Back
1921 Supreme(SC) 62
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD ATKINSON, AND LORD PHILLIMORE.
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
COSSIPORE AND CHITPORE MUNICIPALITY (CHAIRMAN OF) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court of Calcutta.
Decided On : July. 12. 1921.
Solicitors for appellants :Orr, Dignam & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Pugh & Co.
"Machinery" refers to mechanical contrivances with interdependent moving parts that generate or modify natural forces to achieve a specific result. A stationary structure, such as a water tank relying on gravity, is not "machinery," regardless of its function within a larger mechanical system.
Headnote:(A) Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 - Section 101 - Assessment of annual value of holding - Exclusion of machinery - Definition of "machinery" - Whether an overhead balancing tank used for water supply constitutes "machinery" for the purpose of municipal rates - A stationary receptacle for water, which relies on the natural force of gravity and has no moving parts, does not satisfy the definition of machinery - The fact that it is part of a larger system of water distribution does not change its character as a non-mechanical structure. (Paras 15-25)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Ordinary meaning - Where a statute does not provide a specific definition, words should be understood in their ordinary sense - A structure that does not involve the combined movement and interdependent operation of parts to generate or modify power is not "machinery". (Paras 22-24)
Facts of the case:
A municipal authority increased the annual value assessment of a holding upon which an overhead steel balancing tank was constructed. The tank was used to store water and maintain pressure in the water mains through the force of gravity. The owner of the holding challenged the assessment, contending that the tank and its supporting structure were "machinery" and should therefore be excluded from the valuation of the holding under the relevant municipal law.
Findings of Court:
The overhead tank and its supporting structure are not "machinery" within the meaning of the statute. The tank is a stationary receptacle that does not move, nor do any of its parts move relative to one another. It merely holds water and allows it to flow out via gravity, a function identical to that of a simple cistern.
Issues: Whether an overhead balancing tank and its supporting structure, used to regulate water supply via gravity, constitute "machinery" under Section 101 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, and should thus be excluded from the assessment of the annual value of the holding.
Ratio Decidendi: "Machinery" prima facie means mechanical contrivances which, through the combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts, generate power or evoke, modify, apply, or direct natural forces to effect a definite result. A stationary tank that does not possess moving parts and merely utilizes the natural force of gravity does not meet this criteria, regardless of the skill or cost involved in its construction or its role within a larger system.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
municipal law
-
municipal rates
- valuation of holdings
-
municipal rates
-
municipal law
-
practice and procedure
-
statutory interpretation
- definition of terms
-
statutory interpretation
Judgement
Appeal (No. 86 of 1920) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 18, 1919) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, of 24 Parganas.
The suit was brought by the appellants. The sole question arising on the appeal was whether a tank belonging to the appellants and used in connection with the supply of water to Calcutta, was " machinery " within the meaning of s. 101 of the Bengal Municipal Act (Ben. Act III.
of 1884) so as to be excluded in assessing the holding upon which it was for the purpose of municipal rates under that Act. The tank and its operation are described in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge held that the tank was "machinery" within the meaning of the section.
On appeal to the High Court the learned judges differed, Chatterjee J. being of opinion that the appeal should be allowed, and Walmsley J. that it should be dismissed. The appeal consequently stood dismissed.
The present respondent preferred a further appeal under the letters patent. The appeal was heard by Fletcher, Beacroft and Greaves JJ. A majority consisting of the last two named judges held that the tank was not " machinery " and that the appeal should be allowed. Fletcher J. dissented. The proceedings in the High Court are reported at I. L. R. 46 C. 910.
1921. June 21. Macmorran K.C., Dunne K.C. and Latter for the appellants. The balancing tank was " machinery " for the purpose of the section. It was an integral part of the machinery by which a constant supply of water to Calcutta was maintained. The view that the tank was " machinery " is strongly supported by the judgment of Lord Davey in Chamberlayne v. Collins . (( 1894) 70 L. T. 217.) [Reference was also made to Laing v. Bishopwearmouth (( 1878) 3 Q. B. D. 299.); Auckland Corporation v. Auckland Gas Co. ([ 1918] N. Z. L. R. 1028.); and In re The Income Tax Acts . ([ 1905] Vict. L. R. 185, 192.)]
Konstam K.C. and Kenworthy Brown (De Gruyther K.C. with them) for the respondent. The tank was not " machinery " any more than a natural reservoir situated on a hill would have been. The only force which the tank brought into play was the natural force of gravity. All mechanical application of force to the water took place before it reached the tank. It could only be described as " machinery" in a metaphorical sense ; that is indicated by the appellants describing it as forming part of a system of machinery. The switchback railway case is distinguishable.
Macmorran K.C. replied.
July 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD ATKINSON. This is an appeal against the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated March 18, 1919.
The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted in the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas by the present appellants against the present respondent. The question raised therein was whether the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality had acted ultra vires in assessing the Corporation of Calcutta on an annual value of Rs. 25,000 in respect of a certain holding described in the plaint.
The Subordinate Judge answered this question in the affirmative and gave a decree for the plaintiffs, the Corporation of Calcutta. But his judgment was reversed by the final decree of the High Court above mentioned whereby the suit was dismissed with costs.
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, the Corporation of Calcutta, from this decree
The appellants supply Calcutta with water, and for this purpose own two holdings of land, one situate at 71 Barrack-pore Road, Tallah, on which there is now and has for some time past been a reservoir and a pumping station. This piece of land has been assessed as a separate holding for the purposes of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 (Bengal Act III. of 1884), and the other, an adjoining holding, No. 1 Khelat Babus Lane, situate from 380 to 400 feet distant from the pumping station. It is with regard to the assessment of t
