Skip to content


The Cannanore Municipal Council Through Its Chairman Rao Sahib K. Chantan Avl. Vs. Puthiya Valappil Kuniyil Anandan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMunicipal Tax
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad683; 108Ind.Cas.740; (1928)54MLJ454
AppellantThe Cannanore Municipal Council Through Its Chairman Rao Sahib K. Chantan Avl.
RespondentPuthiya Valappil Kuniyil Anandan
Excerpt:
- .....has preferred this revision petition.2. the only question for consideration is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of clause (q) of schedule v. the contention of mr. govindan for the petitioner is that it 5s machinery, or, even if it is not to be treated as such, the municipality having bona fide assessed the respondent and having complied with all the formalities required by the act, the respondent is not entitled to get back the amount paid by him. the question in this case is not whether the municipality has complied with the law, but whether it can levy an assessment in respect of hand looms which do not come within the meaning of clause (q). i do not think that hand looms which are worked without steam power or electric power but only with the hand can be.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. The only point in this Civil Revision petition is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of schedule V, Clause (q) of the District Municipalities Act. The Municipality of Cannanore assessed the respondent in respect of two buildings belonging to him in which he had a number of looms. He paid the assessment and afterwards filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court for the recovery of the amount on the ground that it was illegally levied from him. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff, and the Municipality has preferred this revision petition.

2. The only question for consideration is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of Clause (q) of Schedule V. The contention of Mr. Govindan for the petitioner is that it 5s machinery, or, even if it is not to be treated as such, the Municipality having bona fide assessed the respondent and having complied with all the formalities required by the Act, the respondent is not entitled to get back the amount paid by him. The question in this case is not whether the Municipality has complied with the law, but whether it can levy an assessment in respect of hand looms which do not come within the meaning of Clause (q). I do not think that hand looms which are worked without steam power or electric power but only with the hand can be called machinery within the meaning of Clause (q). If the hand loom is machinery then it might be contended With some show of reason that the charka and Singer's sewing machines are machinery. I do not think it was ever the intention of the legislature that small hand looms and industrial impliments and tools should be assessed under the Act. Mr. Justice Jackson in a recent case held that looms were not machinery.

3. In the view I take of the word 'machinery' I do not think the Municipality was justified in levying the assessment. The judgment of the lower court is correct and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.


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