{"id":147885,"date":"1968-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968"},"modified":"2019-02-04T08:06:44","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T02:36:44","slug":"godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","title":{"rendered":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1504, \t\t 1968 SCR (3) 481<\/div>\n
Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n
Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGODHRA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGODHRA ELECTRICITY CO.\tLTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/03\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1504\t\t  1968 SCR  (3) 481\n\n\nACT:\nThe  Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, s. 73-Rules 4\t and\n5'Rate' leviable under s. 73 on lands and  buildings-Certain\nlands  and  buildings to be taxed under r. 4(1)\t on  capital\nbasis-Method  of  evaluations of capital  value-English\t law\nrelating  to 'rates', relevance of- Contractors'  method  of\nevaluation  recommended-Data  in  company's  balance   sheet\nwhether 'reliable data' for purpose of r. 5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder s. 73 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925\tread\nwith   rr.   4(1)  and\t5  made\t thereunder   a\t  -rate\t  on\nnonresidential\tbuildings belonging to factories  and  mills\nwas  leviable on a capital basis, and the capital value\t for\nthis  purpose was to be worked out, if 'reliable data'\twere\nfurnished  by the assessee, on the basis of such data.\t The\nrespondent company owned certain buildings on which rat- was\nleviable  under r. 4(1) on the basis of capital value.\t The\nrespondent   company  claimed  that  the  actual   cost\t  of\nconstruction of the buildings in 1920 ought to be taken -as\nthe capital value.  The Municipality of Godhra however\tmade\nits  own  estimate  of the capital  value.   Thereafter\t the\nJudicial  Magistrate and the Sessions Judge made  valuations\ntaking\tinto  account  the  rise in  the  cost\tof  building\nmaterials since 1920.  The High Court in revision upheld the\nview that the actual cost minus depreciation thereon  should\nbe  the capital value; it observed that the English law\t and\npractice as to levy of rates was not relevant in the  Indian\ncontext.  The Municipality appealed.\nHELD:  (i) When legislatures in this country enact  statutes\nwhich closely resemble statutes in England and have the same\npurpose and object in view, then unless the expressions used\nin  the Indian Statutes are defined courts of law cannot  go\nwrong  in interpreting them in the way English\tjudges\thave\ndone.\tFurther, the words which have acquired a  particular\nshade  of meaning in England may be given the  same  meaning\nunless there is anything in the statute its,--If which would\nbe contraindicative. [486-F-G]\n(ii) Section 73 empowered the municipality to impose a\trate\non buildings or lands.\tThe word 'rate' had not been defined\nin  the\t Act  but it has a well\t known\tmeaning.   In  Patel\nGordhandas,s,  case  this Court\t examined  various  statutes\nbearing\t on  the English rating law and held that  the\tword\n'rate'\twas used with respect to a tax which was  levied  on\nthe  -net  annual  value  or rateable  value  of  lands\t and\nbuildings and not on their capital value, but capital  value\ncould  be  adopted as the basis for working out\t the  annual\nvalue. [485G-486E]\n(iii)  Rule  4\tof the Godhra  Municipal  Rules\t shows\twhat\nproperties  are\t to be valued on capital  basis.   What\t the\ncapital basis is not defined.  The capital value however can\nbe determined in the way laid down in Patel Gordhandasg case\nby adopting the contractor's method. [487B].\n(iv)  The figures given in the balance sheet of the  company\ncould not be regarded as 'reliable data' for the purpose  of\nr.  5.\tThe figures given in the balance  sheet\t are  merely\nstatements in terms of the form given in\n482\nSchedule  VI.\tThey have no relevance\tin  determining\t the\ncapital value of property for the purpose of assessment to a\nrate. [488 B-C]\n[Case  remanded\t to District Judge for\tdetermining  capital\nvalue  by adopting contractors method in the -light  of\t the\nobservations made by this Court.]\nPatel  Gordhandas  Hargovindas\tv.  Municipal  Commissioner,\nAhmedabad,<\/a> [1964] 2 S.C.R. 608, relied on.\nR.  v.\tSchool\tBoard for London,  (1885)  55  L.J.M.C.\t 33,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 631 and 632
\nof 1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nJanuary\t 7,  8,\t 1963 of the Gujarat  High  court  in  Civil
\nRevision Applications Nos. 116, 117, 173 and 174 of 1961.
\nPurshottam Trikamadas and I. N. Shrojj for the appellant (in
\nboth the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
S. S. Shukla, for the respondent (in both the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMitter,\t J. These are two appeals by special  leave  against
\nthe judgment and order dated January 8, 1963 of the  Gujarat
\nHigh  Court dismissing Civil Revision Applications  116\t and
\n117  of\t 1961 filed by the appellant and  all-owing  similar
\napplications  Nos.  173\t and  174  of  1961  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent  against  the common judgment dated\tDecember  1,
\n1960   passed  by  the\tDistrict  and  Sessions\t  Judge\t  of
\nPanchmahals.\n<\/p>\n
The  matter arises out of assessments made by the  appellant
\nconstituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 on
\nthe respondent under section 73 of the Act.  The respondents
\nare  an\t electricity company owning  inter  alia  properties
\nbearing several numbers in the municipal borough of  Godhra.
\nFor  the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 the appellant  had  fixed
\nthe valuation of the properties belonging to the  respondent
\nat  Rs.\t 3,25,000\/-.   On  appeal  by  the  respondent,\t the
\nJudicial Magistrate fixed the valuation of the properties at
\nRs.  90,000\/-.\t On  the appellant going  in  revision,\t the
\nSessions Judge fixed the valuation at Rs. 1,25,000\/-.  As  a
\nresult\tof  the High Court’s decision  the  valuation  stood
\nreduced\t to  Rs. 90,000\/-.  The present appeals are  by\t the
\nMunicipality.\n<\/p>\n
Under  s. 73(1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs  Act,\t1925
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)
\n\t      “Subject\tto  any general\t or  special  orders
\n\t      which  the State Government may make  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf  and to the provisions of\tsections  75
\n\t      and  76,\ta municipality may  impose  for\t the
\n\t      purposes\tof  this Act any  of  the  following
\n\t      taxes, namely-\n<\/p>\n
483<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (i)   a  rate  on buildings or lands  or\tboth
\n\t      situate within the municipal borough.”\n<\/p>\n
The procedure preliminary to imposing tax is laid down in s.
\n75  and\t s. 78 deals with the preparation of  an  assessment
\nlist.\tSection 58 empowers the municipality to\t make  rules
\nprescribing  the taxes to be levied in a  municipal  brought
\nfor  municipal purposes etc.  Rules 4, 5 and 7 relevant\t for
\nour purpose read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “4. Modes of valuation: (1) For the purpose of
\n\t      detennining tax the following properties shall
\n\t      be valued on the capital basis :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  All\topen  lands,  buildings\t and   yards
\n\t      belonging to the Railway Administration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)  All buildings and lands other than  those
\n\t      which   are  actually  used  for\t residential
\n\t      purposes\tbelonging to Mills and Factories  to
\n\t      which the Indian Factories Act, is applied.
\n\t      (2) All properties other than those  mentioned
\n\t      above  shall  be valued on the  basis  of\t the
\n\t      annual  letting  value as defined\t in  section
\n\t      3(1) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.  Mode\tof determining\tcapital\t value:\t The
\n\t      capital value of properties mentioned in\trule
\n\t      4(1)  shall,  in each case, be  determined  on
\n\t      such reliable data as the Railway\t Authorities
\n\t      and the Agents of the mills and the  factories
\n\t      may furnish when called upon from time to time
\n\t      to do so and in the absence of any such trust-
\n\t      worthy  reliable data, it shall be  determined
\n\t      by  the  Chief Officer or\t by  expert  valuers
\n\t      employed by the municipality for that purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6…………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.  Amount of tax : (1) in case of  properties
\n\t      which  as\t stated\t above, are  valued  on\t the
\n\t      capital  basis the tax to be levied  shall  be
\n\t      assessed at Rs. 0-8-0 per cent of the  capital
\n\t      value  and  it shall be a direct\ttax  thereon
\n\t      provided however that any fraction of  hundred
\n\t      in  excess of fifty rupees shall be  taken  as
\n\t      the  next higher hundred and any\tfraction  of
\n\t      fifty  rupees  or less be taken as  the  lower
\n\t      hundred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  In  case of properties which,  as  stated
\n\t      above, are valued on the annual letting  value
\n\t      the  tax\tto be levied shall  be\tassessed  as\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      -shown in the appendix annexed hereto.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
484<\/span><\/p>\n
Under  rule 4(1) (b) above, the buildings of the  respondent
\nhad  to\t be  valued on the capital basis.  Under  r.  5\t the
\ncapital,  value of properties had to be determined  on\tsuch
\nreliable  data\tas the respondent might furnish and  in\t the
\nabsence\t thereof, it would be the duty of the Chief  Officer
\nto determine the same.\tBefore the Judicial Magistrate,\t one
\nR.  R. Tewari, an Assistant Secretary of the respondent\t who
\nhad affirmed an affidavit showing that the approximate value
\nof the seven items of property on which tax was sought to be
\nimposed as per the books of the company was Rs. 41,541-12-9.
\nHe sought to rely on the balance sheets and accounts of\t the
\ncompany\t audited  under the Companies Act for  the  purpose.
\nThe Judicial Magistrate observed that the properties were 40
\nyears  old  and according to Tewari the life of\t the  office
\nbuildings  was\t50 years while that of others  was  only  30
\nyears.\tActing on the admission of Tewari that the price  of
\nbuilding  materials had increased three times  the  original
\nfigures\t in  195657  and  taking,  into\t Consideration\t the
\nproperties  were over 40 years old, the Magistrate  assessed
\nthe capital value at Rs. 90,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The  Sessions Judge dealt with the matter in greater  detail
\nand  noted that neither party had given him real  assistance
\nin  determining\t what  should  be  the\tproper\t assessment.
\nAccording  to him the assessment papers preceding the  bills
\nhad not been produced and neither party had led any evidence
\nas  to\thow  the capital value was to  be  arrived  at.\t  He
\nhowever\t felt that the capital value could not\tmean  merely
\nthe  book  value  shown\t in the books  of  account  ,of\t the
\nassessee.  He noted that according to the balance sheet\t for
\n1955-56\t the property and assets under\tthe  head”buildings”
\nwas shown as below:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      Buildings.<\/p>\n
      Cost up to 31st March 1955   Rs. 1,72,866-5-11
\n     Additions during the year\t   12,398-10- 3
\n\t\t\t\tTotal\tRs. 1,85,265-0-2
\nThe  said figure included the value of all the buildings  of
\nthe  ,company but those which were to be assessed were\tonly
\nseven  ,out of which two residential bungalows and  servants
\nquarters’  were\t to be assessed on the\trental\tvalue.\t The
\nSessions  Judge\t therefore inferred from the  above  figures
\nthat Rs. 1,85,265\/- included at least Rs. 1,00,000\/- as\t the
\ncost  up  to 31st March, 1955 of the  factory  buildings  in
\nquestion.  The Sessions Judge found himself unable to accept
\nthe  contention\t that the depreciated selling value  of\t the
\nproperty was the capital value for the purpose of assessment
\nof  house  tax.\t He also did not accept\t the  municipality’s
\n,contention  that the cost of construction of buildings\t had
\ngone up
\n485<\/span>
\nfive times since 1920.\tConsidering the rival contentions he
\nfixed  the capital value at three times the figure shown  by
\nthe company, viz., Rs. 41,541\/- and rounded the same off  to
\nRs. 1,25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Taking the view that it was not open to “a Judge in India to
\nbase  his judgment as a whole or in part or  his  conclusion
\nupon  either  Halsbury’s Laws of England or  Bean  and\tLock
\nwood’s book on Rating Valuation Practice” on the ground that
\nthese  books were irrelevant under the Indian Evidence\tAct,
\nthe  learned  Judge  of the High Court\theld  that  “capital
\nvalue”\tin night possibly bear four different  meanings\t but
\nthe  meaning given to the expression in Halsbury’s  Laws  of
\nEngland\t was “not appropriate in the context of -the  Indian
\nenactment  and\tthe Indian Rules”.  Referring to  the  rules
\nmade by Godhra Municipality he observed that it could not be
\nsaid that the municipality had adopted the capital value  as
\none of the methods of ascertaining the rental value or\tthat
\nthe municipality had adopted the rental value as one of\t the
\nmethods of ascertaining the capital value.  According to the
\nlearned Judge,
\n\t      “capital\tvalue’ has to be treated as  meaning
\n\t      the  value of the building treated as  capital
\n\t      at the time of the assessment; in other words,
\n\t      the  original cost of construction  minus\t the
\n\t      depreciation or at the most the original\tcost
\n\t      of construction without depreciation.”
\nAccepting  the\tfigure of Rs. 41,541-12-,9 as  the  cost  of
\nconstruction of the building in 1920 as found by the  courts
\nbelow, he observed that the capital value should be  “either
\nRs.   41,541-12-9   or\tsomething   less   after   deducting
\ndepreciation.”\tAccording to him “the assessee has not\tcome
\nin  revision against the order of the Magistrate fixing\t the
\nvalue  at  Rs.\t90,000\/-.  Both the  courts  have  erred  in
\nconsidering  the  probable  cost of construction  of  a\t new
\nbuilding.”  He\ttherefore  held that the  courts  below\t had
\ncommitted a material mistake in the exercise of jurisdiction
\nin  relying  upon the probable cost of\tconstructing  a\t new
\nbuilding of a similar type in order to estimate the  capital
\nvalue as contemplated by Godhra Municipality and accordingly
\nreduced the capital value fixed by the Sessions Judge to Rs.
\n90,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
We  find ourselves unable to accept the views  expressed  or
\nthe  reasoning\tgiven in the judgment of  ‘the\tHigh  Court.
\nSection\t 73 empowered the municipality to impose a  rate  on
\nbuildings  or  lands.\tNow the word  ‘rate’  had  not\tbeen
\ndefined\t in  the Act but it has a well\tknown  meaning.\t  As
\nobserved  in  Patel  Gordhandas\t Hargovindas  v.   Municipal
\nCommissioner, Ahmedabad<\/a>(‘) the word has come to our  country
\nfor  the  purpose of local taxation from England.”  In\tthat
\ncase  this  Court examined Various statutes bearing  on\t the
\nEnglish Rating Law and held that the word “‘rate’ was
\n(1) [1964] 2 S.C.R.608 at 616.\n<\/p>\n
486<\/span><\/p>\n
used  with  respect  to a tax which was levied\ton  the\t net
\nannual\tvalue or rateable value of lands and  buildings\t and
\nnot on their capital value.  It would therefore not be wrong
\nto  say\t that  in the legislative history  and\tpractice  in
\nEngland up to 1925, ‘rate for the purpose of local  taxation
\nmeant  a  tax  on the annual value of  lands  and  buildings
\nliable to such taxation.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Court  went on to examine the methods in  use  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  ascertaining  the\trateable  value\t which\twere
\ngenerally three.  It was said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where the land or building was actually\tlet,
\n\t      the  valuation was based on the rent at  which
\n\t      it  was  let.  Where, however,  the  land\t -or
\n\t      building was not let, two methods were evolved
\n\t      for  the purpose of finding out  the  rateable
\n\t      value.  The first was to assume a hypothetical
\n\t      tenancy (such as where the same person is\t the
\n\t      owner  and occupier) and find out the rent  at
\n\t      which  the premises would be let.\t The  second
\n\t      was   based  on  the  capital  value  of\t the
\n\t      premises.\t  But the tax was not levied on\t the
\n\t      capital  value itself.; the capital value\t was
\n\t      determined  on  the structural  value  of\t the
\n\t      building\tto be assessed by what was known  to
\n\t      be contractors method or contractor’s test  in
\n\t      addition\tto  the market value  of  the  land.
\n\t      Sometimes the words “effective capital  value”
\n\t      were also used since in most cases the  actual
\n\t      capital  cost of the building plus the  market
\n\t      value  of\t land might for some reason  or\t the
\n\t      other  be in effective i.e., it might  not  be
\n\t      rent   producing.\t  Having  arrived   at\t the
\n\t      effective\t capital value it was  necessary  to
\n\t      apply  percentages thereto in order to  arrive
\n\t      at the annual value.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When  legislatures  in\tthis country  enact  statutes  which
\nclosely\t resemble  statutes  in England and  have  the\tsame
\npurpose and object in view, then unless the expressions used
\nin the Indian Statutes are defined, courts of law cannot  go
\nwrong  in interpreting them in the way English\tJudges\thave
\ndone.\tFurther, the words which have acquired a  particular
\nshade  of meaning in England may be given the  same  meaning
\nunless\tthere is anything in the statute itself which  would
\nbe  contra  indicative.\t In Patel Gordhandas’s\tcase(‘)\t the
\nstatute\t which this Court had to interpret was the same\t Act
\nwhich  is  before  us  in  this\t case.\t Consequently,\tthat
\ndecision  affords  us  a  good\tguide  in  forming  our\t own
\nconclusions  in\t this case.  Section 75 of the\tAct  has  an
\nExplanation introduced in 1966 which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Explanation-For\tthe  purposes of a  rate  on
\n\t      buildings or lands, the basis of valuation may
\n\t      be-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i) the annual letting value;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 608.\n<\/p>\n
487<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  the annual value;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)  the floor area, in the case  of  Mills,
\n\t      Factories\t and buildings and  lands  connected
\n\t      therewith;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv) the capital value, in the case of  vacant
\n\t      lands.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Explanation is deemed always to have  been\t substituted
\nfor the original by Maharashtra Act 3 of 1966, s. 3(b).
\nRule  4 of Godhra Municipal Rules shows what properties\t are
\nto  be valued on the capital basis.  What the capital  basis
\nis not defined.\t The capital value however can be determined
\nin  the\t way  laid down in  Patel  Gordhandas’s\t case(‘)  by
\nadopting  the contractor’s method.  What that method is\t has
\nbeen explained in Ryde on Rating (Eleventh Edition)  Chapter\n<\/p>\n
20.   In R. v. School Board for London(‘) Cave,\t J.  applied
\nthe  contractor’s test to schools.  Ryde points out that  it
\nwas tacitly recognised as applicable in various other cases.
\nThe  principle\ton which the contractor’s  basis  rests\t are
\ngiven  by  the\tauthor at page 439 and\tthe  method  of\t its
\napplication is given at page 442.  The learned author  notes
\nthat  in “applying the contractor’s basis it is possible  to
\ndiscern\t five stages.  The first stage is the estimation  of
\nthe  cost  of  construction of the  building.”\tThere  is  a
\ndifference  of view as to whether it is better to  take\t the
\ncost of relacing the actual building. as it is, or,the\tcost
\nof  a  substitute building on the same plan  as\t the  actual
\nbuilding  but otherwise in an up-to-date form.\t The  second
\nstage  is “to make deductions from the cost of\tconstruction
\nto  allow  for\tage,  obsolescence  and\t any  other  factors
\nnecessary to arrive at the I effective capital value.\t“The
\nthird stage is to estimate the cost of the land.  The fourth
\nstage  is to apply the market rate or rates at\twhich  money
\ncan  be borrowed or invested to the effective capital  value
\nof  the building and the land.\tThe fifth stage is  to\tcon-
\nsider  whether\tthe  result  of\t the  fourth  stage   really
\nrepresents  what the hypothetical tenant would pay  for\t the
\nannual\ttenancy\t on  the statutory terms, and  to  make\t any
\nadjustments necessary to ensure that no higher rent is fixed
\nas  the basis of assessments than that which it is  believed
\nthe owner would really be willing to pay for the  occupation
\nof the premises.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  5\t of the Godhra Municipal Rules lays  down  that\t the
\ncapital\t value is to be determined in each case on  reliable
\ndata  furnished by the Mills and the Factories\twhen  called
\nupon to do so and in the absence thereof is to be determined
\nby the Chief Officer or expert valuer.\tThe learned  counsel
\nfor  the respondent contended that here there were  reliable
\ndata  in that the balance sheet of the company\tshowing\t the
\nvalue  of these properties for the purpose of the  Companies
\nAct and there was no reason why the same figures should\t not
\nbe adopted as the capital value of the lands
\n(1) [1964] 2 S. C.R. 608.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1885) 55 L.J.M.C. 33; 17 Q.B.D. 738 C.A.\n<\/p>\n
488<\/span><\/p>\n
and   buildings\t  within   the\t jurisdiction\tof    Godhra
\nmunicipality.\tThis clearly is fallacious as under  section
\n211  of\t the  Companies Act, 1956 the  balance\tsheet  of  a
\ncompany\t has  to  be  drawn up in  the\tform  prescribed  by
\nSchedule VI.  Under the said Schedule, Part 1, the value  of
\nfixed  assets  has  to be shown “distinguishing\t as  far  as
\npossible  between expenditure upon (a) good-will, (b)  land,\n<\/p>\n
(c)  buildings,\t (d) leaseholds, (e)  railway  sidings,\t (f)
\nplant  and  machinery,\t(g)  furniture\tand  fittings’.\t (h)
\ndevelopment of property etc.  The fourth column of the\tform
\nwhich gives the instructions in accordance with which assets
\nshould be made out shows under each head “the original\tcost
\nand ‘ the additions thereto and deductions therefrom  during
\nthe year, and the total depreciation written off or provided
\nup  to the end of the year is to be stated.” It will  there-
\nfore be noticed that the figures given in the balance  sheet
\nare merely statements in terms of the form given in Schedule
\nVI.  They have no relevance in determining the capital value
\nof property for the purpose of assessment to a rate.
\nIt  appears  to\t us  therefore\tthat  the  true\t method\t  of
\ndetermination  of the capital value was not adopted  in\t the
\ncourts below.  We therefore set aside the judgment and order
\nof the High Court and remand the matter back to the District
\nJudge for him to determine the capital value in the light of
\nthe  observations made by us after giving an opportunity  to
\nthe   parties to adduce evidence on the subject.  The  costs
\nwill abide by the decision of the District Judge.
\nG.C.\t\tAppeal allowed and case remanded.\n<\/p>\n
489<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1504, 1968 SCR (3) 481 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: GODHRA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY Vs. RESPONDENT: GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/03\/1968 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1968 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGodhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2789,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\",\"name\":\"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968","datePublished":"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968"},"wordCount":2789,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968","name":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T02:36:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godhra-borough-municipality-vs-godhra-electricity-co-ltd-on-20-march-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Godhra Borough Municipality vs Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd on 20 March, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}