Skip to content


Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. Nos. 525 to 648 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Guj26; (1982)1GLR31
ActsBombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sections 411 and 411-W
AppellantAhmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Mills Co. Ltd.
RespondentMunicipal Corporation of Ahmedabad
Appellant Advocate K.M. Desai, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.B. Vakil, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....on the part of the judge to draw up a statement of facts and to draw the question of law or the question of usage having the force of law or the construction of a document and refer the statement of facts with his opinion on that point or points for the decision of, the high court. under the scheme of the act. the judge hearing the appeal is competent to decide any question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. under section 410 of the act it is open to the judge to make reference to the high court on one of the three subject matters and it is incumbent upon him to make a reference on any one of those three questions if any party draw for reference. what s. 411 clause (b) of the act says is that if the judge himself decides any question of law or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. x x x x x x x

To me it appears that mere refusal to make a reference under S. 410 of the Act without deciding any question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document, the learned Judge does not-decide 'upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or- t1he constructi6n of a document.' Under S. 410 of the Act it is the obligation on the part of the Judge to draw up a statement of facts and to draw the question of law or the question of usage having the force of law or the construction of a document and refer the statement of facts with his opinion on that point or points for the decision of, the High Court. Under the scheme of the Act. the Judge hearing the appeal is competent to decide any question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. Under Section 410 of the Act it is open to the Judge to make reference to the High Court on one of the three subject matters and it is incumbent upon him to make a reference on any one of those three questions if any Party Draw for reference. What S. 411 clause (b) of the Act says is that if the Judge himself decides any question of law or decides any question upon usage having the force of law or decides any question upon the construction of a document. then alone the appeal will lie under S. 411(b) of the Act. In the instant case, the learned Judge by refusing to entertain the application at that stage has certainly reached some decision, but it cannot be, said to be a decision 'upon a question of law or a question upon usage having the force of law or a question upon the construction of a document,' which are referred to in the same terms under Section 410 of the Act. So. to me it appears that. appeal under S. 411 clause (b) of the Act will lie to the High Court if and only if the Judge of the lower Court hearing the valuation and tax appeals in the course of the hearing decides these questions himself but does not refer those questions to the Court either volitionally. or compulsorily at the behest of one of the parties An appeal is a statutory right and an appeal lies only in those cases where an appeal is specifically provided for by a statute. Clause (b) of S. 411 of the Act, therefore. is not attracted to the facts of the present case and these appeals from orders as such are liable to be dismissed.

2. x x x x x x x

3. Appeals dismissed


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