Emperor Vs. S. Vardachariar

Emperor vs S. Vardachariar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 18, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/807170

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/807170
Court: Chennai
Judge: Sadasiva Aiyar and ;Napier, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 18, 1918
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Madras City Municipal Act (III of 1904), Sections 282 420 - Construction of inflammable pandal--Offence--Owner and occupier, liability of. - - The pandal in question is clearly unlawful and there is no written permission of the President to legalise it.

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

S. Vardachariar

Legal References

Reported In: 47Ind.Cas.672

Excerpt

madras city municipal act (iii of 1904), sections 282 420 - construction of inflammable pandal--offence--owner and occupier, liability of. - - the pandal in question is clearly unlawful and there is no written permission of the president to legalise it.1. we are quite dear that this section 262 (of the madras city municipal act, 1904) read with section 420 (of the act) was intended to reproduce section 264 of the old act (the city of madras municipal act, 1834), which made the new construction of an inflammable pandal or the continuance of an existing pandal, etc., of that character an offence. the pandal in question is clearly unlawful and there is no written permission of the president to legalise it. we think that the language of section 420 (the madras city municipal act, 1904), 'whoever contravenes', is wide enough to cover an owner and occupier of premises which offend against the section.2. we set aside the acquittal and impose a fine on the defendant of rs. 5.

Full Judgment

1. We are quite dear that this Section 262 (of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904) read with Section 420 (of the Act) was intended to reproduce Section 264 of the old Act (The City of Madras Municipal Act, 1834), which made the new construction of an inflammable pandal or the continuance of an existing pandal, etc., of that character an offence. The pandal in question is clearly unlawful and there is no written permission of the President to legalise it. We think that the language of Section 420 (the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904), 'Whoever contravenes', is wide enough TO cover an owner and occupier of premises which offend against the section.

2. We set aside the acquittal and impose a fine on the defendant of Rs. 5.

Same Parties Emperor vs S. Vardachariar Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Sadasiva Aiyar and ;Napier, JJ.

Service Tax