Skip to content


In Re: N.N. Krishnaswami Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1918)35MLJ251
AppellantIn Re: N.N. Krishnaswami Iyer
Cases Referred and Vaman v. Municipality of Sholapur I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....consider the council's project as a whole and to decide whether this part of it was sanctioned, rightly or wrongly, in good faith, the injunction cannot be supported and the learned district judge was right in setting it aside......baksh singh i.l.r. (1884) cal. 6 on this ground alone the petitioner must fail.3. but further the learned district judge does not appear to me to have erred in law. the payment above referred to is to be made for land acquired for a scavenging lane, it is not alleged before me the council's sanction for the expenditure is not formally regular or that the provision of such a lane is not within its power and duty. the injunction is claimed on the sole ground that the lane could be opened more cheaply and conveniently in another way, suggested by petitioner. the learned judge has held that the district munsif had not sufficient evidence before him to justify even a provisional conclusion to that effect and, though this is only suggested at the end of his paragraph 7, that interference with.....
Judgment:

1. In this petition, which comes before me for admission, I am asked to revise that order of the District Judge, South Malabar, dissolving an injunction granted by the District Munsif, Palghat, restraining the Palghat Municipal Council from making a certain payment from its fund pending decision of a suit for a permanent injunction in the same terms.

2. The first objection to this petition is that if discloses no ground for revision, fulfilling the requirements of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, The District Judge undoubtedly had the jurisdiction, which he exercised, to set aside the District Munsif's order, and no argument has been based on his commission of any material irregularity in that exercise. If, as is alleged, he erred in law or fact in his appreciation of the merits, that is not material Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh I.L.R. (1884) Cal. 6 On this ground alone the petitioner must fail.

3. But further the learned District Judge does not appear to me to have erred in law. The payment above referred to is to be made for land acquired for a scavenging lane, It is not alleged before me the Council's sanction for the expenditure is not formally regular or that the provision of such a lane is not within its power and duty. The injunction is claimed on the sole ground that the lane could be opened more cheaply and conveniently in another way, suggested by petitioner. The learned Judge has held that the District Munsif had not sufficient evidence before him to justify even a provisional conclusion to that effect and, though this is only suggested at the end of his paragraph 7, that interference with the Council's discretion, exercised intra vires cannot be justified.

4. Only the second of these reasons calls for notice in revision. Under Section 21 of Act IV of 1884 the Council is a corporation with power to contract and to do all things necessary for the purpose of its constitution, the Municipal Fund being held by it under Section 27 for the purpdses of the Act, of which, it is not denied, the promotion of sanitation by the provision of lanes is one. And the law applicable to it, like other corporations, is that ' if it is keeping within its authorisation and acting bona fide the Court will not interfere with its operations. It will be deemed the best Judge, not only of what is most conducive to its own interest but also of what is proper and fitting as regards third parties and it will be left unchecked to take or not to take lands etc,' Brice on Corporation, 3rd edition, 475. This statement of the law is supported by the learned author by reference to English authority and the cases relied on before me, Bundee Harbour Trustees v. Nicol (1915) A.C. 550 and Vaman v. Municipality of Sholapur I.L.R. (1897) Bom. 646 afford no reason for distrusting it, since they deal only with the right of particular persons to sue, not the validity of their causes of action. No doubt a corporation is protected in accordance with the foregoing, only if its act is done bond fide. But this is not the test applied by the District Munsif's judgment or proposed on behalf of the petitioner here, except in so far as both depend en the illegitimate assumption that any bona fide opinion as to the acquisition must coincide with their own; and this assumption is particularly marked in connection with the former's refusal to consider the propriety of this acquisition in connection with the further one, which the Council alleged that it contemplated. In the absence of any attempt by the District Munsif to consider the Council's project as a whole and to decide whether this part of it was sanctioned, rightly or wrongly, in good faith, the injunction cannot be supported and the learned District Judge was right in setting it aside.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.


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