Skip to content


Venkata Reddi Vs. W. Taylor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad100
AppellantVenkata Reddi
RespondentW. Taylor
Excerpt:
letters patent of the high court, section 15 - appeal--district municipalities act (madras)--act iv of 1884, sections 53, 59, 60--profession tax--trader--provincial small cause courts act--act ix of 1387, sections 25, 27. - .....rules of this court framed under section 13 of the charter act. the judgment is, therefore, subject to the appeal provided by section 15 of the letters patent.2. the preliminary objection must consequently be disallowed.3. passing on to the merits, have see no reason to differ from the learned judge in holding that any person who makes it his business to sell for profit is a 'trader' within the meaning of the municipal act iv of 1884. we do not think the fact of what he sells being the produce of his own land makes him the less a trader, provided the sales are conducted in a shop or place of business as in this case. the other point is not pressed. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The preliminary objection is taken that the petitioner's remedy is exhausted by the order passed by Mr. Justice Parker under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, from which it is contended no appeal is allowable by reason of Section 27, which declares the decrees or orders of the Small Cause Court to be final, subject to the provisions of that Act. We observe that the revision contemplated in Section 25 is by the ' High Court'. Mr. Justice Parker exercised such revisional jurisdiction under the rules of this Court framed under Section 13 of the Charter Act. The judgment is, therefore, subject to the appeal provided by Section 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The preliminary objection must consequently be disallowed.

3. Passing on to the merits, have see no reason to differ from the learned Judge in holding that any person who makes it his business to sell for profit is a 'trader' within the meaning of the Municipal Act IV of 1884. We do not think the fact of what he sells being the produce of his own land makes him the less a trader, provided the sales are conducted in a shop or place of business as in this case. The other point is not pressed. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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