{"id":255112,"date":"1962-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962"},"modified":"2016-06-13T17:39:59","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T12:09:59","slug":"chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","title":{"rendered":"Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1691, 1963 SCR (1)\t 47<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERS OF HOWRAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHALIMAR WOOD PRODUCTS & ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/03\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1691\t\t  1963 SCR  (1)\t 47\n\n\nACT:\nMunicipality-Business premises within municipal limits Whole\nof  premises  licensed as warehouse  under  Fire  Prevention\nScheme-Power  of  Municipality\tto  require  a\tlicense-West\nBengal\tFire Services Act, 1950 (W.  B. 18 of 1950) Bengal\nMunicipal  Act,\t 1932  (Ben. 15 of  1932),  s.\t370-Calcutta\nMunicipal Act, 1923 (Ben.  III of 1923) s. 330 (1) (b), 488,\n540, 541, 542.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent company was prosecuted for using the premises\nwithin\tthe  Municipality  of Howrah without  a\t license  as\nrequired under s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923, as\nextended  to the Municipality of Howrah by Notification\t No.\n260 M dated January 'A 8, 1932, under ss. 540 and 541 of the\nAct.   The Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, also  stood  repealed\nqua the municipality of Howrah under s. 542 of the Act\tfrom\nthe  date of such extension.  The defence of the  respondent\nwas that the premises had been licensed as a warehouse under\nthe  West Bengal Fire Service Act, 1950,  and  consequently,\nbecause of s. 38 of the Fire Services Act, s. 386 of the Act\nstood  repealed and the respondent was not required to\ttake\nout  another license under the said s. 386.  The  respondent\nwas  however convicted under s. 488 of the Act.\t  In  appeal\nthe  Sessions  Judge  reduced the sentence  and\t fine.\t The\nappellant took a revision to the High Court.  The High Court\nheld  inter-alia  that\ts. 38 of the Fire  Service  Act\t was\napplicable to the Howrah Municipality.\tTherefore, while  it\nmay  be necessary to take out a license under s. 386 (1)  of\nthe  Act,  no part of the premises would be liable  for\t any\ncharge\tof fees for granting a license.\t The appellant\tcame\nup in appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.\nHeld, that the effect of extension of s. 386 of the Calcutta\nMunicipal   Act,   1923,   by\tnotification   No.   260   M\ndated .January 18, 1932, under s. 540 and s. 541 of the Act,\nto the Municipality of Howrah is that an amended Act with s.\n386  is applicable to the Municipality of Howrah and not  s.\n386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.\nAlthough s. 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services' Act extends\nto  the\t whole\tof Bengal and to the extent  there  set\t it,\nrepeal s. 386 of the calcutta Municipal Act which\n48\napplies\t to  the Corporation of Calcutta and s. 370  of\t the\nBengal\t Municipal   Act   which  applies   to\t the   other\nMunicipalities\tof  Bengal  yet\t it  does  not\taffect\t the\noperation  of  s.  386 of the former  Act  as  modified\t and\nextended to the Municipality of Howrah by the  notification.\nThe  language  of  s.  386 has\tbeen  modified\tto  make  it\nappropriate in its application to the Municipality of Howrah\nand for that purpose in place of the word 'corporation'\t the\nword 'commissioners' has been substituted.  Thus modified it\nis not s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act but a  different\nsection.   Therefore  what  s. 38 of the  West\tBengal\tFire\nServices Act repeals in s. 386 of the Calcutta Muncipal\t Act\nand  not  s.  386 of that as modified  and  applied  to\t the\nMunicipality of Howrah.\nSecretary  of  State for India v. Hindusthan  Co<\/a>-  operative\nInsurance Society, (1931) L. R. 59 1. A. 259, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 240  of
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  15,  1959,  of the Calcutta  High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nRevision No. 135 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
S. C. Mazumdar, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Sukumar Ghose, for the respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  March 26.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKAPUR,\tJ.-This is an appeal against the judgment and  order
\nof the High Court of Calcutta passed in revision against the
\norder  of  the Additional Session,% Judge, Howrah,  who\t had
\nmodified the order of conviction of the respondents under s.
\n488  read  with a. 386(1)(b) of the Calcutta  Municipal\t Act
\n(Act III of 1923) as extended to the Municipality of Howrah,
\nhereinafter  called the ‘Act’.\tThe appellant before  us  is
\nthe Chairman of the Municipal Committee of Howrah who is the
\ncomplainant  and  the  respondent  is  a  company  with\t its
\npremises at No. 1 Swarnamoyee Road, where it was carrying on
\nthe  manufacture of bobbins, card pine, shuttles etc.\tThey
\nwere also storing their wood and timer in those premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     49<\/span><\/p>\n
The charge against the respondent was that it was using\t the
\npremises within the municipality of Howrah without a license
\nas required under s. 386 of the Act and was therefore guilty
\nunder s. 488 of the Act.  The defence of the respondent\t was
\nthat the premises had been licensed as a warehouse under the
\nWest  Bengal  Fire Services Act, 1950 (Act 18 of  1950)\t and
\nconsequently because of s. 38 of that Act, s. 386 of the Act
\nstood  repealed and the respondent was not required to\ttake
\nout  another  license  under,  s.  386\tof  the\t Act.\t The
\nMagistrate,  before  whom  the case was tried,\twas  of\t the
\nopinion\t that  the effect of a. 38 of the West\tBengal\tFire
\nServices  Act  was  that the power of  the  Municipality  to
\nrequire\t a  license under a. 386 of the Act for\t user  as  a
\nwarehouse  had been taken away and therefore in\t respect  of
\nthe  rest  of the premises used as a factory  or  for  other
\npurposes the applicability of s. 386 remains unimpaired.  He
\nfound  that  the  respondent  was  running  a  factory\twith
\nworkshops fitted with electric power in the premises for the
\nmanufacture  of\t bobbins,  card\t pins,\tshuttles  etc.\t  He
\nconvicted the respondent under s. 488 and sentenced him to a
\nfine of Rs. 250.  In appeal the learned Additional  Sessions
\nJudge  held that s. 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services\t Act
\ndoes  not repeal all the three clauses of s. 386 of the\t Act
\nbut partially repeals a. 386(3) which deals with the levy of
\nfees and therefore a license under s. 386(1) will still have
\nto be taken but as the premises had al. ready been  licensed
\nas a warehouse the respondent company could not be  required
\nto  pay\t any fees under a. 386(3) of the Act.\tThe  object,
\naccording  to the learned Sessions Judge, was that the\tlevy
\nof  fees  twice\t over in respect of the\t same  premises\t was
\nprohibited  and not that the license was not required.\t The
\nsentence  of fine was therefore reduced from Rs. 250 to\t Rs.
\n10  only.  Against this order the appellant took a  revision
\nto the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
50<\/span><\/p>\n
The High Court held that where the premises are licensed  as
\na warehouse under the Fire Services Act but a portion of  it
\nis used as a workshop the Municipal Committee has no. longer
\nthe  power  to\tlevy any fees for granting  the\t license  in
\nrespect of the premises even though there may be a liability
\nto take out a license i.e. while it may be necessary to take
\nout  a license under s. 386(1) of the Act no fees  could  be
\ncharged\t and as the whole of the premises in case  had\tbeen
\nlicensed as a warehouse under the West Bengal Fire  Services
\nAct  no part of the premises would be liable for any  charge
\nof fees for granting a license.\n<\/p>\n
A further argument was also raised for the appellant in\t the
\nHigh  Court and that was that a. 38 of the West Bengal\tFire
\nServices Act did not apply to the Howrah Municipality at all
\nbecause\t the Howrah Municipality is governed neither by\t the
\nCalcutta  Municipal Act nor by the Bengal Municipal Act\t but
\nby the Calcutta Municipal Act as extended to Howrah i. e. as
\nmodified  in  accordance with the powers  conferred  on\t the
\nGovernment by s. 541(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act.\t But
\nthe  High  Court was of the opinion that a. 38 of  the\tWest
\nBengal\tFire  Services\tAct  is\t applicable  to\t the  Howrah
\nMunicipality  and there. fore repelled this  last  argument.
\nThe  revision  was  therefore dismissed, and  the  rule\t was
\ndischarged.   Against that order the appellant has  come  in
\nappeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The main argument raised by the appellant was that s. 38  of
\nthe  West  Bengal  Fire Services Act could  not\t affect\t the
\noperation of s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as it\t was
\nextended  to  the Howrah Municipality.\tSection\t 38  of\t the
\nformer Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On the application of this Act to Calcutta or
\n\t      any other Municipality, section
\n\t\t\t\t    51<\/span>
\n\t      38  6 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923,  or
\n\t      section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932,
\n\t      as  the  case may be, shall be  deemed  to  be
\n\t      repealed in so far as they entitle the  Corpo-
\n\t      ration of Calcutta or the Commissioners of the
\n\t      Municipality  to levy fees in respect  of\t any
\n\t      premises\t or  part  thereof  licensed  as   a
\n\t      warehouse under this Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was contended that s. 38 of that Act does not repeal  s.
\n386 of the Act because the interpretation of that section is
\nthat  it repeals s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal  Act\t1923
\nwhich entitles the Corporation of Calcutta to levy fees\t and
\ns. 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 which entitles\t the
\nCommissioners  of  other  Municipalities  to  levy  fees  in
\nrespect\t of any premises licensed as a warehouse;  in  other
\nwords  the argument was that in the case of  Corporation  of
\nCalcutta s. 386 of the Act shall be deemed to be repealed to
\nthe  extent  mentioned\tin s. 38 and in the  case  of  other
\nMunicipalities and the Commissioners of those Municipalities
\ns.370  of the Bengal Municipal Act. 1932 shall be deemed  to
\nbe  repealed to the extent that, s.38 is applicable  and  as
\nHowrah\tMunicipality is neither the Corporation of  Calcutta
\nnor is it governed by s. 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, s.
\n38 is inoperative.\n<\/p>\n
To test the correctness of this argument it is necessary  to
\nrefer to the provisions by which the Act was extended to the
\nMunicipality  of  Howrah.   Under so. 540  and\t541  of\t the
\nCalcutta   Municipal  Act  the\tProvincial  Government\t was
\nempowered to extend all or any of the provision of that\t Act
\nto  the Municipality of Howrah.\t Under s. 542 the effect  of
\nthe  extension was that the Bengal Municipal Act 1932  stood
\nrepealed  qua  the Municipality of Howrah from the  date  of
\nsuch extension and sub-cl. (b)\t   of\t   that\t     section
\nprovides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Except  as  the\tProvincial  Government\t may
\n\t      otherwise by notification in the Official
\n\t      52<\/span>
\n\t\t    Gazette  direct,  all  rules,   by-laws,
\n\t      orders, directions and powers made, issued  or
\n\t      conferred under the portions of this Act which
\n\t      have been so extended and in force at the date
\n\t      of  such\textension, shall apply to  the\tsaid
\n\t      municipality  or part, in Supersession of\t all
\n\t      corresponding    rules,\t by-laws,    orders,
\n\t      directions   and\t powers\t made,\t issued\t  or
\n\t      conferred under the said Bengal Municipal Act,
\n\t      1932″\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and  by an explanation to that section the extension of\t the
\nAct  did  not  put the Municipality  of\t Howrah\t tinder\t the
\nauthority  of  the Corporation of Calcutta.   By  a  Gazette
\nNotification  NO. 260M of January 18, 1932  practically\t the
\nwhole  of  the Act, excepting the provisions which  are\t not
\nnecessary, was extended to the Municipality of Howrah.\t The
\nlanguage extending the Act was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Howrah.-No.   260M.-18th\t  January    1932-In
\n\t      exercise of the power conferred by sub-section
\n\t      (2)  of section 541 of the Calcutta  Municipal
\n\t      Act,  1923  (Bengal  Act<\/a>\tIII  of\t 19-3).\t the
\n\t      Government of Bengal (Ministry of Local  Self-
\n\t      Government)  are\tpleased\t to  extend  to\t the
\n\t      Municipality  of\tHowrah\tthe  following\tpro-
\n\t      visions  of the Calcutta Municipal  Act  1923,
\n\t      subject to the modifications and\trestrictions
\n\t      specified therein which are ‘shown in  antique
\n\t      type.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As  a  result of this extension s. 386<\/a> was extended  to\t the
\nMunicipality of Howrah with this modification that in  place
\nof   the   word\t  “Corporation\t of   Calcutta’\t  the\tword
\n“Commissioners”\t was  substituted.   In\t 1951  the  Calcutta
\nMunicipal  Act\t1951 being West Bengal Act<\/a> 33  of  1951\t was
\nenacted\t thus  replacing Act 3 of 1923 which  was  therefore
\nrepealed.   In\tthe new Act corresponding provision  to\t ss.
\n540<\/a>,  541<\/a> and 542<\/a> are ss. 589<\/a>, 590<\/a> and 591<\/a>.  Section 614<\/a>  of
\nthe new Act provides that the provisions of Act III of\t1923
\nas extended to the Municipality of Howrah shall continue  to
\nbe in force until the provisions of the new
\n\t\t\t     53<\/span>
\nAct  are  extended to that Municipality under the  new\tAct.
\nThus  the effect of the extension by the Notification  under
\nss. 540 and 541 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is that to the
\nMunicipality of Howrah an amended Act with an amended s. 386<\/a>
\nis  applicable\tand  not  s. 386 of the\t Act  III  of  1923.
\nKeeping\t this in view we have then to see how far s.  38  of
\nthe West Bengal Fire Services Act 1950 (Act 18 of 1950)\t has
\naffected  the  operation  of s. 386<\/a> as\tit  applies  to\t the
\nMunicipality  of Howrah.  Section 38<\/a> provides that   section
\nrepeals s. 386 of the Act III of 1925 to the extent  therein
\nmentioned.   It also repeals s. 370 of the Bengal  Municipal
\nAct as it applies to the Commissioners of Municipalities  in
\nBengal.\t  It  does not apply to s. 386<\/a> as  modified  and  is
\ninapplicable to the Municipality of Howrah because in s. 386<\/a>
\nas  applicable to the Corporation of Calcutta the word\tused
\nis  “,Corporation” and not “Commissioners” and wherever\t the
\nword  “Corporation” is used in s. 386<\/a> it is replaced by\t the
\nword “Commissioners” in s. 386<\/a> as it applies to the  Howrah.
\nMunicipality.\tIt  cannot  be said  therefore\tthat  s.  38<\/a>
\nrepeals\t s. 386 of the Act III of 1923 as it applies to\t the
\nHowrah Municipality.\n<\/p>\n
In  a somewhat similar case a similar view was taken by\t the
\nPrivy  Council.\t  See  Secretary  of  State  for  India\t  v.
\nHindusthan Co-operative<\/a> lnsurance Society (1). In that\tcase
\ncertain\t  provisions  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act<\/a>\twere
\nincorporated by reference Into the Calcutta Improvement\t Act
\n1911.\tBy an amendment of 1921 the right of appeal  to\t the
\nPrivy  Council\tfrom  the decision of  the  High  Court\t was
\nprovided in matters failing under the Land Acquisition\tAct<\/a>.
\nIt  was\t held  that the right of appeal\t so  given  was\t not
\napplicable  to\tthe award of a tribunal under  the  Calcutta
\nImprovement  Act assessing compensation in respect  of\tland
\nacquired under the provisions of the.  Land Acquisition Act<\/a>.
\nDealing with this matter Sir George Lowndes quoted with
\n(1)  (1931) L.R. 58 1.A. 259.\n<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
approval  the observations of Lord Westbury in Ex parts\t St.
\nSepulchre’s (1) and observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  seems to be no less logical to hold\tthat
\n\t      where certain provisions from an existing\t Act
\n\t      have been incorporated into a subsequent\tAct,
\n\t      no  addition to the former Act, which  is\t not
\n\t      expressly\t made applicable to  the  subsequent
\n\t      Act,  can be deemed to be incorporated in\t it,
\n\t      at  all  events  if it  is  possible  for\t the
\n\t      subsequent Act to function effectually without
\n\t      the addition”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although a. 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act  extends
\nto  the whole of Bengal and to the extent there set  out  it
\nrepeals\t s. 386 of the Calcutta Municipal Act which  applies
\nto  the Corporation of Calcutta and s. 370<\/a> which applies  to
\nthe  other Municipalities of Bengal yet it does\t not  affect
\nthe  operation of s. 386<\/a> of the former Act as  modified\t and
\nextended  to the Municipality of Howrah by the\tnotification
\nwhich  has been set out above.\tThe reason for that is\tthat
\nthe  language  of  s.  386<\/a> has\tbeen  modified\tto  make  it
\nappropriate in its application to the Municipality of Howrah
\nand for that purpose in place of the word `corporation ‘ the
\nword  “‘Commissioners” has been substituted.  Thus  modified
\nit  is\tnot  a.\t 386 of the Calcutta  Municipal\t Act  but  a
\ndifferent  section.  Therefore what s.38 of the West  Bengal
\nFire  Services\tAct  repeals  is  s.  386  of  the  Calcutta
\nMunicipal Act and not s. 386<\/a> of that as modified and applied
\nto the Municipality of Howrah.\tIt may look rather anomalous
\nbut  that  is  what the effect of the  modification  of\t the
\nlanguage is.  In our opinion therefore the contention of the
\nappellant is well founded ‘and s. 38 of the West Bengal Fire
\nServices  Act  does  not repeal s. 386<\/a> as  modified  and  as
\napplicable to the Municipality of Howrah.  From the point of
\nview of the respondent the result may be unfortunate
\n(1)  (1869) 33 L.J. (Ch.) 372, 376.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     55<\/span><\/p>\n
but  that  is  the interpretation of  the  language  of\t the
\nvarious sections which are relevant in the present case.
\nWe  therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order  of\t the
\nHigh  Court  and  convict the  respondent  of  the  offenses
\ncharged, but in view of the fact that the appellant succeeds
\non a question of interpretation we do not think it necessary
\nto  increase  the sentence of fine imposed  by\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge, The, appeal is allowed to that extent.
\nAppeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1691, 1963 SCR (1) 47 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERS OF HOWRAH Vs. RESPONDENT: SHALIMAR WOOD PRODUCTS & ANOTHER. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/1962 BENCH: KAPUR, […]<\/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-255112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - 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\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-13T12:09:59+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T12:09:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2181,\"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\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\",\"name\":\"Chairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T12:09:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Chairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - 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\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-13T12:09:59+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962","datePublished":"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T12:09:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962"},"wordCount":2181,"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\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962","name":"Chairman Of The Municipal ... vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T12:09:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-of-the-municipal-vs-shalimar-wood-products-another-on-26-march-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman Of The Municipal … vs Shalimar Wood Products & Another on 26 March, 1962"}]},{"@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\/255112","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=255112"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255112\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}