Skip to content


Baban Hemraj Vs. the City Municipality - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 689 of 1920
Judge
Reported in(1921)23BOMLR881
AppellantBaban Hemraj
RespondentThe City Municipality
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
bombay district municipal act (bom. act iii of 1901), section 1671- contract with municipality-penalty for breach of contract-suit to recover the amount 0/penalty recovered by municipality.;section 167 of the bombay district municipal act 1901 governs a suit to recover the amount deducted by a district municipality for the non-performauce of a contract from the deposit made by the contractor for the due performance of his contract entered into with the municipality. - .....which the plaintiff might wish to bring under the contract would come within the provisions of section 167 of the bombay district municipal act. i think the decision of the lower appellate court was right and the appeal must be dismissed with.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. Disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant Municipality arose under a contract between the parties. The Municipality had entered into that contract under the powers granted to it under Section 40 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The Municipality claimed according to the terms of that contract to deduct a certain amount from the plaintiff's deposit for non-performance of his contract. As the Municipality obtained their powers to enter into this contract from the Act, it follows that their powers to enforce the contract, according to the construction they put upon it, must also be in pursuance of the Act. Therefore, any suit which the plaintiff might wish to bring under the contract would come within the provisions of Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. I think the decision of the lower appellate Court was right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //