The interpretation of statutes should be reasonable and in their ordinary sense, unless the words used are words of special meaning.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - APPEAL - JURISDICTION - BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1949 - SECTIONS 406, 410, 490, 493 - BOMBAY MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS ACT, 1925 - SECTIONS 81, 110 - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES - REASONABLE INTERPRETATION - PAYMENT OF TAXES - RULE 30 OF THE RULES RELATING TO TAXATION PRESCRIBED IN CHAPTER VIII UNDER SECTION 453 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:

The case arose from a tax appeal filed by the respondent against the Municipal Corporation of Sholapur City. The dispute centered around the assessment of rate able value and the subsequent issuance of a tax bill. The municipality contended that the appeal should be filed before a Judicial Magistrate under the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, while the respondent argued that it should be heard by a Civil Judge under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal should be heard by a Civil Judge under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It reasoned that the municipality had been converted into a Corporation on May 1, 1964, and the assessment and objections were made prior to that date under the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. However, the tax bill was issued after the conversion, and therefore, the appeal should be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal should be filed before a Civil Judge or a Judicial Magistrate? 2. Whether the payment of one installment of tax is sufficient compliance with section 406 (2) (e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and concluded that the appeal should be heard by a Civil Judge under section 406 of the former Act. 2. The court held that the payment of one installment of tax is not sufficient compliance with section 406 (2) (e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and that the appellant is required to deposit the full amount of tax claimed.
Final Decision: The court rejected the municipality's revision applications and held that the appeal should be heard by a Civil Judge and that the appellant should deposit the full amount of tax claimed.

JUDGMENT-The application arises out of a tax appeal in respect of the .immovable property owned by the respondent and filed against the Municipal Corporation of Sholapur City. Originally this area was governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. This municipality was converted into a Corporation on May 1, 1964. Prior to that date, for the purposes of assessing rate able value, notices were issued under section 81 (1) of the above Act on February 10, 1964, to various owners of immovable properties. Objections were filed as required by the Act and in the present case objections of the opponent were heard on February 14, 1964. The appellate authority ultimately rejected these objections. Thereafter, after the municipality became a Corporation, a bill for the tax due from the opponent came to be issued on June 29, 1964, for the year 1964-65. The opponent deposited the amount of the tax and filed an appeal in terms of section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The Municipal Corporation contended that as the assessment was made under the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 and objections were also disposed of under the same Act, an appeal should lie not to the Civil Judge as provided under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, but to a Judicial Magistrate as provided under section 110 of the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The learned Civil Judge under section 410 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, made a reference to the District Judge for his decision on this question. The learned District Judge held that the appeal was rightly filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, under section 406 of this Act and directed that the appeal should be heard on merit. Against this judgment, the Municipal Corporation comes to this Court.

2. One must be surprised that on such a point as this the learned Civil Judge should have referred the matter to the learned District Judge. I have been referred by Mr. Kadam to section 410 of the Rombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, which provides for a reference. The section is:

"410. If, before of on the healing of an appeal relating to the rate able value or tax, any question of law or usage having the force of law, or the construction of a document arises, the Judge may and, on the application of any party to the appeal shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the question so arising and refer the statement with his own opinion on the point for the decision of the District Court".

3. A Civil Judge, Senior Division, in all civil matters has unlimited jurisdiction. He decides important as well as unimportant questions of law as well as questions of usage having the force of law under the Civil Procedure Code, only when a question of interpretation of constitutional Jaw arises that he is required to make 8; reference to the High Court. Under Order XLVI also it is rarely that a Civil Judge makes a reference to a superior Court. The, section permits the Judge on his own to make a reference if he so chooses. If this were so, there would have been no difficulty in the matter. But the Legislature has provided that he shall draw up a statement of facts and refel the point with his own opinion for the decision of the District Court on the application of any party to the proceedings. One should have thought that such a provision would be hardly necessary when the matters are beard by a Civil Judge, Senior Division, who decide such questions every day. The only effect of this provision would appear to be that one or the other of the parties may by requiring the learned Judge to make a reference in this manner prolong the matter unduly. After all the decision of the learned Civil Judge is not binding since an appeal is provided to the District Court against the decision of the Civil Judge. Whatever that may be, one may only hope that at least the Civil Judges will not make references to the District Court mer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1966 Supreme(Bom) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYD. V. Patel .J. THE MUNOCIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SHOLAPUH. - Applicant: v. ANIL HANKARRAO BHAGWAT Respondent Advocate Appeared For applicant-M. B. Kadam.

The interpretation of statutes should be reasonable and in their ordinary sense, unless the words used are words of special meaning.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D. V. Patel .J.
THE MUNOCIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SHOLAPUH. - Applicant:
v.
ANIL HANKARRAO BHAGWAT Respondent
Advocate Appeared
For applicant-M. B. Kadam.