LexCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR versus THE NAGPUR HANDLOOM CLOTH MARKET CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Sttli Banani f>iu
v.
Cane Commisrim,'tr
Rag/,11hf11 !Jqval, J,
1962
Deumbtr~ 7.
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l963] SUPP.
discriminatory and because sub·r. (fl) is void in-
asmuch as the State Government had no power to
enact it and it is not servable from the rest of the rule.
I would therefore allow the appeal with costs
ancl order the issue of a writ quashing the proceedings
pending before the Cane Commissioner and pro-
hibiting him to continue those proceedings.
BY CouR'l' : In accordance with the opinion
of the majority. this Appeal is dismissed with costs.
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR
v.
THE NAGPUR HANDLOOMCLOTH .MARKET
CO. LTD.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANOHOO, K. c. DAS GUP1'A
and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Jf11.,nir:1'.pa,l Corporation-Levy of taxes-1Vater rates-
C1an.<.:r;,i·11ancy
nnrl
properly tu.xes-Individnal slto1J-keeper8-
Liability-/Juililiny, if inclwles part of a buil<ling-Re.iacntial
nnd non-rP,.sidenliril-IJiubility-Oonn'Jlrttion
Qj 'fam•ly'-IJ
1)ostulales relul-ion8liip-l'ity of lVagpu,r Corporation Act, 1948
(C.l'. and /Jerar 2 of 1950), s. 5 (7)-City of Nagpnr
Corporation Rules, r. JO (a) (h) (c).
The Xagput Handloom Cloth Market Company Ltd.
constructed in the City of Nagpur on plots owned by it a number
of buildings with two floors, the ground floor intended to be
used as shops and the first floor to he used for- residential
purpnses. For the use of the shops lavatories connected with the
sewers of the corporation drainage system were constructed and
water supply for the shops was obtained fron1 a corporation
water standard.
The corporation levied among other taxes,
under s. 114 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, c.>n-
sr-rvancy tax and \\f,1tr.r rates on the h~sis of the letting value of
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
797
the buildings.
Most of the shops were occupied by shop-
keepers and in the year I 953 the corporation served notices of
assessment on individual shop-keepers of the respective shops.
Some of the shop-keepers filed objeclions against the notices
served on them and on rejection of these objections filed appeals
under ss. 387 and 130 of the Act but without success.
Nearly
two years after these proceedings the company and one of the
shopkeepers filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay to
quash the order of demand dated February 2, 1958, and to
prohibit the Corporation from applying r. 10 (a) of the
Assessment Rules. The High Court allowed the writ petition
holding that r. 10 (a) applied only to residential houses and not
to houses occupied for non-residential purpo,e< and therefore
separate assessment of the shops in the occupation of the shop-
keepers was invalid. The contention of the Corporation that in
view of the great delay in filing the petition, the petition should
fail was rejected by the High Court. The present appeal came
before this Court by way of special leave.
Ileld, that the expression "building" in s. 5 (7) of the
Act would include a part of a building. By reason of s. 5 (7)
and the implication of r. IO (a) and r. IO (c) the Corporation is
competent to treat each tenement occupied by a different person
as a separate building for levy of tax.
The expression •family'
in r. 10 (a) docs not in the setting of the rules postulates the
existence of relationsl1ip cit11er by blood or by marriage between
the persons residing in the tene1uent.
l~vcn a single person n1ay
be regarded for the purpose of the rule as a family and a master
and servant would also Le so regarded.
The expression
"occupying" in r. 10 (a) applies equally to uses residential and
non.residential.
CIVIL APPELLATF. Ju!IISDW'fJON : Civil Appeal
No. 288 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 8, 1958, of the Bombay High
Court in Special Civil Application No. 174 of 1958.
G. S. Pathnk, S. M. Ha}arnavi8, O. O. Mathur,
J. B. Dadaahanji and Ravinder Narain, for the
appellant.
M. 0. Setafoad, Attorney-General of India,
M. N. Pliadke and Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
1962
Corporation of the
CiQI ef }lagpur
v.
Nagpur Handloom
Cloth Murket
c~·''"·
1962
Corporation t1/ tk
Ci{.v of .Yag{Jur
v.
Nagpur llandloom
Cloth Marktl
Co. Ltd.
SM.h, J,
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
1962. December 7. The Judgment of the Court
was deli vcrcd by
SaAu,J.---Thc Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market
Cumpany Ltd.--hcreinafter called 'the Company'-
construExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.