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

PERERA v. DHARMATILLAKE


Perera V. Dharmatillake

1954 Present: Nagalingam S.P.J.

K. V. PERERA, Appellant, and K. A. DHARMATILLAKE
(Assistant Clerk, Teldeniya Town Council), Respondent

S. C. 1,054-M. C. Teldeniya, 10,264

Town Councils Ordinance, No. 3 of 1946-Section 183--Arrears of rates-Procedure for recovery-Distress warrant-Must contain necessary particulars-Municipal Councils Ordinance, No. 29 of 1947, s. 252-Penal Code, ss. 183, 314.

When the Chairman of a Town Council authorises an officer to distrain the goods of a rate-payer who is in arrears with his rates, the warrant must specify the name of the defaulter, the description and situation of the properties and the amount of rate in arrears, as required by section 183 of the Town Councils Ordinance read with section 252 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance. Such particulars are an essential part of the warrant, and resistance to the execution of a warrant which does not contain the particulars is not punishable under sections 183 and 314 of the Penal Code.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Teldeniya.

B. S. C. Ratwatte, for the accused appellant.

T. R. Dissanayake, for the complainant respondent.

Cur. adv. vul









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