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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Devadoss
The Cannanore Municipal Council
Versus
Puthiya Valappil Kuniyil Anandan
Decided On : 9 November, 1927

Hand looms operated without steam or electric power do not qualify as machinery under the District Municipalities Act.

Headnote:

Machinery - Hand looms - Interpretation of Clause (q) of Schedule V of the District Municipalities Act

Fact of the Case:

The Municipality assessed the respondent for two buildings with hand looms, which the respondent contested as illegal. The District Munsif ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the Municipality filing a revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered whether hand looms qualify as machinery under Clause (q) of Schedule V. It concluded that hand looms operated without steam or electric power cannot be considered machinery under the Act.

Issues: Interpretation of Clause (q) of Schedule V, legality of the assessment by the Municipality

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that hand looms operated without steam or electric power do not fall within the definition of machinery under Clause (q) of Schedule V.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs in favor of the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The only point in this Civil Revision petition is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of schedule V, Clause (q) of the District Municipalities Act. The Municipality of Cannanore assessed the respondent in respect of two buildings belonging to him in which he had a number of looms. He paid the assessment and afterwards filed a suit in the District Munsifs Court for the recovery of the amount on the ground that it was illegally levied from him. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff, and the Municipality has preferred this revision petition.

2. The only question for consideration is whether hand looms are machinery within the meaning of Clause (q) of Schedule V. The contention of Mr. Govindan for the petitioner is that it 5s machinery, or, even if it is not to be treated as such, the Municipality having bona fide assessed the respondent and having complied with all the formalities required by the Act, the respondent is not entitled to get back the amount paid by him. The question in this case is not whether the Municipality has complied with the law, but whether it can levy an assessment in respect of hand looms which do not come within the meaning of Clause (q). I do not think that hand looms which are worked without steam power or electric power but only with the hand can be called machinery within the meaning of Clause (q). If the hand loom is machinery then it might be contended With some show of reason that the charka and Singers sewing machines are machinery. I do not think it was ever the intention of the legislature that small hand looms and industrial implements and tools should be assessed under the Act. Mr. Justice Jackson in a recent case held that looms were not machinery.

3. In the view I take of the word machinery I do not think the Municipality was justified in levying the assessment. The judgment of the lower court is correct and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top