Dayabhai Narandas Vs. Pestanji Jamshedji - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/339856 |
| Subject | Other taxes |
| Court | Mumbai |
| Decided On | Nov-23-1914 |
| Case Number | Civil application No. 121 of 1914 |
| Judge | Heaton and ;Shah, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1915Bom92(1); (1915)17BOMLR63 |
| Appellant | Dayabhai Narandas |
| Respondent | Pestanji Jamshedji |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
Excerpt:
district municipalities act (bom. act 111 of 1901), sections 3(17), 59(b)(ii)-wheel-tax-vehicle-hand-barrows running on rails laid on public streets.;hand-trollies running on rails laid on a public street and used by contractors for the purpose of carrying materials to fill up a tank, are vehicles as defined in section 3(17) of the district municipalities act 1901, and are liable to be assessed for wheel-tax under section 59(b)(ii) of the act. - - i see no good reason for supposing that they do not come within the plain words of the definition, nor do i think that they come within the exemption or exception which is provided for in the contract between the plaintiff and the municipality......contractors for the purpose of carrying material to fill up a tank. the question is, whether these trollies are vehicles subject to the wheel-tax of the broach municipality, the collection of which is in the hands of the plaintiff who is the farmer of that tax. the judge below, as i understand him, held that these trollies do not come within the definition of 'vehicles' of the district municipal act. i think they do. it seems to me to be idle to say that these vehicles are not used or capable of being used on a public street when everybody connected with the case knows that in fact they are used on a public street. i see no good reason for supposing that they do not come within the plain words of the definition, nor do i think that they come within the exemption or exception which is.....
Judgment:Heaton, J.
1. I think the Judge below is wrong in his decision so far as it has gone. We are dealing with some trollies which run on rails in the Broach streets, pushed or pulled by hand and used by contractors for the purpose of carrying material to fill up a tank. The question is, whether these trollies are vehicles subject to the wheel-tax of the Broach Municipality, the collection of which is in the hands of the plaintiff who is the farmer of that tax. The Judge below, as I understand him, held that these trollies do not come within the definition of 'vehicles' of the District Municipal Act. I think they do. It seems to me to be idle to say that these vehicles are not used or capable of being used on a public street when everybody connected with the case knows that in fact they are used on a public street. I see no good reason for supposing that they do not come within the plain words of the definition, nor do I think that they come within the exemption or exception which is provided for in the contract between the plaintiff and the Municipality. They are not the conveyances of the Municipality or of Municipal servants and they are not used for watering roads or for carrying rubbish by which, I understand, is meant the conservancy purpose of removing the town refuse. At least it is not shown that they are used for this purpose. That being so, it is not shown that they come within this exemption or exception. The truth is that the real dispute between the parties is one which has not yet been adjudicated on by the Judge.
2. We set aside his decree and remand this suit to be disposed of according to law. Costs of this application to be costs in the suit.