LexSHYABUDDINSAB MOHIDINSAB, AKKI versus THE GADAG-BETGERI MUNICIPAL BOROUGH AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 The State of Bihar .v. Kumar Amar Singh and others Jagannadhadas J. 1955 Fe6ruary 22 1268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] "where immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance (Act) any evacuee property in a Province has vested in any person exercising the power of Custodian under any law repealed hereby, the evacuee property shall on the commencement of the Ordinance (Act) be deemed to have been vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to have been appointed for the Province under the Ordinance (Act) and shall continue to so vest". · , ·, The definitions of the ·phrase "evacuee property" m the Central Ordinance and by the Central Act are clear and unambiguous so as to include the interest of an · evacuee in any property held as a trustee or beneficiary. There is no reason to think that "eva- cuee property" as defined in the Bihar Ordinance was meant to be anything "different. The words used in this definition are of sufficient amplitude and we ·are of the opinion that the Bihar 'definition· comprised also · wakj property and interest therein~ We are also of the opinion that the successive repeals of ·the Bihar Ordinance by the Central Ordinance and the Central Act and the continuance of the vesting · in the Cus- todian, places the matter beyond any doubt. This contention must, therefore, fail. This appeal alw must accordingly succe~d. In the result both the appeals are allowed. The appellant in the circumstances will get only the cost; incurred before the High Court on remand in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1952. Appeals allowed. ' SHYABUDDINSAB MOHIDIN$AB, AKKI tJ. THE GADAG-BETGERI · MUNICIPAL BOROUGH AND OTHERS. rvrvrAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and' B. P, SINHA JT.] Bombay M~nicipal Boroughs Act, 1925 ·(Bombay Act XVlll of 1925), s. 19 as amended by Bombay Act LIV _of 1954-;-Lc_gal effect thereof-Validity of election-S. 35(3)(6)-Notice ,of meeting-Provi- sions of s. 35(3)'-Whether directory or mimdatory-S. 35(6)-Pre- sence or absence of public-Whether affects the validity of meeting. >-- - f I 1 ..... )., I 1 :s.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 126Y The first respondent-Municipality-governed by the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) consists of 32 ·councillors, S, (the appellant) being one of them. The last general -election to the Municipality took place on the 7th May 1951. The term of the councillors was three years computed from the first meeting held on 10th July 1951 after the general election. In that 'meeting the 4th and 5th respondents were elected President and - Vice-President respectively for a term of three years. Act XVIII of 1925 was amended by Bombay Act XXXV of 1954 under which the term of office of the councillors was extended from 3 to 4 years end- -'ing on 9th July 1955. As the term of respondents 4 and 5 was to ·expire at the end of three years from the 10th July 1951 and as the term of the Municipality was extended by one year under the Amending Act XXXV of 1954 a fresh election of President and Vice- -President was necessary to fill up the vacancies thus occurring. The Collector called a special general meeting for the 30th July 1954 to elect a President and Vice-President for the remaining period of the quadrennium and nominated the Prant Official (the District Deputy Collector) to preside over that meeting. On the 30th July 1954 the Prant Officer adjourned the meeting to the 3rd August 1954 under ·instructions from the Collector without transacting any business. "The objection raised by respondent No. 3 against the adjournment ·was overruled by the presiding Officer. The special general meeting was held on the 3rd August 1954. An objection raised by S (the :appellant) that under the provisions of the Act a President could not -be elected for a term less than a year was overruled by the presiding Officer. On this 13 councillors (including S) out of the 32 who were present walked out on the ground that the President was to be •elected for- a term less than a year contrary to the provisions of the Act. The remaining 19 councillors elected the 2nd respondent as ·the President for the remaining period of the quadrennium. Immedi- ·.ately after that another me~ting presided over by the newly elected President elected respondent No. 3 as Vice-President. The same point of order raised by S as in the case of the President was over- ruled, on which 6 councillors walked
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.