Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1953 (3) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... troller of buildings, Bombay. The sub-divisional magistrate, Ratnagiri, held that the Act not having been validly extended to Ratnagiri, no permission of the controller of buildings was necessary for the construction. He accordingly acquitted them. On appeal by the State Government, the order of acquittal was maintained by the High Court. This appeal is before us by special leave from the concurrent orders of acquittal. Special leave was granted on the Attorney-General for India undertaking on behalf of the State Government of Bombay that whatever the decision of the court might be, no proceedings will be taken against the respondents in respect of the subject-matter under appeal. At the hearing of the appeal it was made plain by the lea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . I of 1948), the Government of Bombay is pleased to direct that the said ordinance shall also extend to all areas in the province of Bombay other than the areas specified in the schedule to the said Act and that it shall apply to said areas only in respect of buildings intended to be used for the purpose of cinemas, theatres and other places of amusement or entertainment. The consequence of this notification was that in the district of Ratnagiri no cinema building could be commenced without the permission of the controller after that date. Ordinance I of 1948 was repealed by Act XXXI of 1948, The Bombay Building (Control on Erection)' Act, 1948 . It was made applicable to areas specified in the schedule. Sub-section (3) of section I a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the provisions of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. In Judgment, the construction placed by the High Court on the language of section 15 is erroneous and full effect has not been given to its provisions or to the provisions of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. We think on a true construction of section 15 of the Act and section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the notification issued on 15th January, 1948, under the ordinance continued in force under Act XXXI of 1948 and that by it the provisions of the Act stood extended to other areas in the State to the extent indicated in the notification. Section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, provides Where any enactment is, after the commencement of this Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by enacting in Act XXXI of 1948 a proviso like the one enacted in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945, or by use of language similar to the one used in section 9 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. The proviso in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order is in these terms: Provided further any reference in any order issued under the Defence of India Rules or in any notification issued thereunder to any provision of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as reference to the corresponding provision of this Order. We do not find it possible to support this line of reasoning. It appears to us that the attention of the learned Judges was not pointedly drawn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... completely defeated if the notification was construed in the literal manner in which it has been construed by the High Court. In East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council([1952] A.C. 109.), Lord Asquith while dealing with the provisions of the Town and County Planning Act, 1947, made reference to the same principle and observed as follows:- If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it........ The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates