SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1926 Supreme(Mad) 35

WALLER
Madura Municipality – Appellant
Versus
P. M. Muthu Balu Chetty – Respondent


ORDER

Waller, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the Municipal Council of Madura against the decision of the Sub-Magistrate of Madura Town. Respondent was charged under Sections 249 and 338 of the Madras District Municipalities Act with having failed to take out a license for using a 22 horse power gas engine to work a rice hulling machine. The Sub-Magistrate refused to convict. He found that the case was governed by Section 250 and not by Section 249 of the Act. He was further of opinion that machinery used for rice hulling was not the kind of machinery contemplated by Schedule V (q).

2. It is argued on behalf of the Municipal Council that all that is required by Section 250 is permission for the original construction or establishment of a factory and that for the actual working of the factory an annual license is necessary under Section 249. I agree with the Sub-Magistrate that the argument is unsound. The Act clearly intends to draw a distinction between what it describes as "industries" and "factories." The former are dealt with in Section 249 and the latter in Section 250. The industries included in Section 249 and Schedule V are licensed by the Chairman subject to the control





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top