Skip to content


Mr. J. Krishna Row Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.581
AppellantMr. J. Krishna Row
RespondentThe President of the Corporation of Madras
Excerpt:
madras city municipal act (iii of 1904), section 150, 151 (f) - vehicle kept under repair--liability for being taxed--'kept,' 'let out for hire,' 'used,' meaning of. - - section 151(f) clearly negatives this argument......madras city municipal act are employed distinctively; and the word kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. if the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, section 151(f).2. i can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept,' within the meaning of section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. i would set aside the order of the magistrate, cancelling the tax and ordering refund.napier, j.4. i agree.5. three points are argued. first, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. i cannot take this argument seriously. second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire' and private.....
Judgment:

William Ayling, J.

1. In my opinion the three phrases kept', let out for hire' and used' in Section 150 of the Madras City Municipal Act are employed distinctively; and the word kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. If the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of Section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, Section 151(f).

2. I can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept,' within the meaning of Section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.

3. I would set aside the order of the Magistrate, cancelling the tax and ordering refund.

Napier, J.

4. I agree.

5. Three points are argued. First, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. I cannot take this argument seriously. Second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire' and private persons who do not use for 30 days are not taxable. Section 151(f) clearly negatives this argument. Thirdly, that as the owner had not the car in his possession, he was not 'keeping it.' The section does not require the car to be in the possession of the owner. Any vehicle that is under some one's control is undoubtedly kept.

6. It has not been argued that if it was kept the owner need not pay and the argument would be impossible as long as the owner had, control. Vide Section 150(2) of the Madras Municipal Act. The assessment by the Corporation is correct.


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