GODHRA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY versus GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 20-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GODHRA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY 
v. 
GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. 
March 20, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
The Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, s. 13-Rules 4 and 5-
'Rate' /eviable 11nder s. 13 on lands and buildings-Certain lands and 
buildings to be taxed under r. 4(1) on capital basis-Method of evaJUQo 
tion of capital value-E'nglish. laW relating to 'rates'. relevance . of-Con· 
tractors' method of evaluation recommended-Data in company's balance 
sheet whether 'reliable data' for purpose of r, S. 
Unde'r s. 73 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 read with 
rr. 4( 1) and 5 made thereunder a rate on non-residential buildings belong-
ing to factories and mills was leviable on a capital basis, and the capital 
value for this purpose was to be work<!d out, if 'reliable data' were fur-
nished by the assessee, on the basis of such data. The respondent com-
pany owned certain buildings on which rate was leviable under r. 4(1) 
on the basis of capital value. The respondent company claimed that the 
actual cost of construction of the buildings in 1920 ought to be taken as 
the capital value. The Municipality of Godhra however made its own 
estimate of the capital value. Thereafter the Judicial Magistrate and the 
Sessions Judge made va1ua~ions taking into account the rise in the cost 
of building materials since 1920. The High Court In revision upheld the 
view that the actual cost minus depreciation thereon should be tho capital 
value; it observed that the English law and practice as to levy of rates 
was not relevant in the Indian context. The Municipality appealed. 
HELD : (i) When legislaturea in this country enact statutes which 
clooely resemble statutes in England and have the same purpose and 
object in view, then unless tho expressions used in the Indian Statutes are 
defined courts of law cannot go wrong in interpreting them in the way 
English judges have done. 
Further, the words which have acquired a 
particular shade of meaning in England may be given the same meaning 
unless there is anything in the statute itself which 
would be contra-
indicative. [486-F-OJ 
(ii) Section 73 empowered the municipality to impose a rate on 
buildings or lands. The word 'rate' ·had not been ·defined in the Act but . 
it has a well known meaning. In Patti Gordhandar's case this . Court 
examined various statutes bearing on the English rating law and held that 
the word 'rate' was used .with respect to a tax which- was levied on the net 
annual value or rateable value of lands and buildings and not on their 
capital value, but capital value could be· adopted as the basis for working 
out the annual value. [4850486E] 
(iii) Rule 4 of the Godhra Municipal Rules shows what properties 
are to be valued on capital basis. What the capital. basis is not defined. 
The capital value however can be determined in the way laid down in 
Patel Gordhandas'• case by adopting the contractor'& method. (487B]. 
(iv) The figures given in the balance sheet of the company could not 
be regarded as 'reliable data' for the purpose of r. 5. The figures given 
in tho balance sheet are merely statements in .terms of the form given in 
482 
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 3 S.C.R. 
Schedule VI. They have no relevance in determining tbe capital value of 
A 
property for the purpose of B&'eSsment to a rate. [488 B.q 
[Case remanded to District Judge for determining capital value by 
adopting contractors' method in the light of the observations made by 
this Court.] 
Patel Gordhandas Haraovindas v. hfunicipal Cornn11"ssioner1 Ah1nedav 
bad, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 608, relied on. 
B 
R. v. School Board for London, (1885) SS L.J.M.C, 33, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUIUSDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 631 and 
632 of 1965. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 7, 8, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision 
C 
Applicntions Nos. 116, 117, 173 and 174 of 1961. 
Purshottam Trikamadas and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in 
both the appeals). 
S. S. Shukla, for the respondent (in both the appeals), 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. 
These are two appeals by special leave against the 
judgment and order dated January 8, 1963 of the Gujarat High 
Court dismissing Civil Revision Applications 116 and 117 of 
1961 filed by the appe!Jant and allowing similar applications Nos. 
173. and 174 of l 961 filed by the respondent against the com· 
mon judgment dated December 1, 1960 passe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.