JUDGMENT - R.L. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench by the learned Chief Justice on the recommendation made by a Division Bench (Pendse and Kotwal, JJ.) which was inclined to differ from the view taken by another Division Bench (Bharucha and Daud, JJ.) in the latter's judgement in (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Forage and Co.)1, 1987 Mh.L.J. 623: A.I.R. 1987 Bom. 32 hereinafter referred to as 'The Forage and Co.'s case'. Some provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 hereinafter referred to as “the Act” are the subject matter of interpretation over which there is a difference of opinion between the two Division Benches. Before proceeding to notice the relevant provisions of the Act, it is, naturally necessary to mention the facts involved in this appeal.

2. Writ Petition No. 888 of 19812 was filed by Monopoly Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., praying for a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents in the writ petition, namely the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, to refrain from levying octroi duty at an amount in excess of the rate prescribed under Entry No. 22(a) of Schedule H to the Act. The petitioner company had imported into the area of the Bombay Municipal Corporation a product described by it as an insulating varnish which, according to the petitioner, is used by industries manufacturing insulated and varnished wires. It had been alleged by the petitioner in the Court of first instance that the said product, namely the insulating varnish, sold under the trade name of “Monopol” was not being used for the construction of buildings-a fact which was not denied by the Municipal Corporation. Indeed, the learned Single Judge, who decided the petition proceeded on the assumption that the averment that the insulating varnish imported by the petitioner was not usable in the construction of buildings, roads and other structures, was correct. This was also the assumption upon which the appeal was heard in the first instance before the Division Bench which has referred the matter to the larger Bench.

3. The importance of the article not being used or was not capable of being used in construction of buildings, roads and other structures can be easily appreciated if it is noticed that varnish used in the construction of buildings falls in Class IV of Schedule H, while varnish being described as mineral oil would fall under Entry No. 22(a) of Class III Schedule H. The octroi duty on items in Entry No. 26 is 4 percent ad valorem while the octroi duty on items in Entry No. 22(a) is 2 paise per litre, the latter being very much lower at least in the present case.

4. The learned Single Judge, who decided the petition, referred to the judgement of another Single Judge sitting on the Appellate Side, namely, the judgment in (Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd.)2, First Appeal No. 755 of 1967, decided on 30 April, 1974 by Vaidya, J, and agreed with the said judgement. The learned Single Judge also referred to and agreed with the view taken in (Onkarmal Radhakishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh) 3, A.I.R. 1979 M.P. 133. It was held by the learned Single Judge that it could not be said that the heading was just a convenient mode to group together various articles mentioned in each Class. The heading was the key opening the mind and led to the interpretation of the entries. This was the language used in the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgement, which was endorsed by the learned Single Judge. He refused to accept the submission made on behalf of the Corporation that the heading must be ignored while interpreting the Schedule. Consistent with this view, he made the rule absolute in the petition by his judgement and order dated 16th of November, 1984, which was challenged in the appeal.

5. Before the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench (Pandse and Kotwal, JJ.), an earlier Division Bench had the occasion to consider the question involving a similar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document