The President, Union Board Vs. A.M. Balakrishna Reddiar - Court Judgment
|Appellant||The President, Union Board|
|Respondent||A.M. Balakrishna Reddiar|
- central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 11: [p. santhasivam, a. kulasekaran & s. tamilvanan, jj] possession of property taken by bank under the securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the s..r.f.a.e.s.i. act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the..........to think that, because in ramchandra rao, in re a.i.r. 1924 mad. 375, it was held that the last clause in clause (n), schedule 5, 'likely to be dangerous to life, health or property' must be read with each of the clauses preceding the notification in this case, which was under the old act, was invalid.3. in my opinion this is not the correct view. an action taken by a properly constituted authority should always be held to be legal unless it is demonstrably not so. therefore when item 15, a rice-mill is notified under section 193(1), local boards act, it must be taken that the president of the panchayat board issued the notification in conformity with the law as interpreted in ramachandra rao in re a.i.r. 1924 mad. 375. therefore we must assume that he considered that all rice-mills.....
1. I think the learned Sub-Magistrate was wrong in considering the notification invalid. Schedule 10, Clause 7, Madras Local Boards Act says:
Any action taken by any authorities before the commencement of this Act for taking which action new authorities are substituted by or under the said Act as amended by this Act shall unless inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been taken by such new authorities unless and and until superseded by action taken by them.
2. The learned Sub-Magistrate seems to think that, because in Ramchandra Rao, In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 375, it was held that the last clause in Clause (n), Schedule 5, 'likely to be dangerous to life, health or property' must be read with each of the clauses preceding the notification in this case, which was under the old Act, was invalid.
3. In my opinion this is not the correct view. An action taken by a properly constituted authority should always be held to be legal unless it is demonstrably not so. Therefore when item 15, a rice-mill is notified Under Section 193(1), Local Boards Act, it must be taken that the President of the Panchayat Board issued the notification in conformity with the law as interpreted in Ramachandra Rao In re A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 375. Therefore we must assume that he considered that all rice-mills were likely to be dangerous to human life, health or property. I think the circumstances of the case make it undesirable to set aside an acquittal on a revision petition. But I have made the above remarks in case it might be again contended on the basis of the learned Sub-Magistrate's view that the notification was invalid. I do not decide the other question as to which party had to discharge the onus of proof in regard to any particular rice-mill. The petition is dismissed.