Skip to content


Municipality of Palamcottah Vs. Annasami Mudali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad100
AppellantMunicipality of Palamcottah
RespondentAnnasami Mudali
Excerpt:
towns improvement act, 1871 clause iv, schedule b - magistrate's court vakil taxable. - .....his profession as a private vakil or agent, neglected to pay the tax. he was prosecuted before the bench magistrates of palamcottah and fined rs. 3 and also ordered to pay the tax, rs. 12, in addition.2. on appeal the temporary deputy magistrate reversed the sentence on the ground that the term 'pleader' is applicable only to one who is qualified under the rules framed by the high court under section 4 of act xx of 1865, and who has obtained a sanad from the high court or district court, and not to a private practitioner.3. the district magistrate submits that, for the reasons stated in his letter, the appellant is liable to pay the tax, and that the order passed by the bench magistrates should be restored.4. if a vakil follows the business of vakil for any of the public employing him,.....
Judgment:

Innes and Kernan, JJ.

1. The appellant, who was assessed by the Municipal Commissioners under Clause IV, Schedule B, of the Towns Improvement Act, III of 1871, on account of his profession as a private Vakil or Agent, neglected to pay the tax. He was prosecuted before the Bench Magistrates of Palamcottah and fined Rs. 3 and also ordered to pay the tax, Rs. 12, in addition.

2. On appeal the Temporary Deputy Magistrate reversed the sentence on the ground that the term 'Pleader' is applicable only to one who is qualified under the rules framed by the High Court under Section 4 of Act XX of 1865, and who has obtained a sanad from the High Court or District Court, and not to a private practitioner.

3. The District Magistrate submits that, for the reasons stated in his letter, the appellant is liable to pay the tax, and that the order passed by the Bench Magistrates should be restored.

4. If a Vakil follows the business of Vakil for any of the public employing him, or for any class of the public, we think he is liable. In this case he appears to be an ordinary Vakil, open to employment by any one giving him a vakalat. We think, therefore, he is liable. A mere private Vakil of one individual, who confines himself to that business, and is paid salary, probably may not be liable.

5. We must set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate and restore that of the Bench.


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