(1.) The original defendant by this appeal challenges the order of City Civil Judge 4 Court Ahmedabad of July 16 1977 holding that the suit filed by the respondents who respectively were the Transport Manager of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service and the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the said Transport Service against the appellant-defendant for rent of the premises let out to him by the Corporation has not incompetent for want of prior approval from the Corporation before filing the suit. The appellant-defendant has joined the issue in the suit contending inter alia that under sec. 481 (1) (h) (i) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 the authority can institute or prosecute suit only after obtaining the approval of the Standing Committee and since this was not obtained here prior to the filing of the suit the suit was not maintainable.
(2.) The above contention of the appellant-defendant did not find favour with the learned City Civil Judge who on consideration of the meaning of word approval in the relevant Clause of sec. 481 and also on some authorities held that this approval can be also post-facto.
(3.) I do not think that there are any justifying reasons for me to interfere with the order of the learned City Civil Judge on this preliminary issue in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in DR. SAILENDRANATH SINHA AND ANOTHER V. JASODA DULAL ADHIKARY AND ANOTHER A.I.R 1959 S.C. 51 where a question arose under the Companies Act 1913 in the context of the powers of the Liquidator to institute or defend proceedings with the sanction of Court under sec. 179 thereof. The Supreme Court in that case held that sec. 179 deals with the powers of Liquidator to institute or defend proceedings with the sanction of Court. But if the Liquidator takes action without the direction of the Court the action would not be illegal or invalid nor would it invalidate prosecution. Justice Kapur speaking for the Court referred with approval to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in JASWANTRAI MANILAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 575 where it was held as under: "In terms the section lays down the powers of the official liquidator. Such a liquidator has to function under the directions of the Court which is in charge of the liquidation proceedings. One of his powers is to institute prosecutions in the name and on behalf of the company under liquidation with the sanction of the Court. This section does not purport to impose any limitations on the powers of a criminal court to entertain a criminal prosecution launched in the ordinary course under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure". Justice Kapur after referring with approval this passage from Jaswantrai Manilals case (supra) proceeded further to observe as under: