HINGOLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. RAMKUMAR RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parbhani, against the defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 27/1974 and it arises out of the following facts:--- Defendant is Hingoli Municipal Council. By a Municipal Resolution No. 328, dated 5-4-1970 the Municipal Council fixed the tax on performances and shows at the rate of Rs. 4.50 paise per show. This was in pursuance of the Government Resolution, dated 26-11-1969 fixing the minimum of such tax at Rs. 4/- and fixing the maximum of such tax at Rs. 5/- per show and this was to be in force from 1st April, 1970. So by virtue of the Resolution, dated 26-11-1969 only the minimum and maximum rates were fixed and the tax was not fixed and this tax was fixed by the Municipal Resolution dated 5-4-1970.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent challenged this resolution in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hingoli in Regular Civil Suit No. 107/70. It was the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that this resolution was invalid. The Municipal Council opposed the suit and contended that the resolution was perfectly valid. The trial Court dismissed that suit. The present plaintiff-respondent went in appeal to the District Court and it was Civil Appeal No. 100/72. The learned District Judge, Parbhani, allowed this appeal on 27-11-1973 and declared that the resolution dated 5-4- 1970, fixing the tax at Rs. 4.50 per show was invalid. The defendant-appellant suffered this decision and did not prefer any second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of these proceedings the defendant appellant recovered from the plaintiff Rs. 8,495/- on 12th March, 1973 and Rs. 2,745/- on 30th March, 1973, from the plaintiff by way of show tax. Hence, in pursuance of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 100/72 which only for declaration and injunction the plaintiff files the present Special Civil Suit No. 27/1974 for recovery of Rs. 11,240/- plus interest. Before filing of this suit plaintiff served the defendant with a notice in pursuance of section 304 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, (hereinafter it is referred to as the M.M. Act).