, if necessary, the apportionment of the same, shall, in case of dispute, be determined, except as is otherwise provided in Sections 502 and 503, by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court on application being made to him for this purpose at any time within one year from the date when such expenses or compensation first became claimable. From the bare reading of this section it is quite clear that the application under this section is to be filed before the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court within a period of one year from the date on which the compensation first became claimable. This section prescribes period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule attached to the Limitation Act and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act the provisions c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class or as filling a particular character (vide Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad, 1961CriLJ740 and Ram Chandra v. State of U. P., 1966CriLJ1514 ) 7. Then after making a reference to the decisions of various High Courts in para. 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court approved the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor v. L. Ramayya, in the following terms: As against this, this very question was examined by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor (A. P.) v. L. Ramayya, (Andh Pra). Two questions were referred to the Full Bench. The first was whether the District and Sessions Judge who is appointed judicial authority for hearing appeals under Section 6-C is a persona designate or an inferior Criminal Court and the second was whether even if it is an inferior Criminal Court a revision application against the order of the appellate authority would lie to the High Court? The Full Bench answered the first question in the affirmative. While summing up its conclusions, the Court held that when a judicial authority like an officer who presides over a court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a clear indication of the fact that the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court acts as a Court and not as a persona designate. Once it is held that the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court is not a persona designate but acts as a Court, then obviously the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings instituted under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Hence it is not possible for us to accept the contentions raised by Shri Walawalkar in this behalf. 9. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, it is no doubt true that a discretion is conferred upon a Court before which an appeal for condonation of delay is filed It is equally true that if the said Court after keeping in view the relevant principles exercises its discretion judiciously, then unless it is shown that the order is manifestly unjust or perverse, normally the appellate Court will not interfere with the said discretion. However in the present case, the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court has not kept in view the relevant principles while exercising his discretion in refusing to condone the delay. It is undoubtedly true that in dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the payment of compensation nor the Corporation had offered any compensation. After receipt of this letter the appellant informed the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the compensation offered is wholly inadequate. Thus the letter issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation dated 1st June 1968 was replied to by the appellant vide his advocate's letter dated 28th June 1968. By this letter he had reaffirmed his claim made earlier and claimed compensation at the rate of ₹ 450/- per square yard. After giving this reply on 28-6-1968 and after making necessary arrangements he filed an application under Section 504 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act as early as possible. All these circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant was acting all through bona fide, and could not file the application, became of an honest and bona fide belief on his part and because of the inaction on the part of the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellant has fully explained the whole period of delay. He has also disclosed what steps were taken by him in the matter. If all these circumstances are conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
