JAFARABAD MUNICIPALITY Vs. KATHIAWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals (Appeal No. 187/61 and Appeal No. 657/61) which arise from two suits between the same parties heard together by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, raise identical questions of fact and law. He delivered a common judgment decreeing the suits. The appeals by the defendants to the District Judge, Amreli, from the decrees in the two suits were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 24th October 1960 substantially confirming the trial court's decision. Against that judgment these two appeals have been filed. They have been argued together and as the points raised in both of them are identical they would be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The appellant in both the appeals is the Jafarabad Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality). That Municipality was the defendant in the suits. The respondent in both the appeals is the Kathiawad Industries Ltd., a firm carrying on salt business, of which part is within the limits of the Municipality and part outside of those limits. There were two suits filed by the respondent against the Municipality. The first suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 192/55 was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar. The second suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1955 was first filed in the Court at Rajula and later transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar and numbered as 150/56. In the suits the principal relief claimed was a declaration that the salt manufactured by the plaintiff Company at its salt works and exported uncrushed or crushed was not liable to octroi duty. The second prayer was for an injunction ordering the Municipality not to hinder or obstruct the free passage of the said salt. Then there were further reliefs sought in respect of the amount claimed by the Municipality as arrears of unpaid octroi duty. The Municipality had claimed a sum of Rs. 7289-6-0 as such arrears in respect of the octroi on the salt brought by the Company within the octroi limits for certain purposes. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction ordering the Municipality not to recover the said amount. It appears that before the suit No. 192/55 was filed, a sum of Rs. 250/- had been paid by the Company to the Municipality between 18th and 23rd January 1965 towards the said claim of Rs. 7289-6-0 for octroi and the Company claimed refund of that amount in that suit. Three further payments were also made by the plaintiff towards that claim namely Rs. 359-6-0, Rs. 475 and Rs. 437-8-0 totalling Rs. 1271-14-0 during the period between 21st March 1955 to 25th of April 1955. It was this sum of Ks. 1271-14-0 which was claimed in the second suit which was filed in the Rajula Court and then transferred to the Bhavnagar Court.

(3.) The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 7-4-1959 declared that the salt manufactured by the plaintiff at its salt works at Jafarabad and exported either in crushed or in uncrushed form was not liable to octroi duty and ordered an injunction to be issued against the Municipality from recovering Rs. 7289-6-0 and from hindering or obstructing the tree passage of that salt and the Court further ordered the Municipality to refund the sums already paid to the Municipality. The Appellate Court by its judgment and decree modified the decree slightly by clarifying that the declarations given by the trial Court related to the rights of the parties under the existing law and the perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court in so far as it related to restraining the defendant Municipality from hindering or obstructing the Company from the free passage of its salt related to the salt manufactured in its salt works at Jafarabad and which was to be exported, and would not apply to its salt entering the octroi limits for consumption or use for a factory situated within the octroi limits of the Municipality. Against these decrees the Municipality has come in appeal. In the trial Court the plaintiff had claimed exemptions also in respect of other goods and articles such as machinery, etc. brought by it within the octroi limits for the purpose of its salt business. This claim was negatived by the trial Court and the matter was not pursued by the plaintiff in the appellate Court.