{"id":54335,"date":"1976-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976"},"modified":"2017-11-18T01:36:18","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T20:06:18","slug":"hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","title":{"rendered":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1446, \t\t 1976 SCR 82<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Beg, M. Hameedullah, Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh, Shingal, P.N., Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHIRALAL THAKORLAL DALAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBROACH MUNICIPALITY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1446\t\t  1976 SCR   82\n 1976 SCC  (3) 398\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC 645\t (4,11)\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Municipal  Boroughs Act  1925 S. 73(i)(iv)-Scope\nof-Octroi duty-If could be levied on \"through consignments\".\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 73(i)(iv)\tof the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act\n1925 empowers  a  municipal  borough  to  impose  octroi  on\nanimals or  goods or  both brought  within the octroi limits\nfor consumption, use of sale therein. The appellant imported\ncertain consignments  of goods\twithin the  octroi limits of\nthe municipality  and exported\tthem, the consignments being\ntermed as  \"through consignments\"  or \"goods  in transit\" or\n\"goods for export\". Octroi duty was imposed on the goods and\nthe  appellant\tfiled  a  petition  before  the\t High  Court\nchallenging  the   levy.  The\tHigh  Court  held  that\t the\nexpression  'sale'   used  in  the  definition\tof  \"through\nconsignments\" in  the rules  had the  same connotation as in\nthe Sale  of Goods  Act and, therefore, if a consignment was\nbrought within\tthe  octroi  limits  and  if  the  municipal\nauthorities were  satisfied that  the consignment  had\tbeen\nbrought in for the purpose of sale, then the consignment did\nnot become a through consignment.\n     Allowing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD: The law on the subject has been clearly laid down\nin Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company (India)\nLtd. v.\t The Belgaum  Borough Municipality  and the<\/a>  present\ncase is\t governed by that decision. It was held in that case\nthat the  company was  liable to pay octroi on goods brought\ninto the local area, if the goods are:\n     (a) to  be consumed by the Company itself or sold by it\nto consumers direct and (b) for sale to dealers who in their\nturn sold  the goods  to consumers within the municipal area\nand irrespective  of whether  such consumer  bought them for\nuse in\tthe area  or outside  it; but  it was  not liable to\noctroi in respect of goods which were brought into the local\narea and were re-exported. [86 C-D]\n     Buimah Shell  Oil Storage\tand Distributing  Co.  India\nLtd. v.\t The Belgaum  Borough Municipality<\/a>  [1963] Suppl.  2\nS.C.R. 216, explained and applied\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1823 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Apeal by  Special Leave  from the\tJudgment  and  Order
\ndated the  27th\/28th\/30th January,  1967 of the Gujarat High
\nCourt in Special Civil Application No. 163 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
     B. R. Agarwala for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     I. N. Shroff for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. L.  M. Singhvi,  Advocate General, Rajasthan, V. S.
\nDave and  S. M.\t Jain  for  Intervener,\t Municipal  Council,
\nJodhpur.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SHINGHAL, J.-This\tappeal by  special leave arises from
\nthe judgment  of the Gujarat High Court dated January 27, 28
\nand 30,
\n83<\/span>
\n1967. The  two petitioners  before the High Court were firms
\ntrading in  certain commodities\t within the  limits  of\t the
\nMunicipal Borough  of Broach.  The grievance  in one  of the
\npetitions was  that the\t Municipality had  collected certain
\namounts wrongfully,  and the grievance in the other petition
\nwas that  the Municipality  had refused\t some  amounts\teven
\nthough they  were refundable  under its\t byelaws.  Both\t the
\npetitions concerned  goods which  were “imported” within the
\noctroi limits  of the Municipality but came to be “exported”
\ntherefrom.  The\t  first\t petition   was\t in   respect  of  a
\nconsignment which  was designated  as a through consignment,
\nand the second petition concerned goods in transit and goods
\nfor export  other than\tthose which could be called goods in
\ntransit. The  amounts in  dispute related  to  the  levy  of
\noctroi under  section 73(i) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs
\nAct, 1923,  hereinafter called\tthe Act,  which provides  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “73 (i)   Subject to any general or special orders
\n\t\t    which the  State Government\t may make in
\n\t\t    this behalf\t and to\t the  provisions  of
\n\t\t    sections 75\t and 76,  a Municipality may
\n\t\t    impose for\tthe purposes of this Act any
\n\t\t    of the following taxes, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       *\t *\t   *\t     *\t       *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (iv)    an octroi  on animals  or goods or both,
\n\t\t    brought, within  the octroi\t limits\t for
\n\t\t    consumption, use or sale therein;.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The word “sale” was included within the ambit of octroi when
\nthe Act was amended in 1954. The High Court took note of the
\nrules and  the bye-laws and held that it was not possible to
\ntake the view that the rules contemplated that no refund was
\npayable in  case the  goods had\t undergone a sale during the
\ncourse of  their stay  in octroi limits. It accordingly came
\nto the\tconclusion that\t in regard to goods meant for export
\nin the sense defined in the rules, refund was claimable even
\nif a  sale transaction\tin the larger sense (i.e. in a sense
\nother than  a sale  to a consumer or with the intention that
\nthe goods  must pass  into hands  of the  ultimate consumer)
\ntook place  in\tregard\tthereto,  provided  that  the  other
\nconditions were\t satisfied. The High Court then examined the
\ncorrect interpretation\tof the word “sale” in clause (iv) of
\nsection 73(i)  of the Act and after considering this Court’s
\njudgment in  Burmah Shell  Oil Storage\tand Distributing Co.
\nIndia Ld.  v. The  Belgaum Borough  Municipality,<\/a>(1) it held
\nthat the  word “sale”  could not be given the narrow meaning
\nof a  sale for consumption to the ultimate consumer because,
\nin that\t sense, the  Legislature would\tbe guilty  of having
\nintroduced a  word which  it was  not necessary\t for  it  to
\nintroduce. The High Court made a reference to the definition
\nof “sale” in section 4 of the Sale of
\n84<\/span>
\nGoods Act and held that the expression “sale” as used in the
\ndefinition of  ‘through consignments”  in the  rules had the
\nsame connotation  as in\t the Sale of Goods Act and therefore
\n“if a consignment is brought within the octroi limits and if
\nthe municipal authorities are satisfied that the consignment
\nhas been  brought in  for the purpose of effecting a sale in
\nthe aforesaid  sense, then the consignment does not become a
\nthrough consignment.”  According to  the High  Court, it was
\nnot enough  merely to  prove that  the consignment  left the
\noctroi limits within six hours after the goods were imported
\nand that  it was  necessary to\tshow  that  the\t goods\twere
\nintended only  to pass\tthrough in  the sense that they were
\nnot meant  for consumption,  use or sale, and that in regard
\nto such\t goods there  was no  intention of changing hands by
\nway of sale or that there was no intention of breaking their
\nbulk or\t detaining them\t beyond six hours or unloading them.
\nIn the\tview it\t took, the High Court issued some directions
\nfor  compliance\t by  the  authorities  concerned.  The\twrit
\npetitioners felt  dissatisfied with  the view  taken by\t the
\nHigh Court  and applied\t for a\tcertificate  under  articles
\n132(1) and  133(1) (c)\tof the\tConstitution. The High Court
\nheld that  no question\tarose  under  article  132,  and  no
\ncertificate could  be granted under article 133 as there was
\nno final  order. The  petitioners however  applied  to\tthis
\nCourt for  special leave on the ground, inter alia, that the
\nHigh Court  put a  wrong interpretation\t on  the  expression
\n“sale” in  section 73(i)(iv)  of  the  Act  inspite  of\t the
\ndecision of  this Court\t in Burmah  Shell’s case (supra). As
\nhas been  stated, they\tsucceeded in obtaining special leave
\nfrom this  Court. When the case came up for hearing before a
\nDivision Bench,\t it noticed  the decision  in Burmah Shell’s
\ncase (supra) and felt that there were “burred areas” of sale
\nwithin the  territory which may attract a tax under entry 52
\n(List  II   of\tSeventh\t Schedule)  left  uncertain  by\t the
\naforesaid decision of this Court so that the matter deserved
\nconsideration by  a larger  Bench. This\t is how the case has
\ncome up\t before us  for hearing.  We have  allowed Municipal
\nCouncil,  Jodhpur,  to\tintervene  in  the  hearing  at\t its
\nrequest.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion before\t us is\twhether this Court’s
\ndecision in  the Burmah Shell’s case (supra) squarely covers
\nthe present  controversy or  whether that  decision requires
\nreconsideration. The  learned counsel  have in fact confined
\ntheir arguments to this narrow field.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to appreciate  the controversy,\tit  will  be
\ndesirable to  refer to the basic facts of the Burmah Shell’s
\ncase (supra).  The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution
\nCo. India  Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, was
\na dealer  in petrol  and other\tpetroleum products  which it
\nmanufactured in\t its refineries situated out-side the octroi
\nlimits of  Belgaum Municipality.  It brought  these products
\ninside that  area either for use or consumption by itself or
\nfor sale generally to its dealers and licensees who in their
\nturn sold them to others. According to the Company the goods
\nbrought by
\n85<\/span>
\nit within  the octroi  limits could  be\t divided  into\tfour
\ncategories as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  1.   Goods consumed by the Company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2.   Goods sold by the Company through its dealers
\n\t       or by  itself and  consumed within the octroi
\n\t       limits by persons other than the Company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3.   Goods sold by the Company through its dealers
\n\t       or by  itself inside  the  octroi  limits  to
\n\t       other persons  but consumed  by them  outside
\n\t       the octroi limits; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4.   Goods sent  by the  Company  from  its  Depot
\n\t       inside the  octroi limits  to extra-municipal
\n\t       points where  they are bought and consumed by
\n\t       persons other than the company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court examined the scheme of taxation under the Act and
\nthe rules  and the bye-laws made by the Municipality for the
\nlevy of octroi. It also took note of the fact that the words
\n“use or\t sale” were  substituted for  the words\t “or use” by
\nBombay Act  35 of  1954, which\tare the\t subject matter of a
\nfresh controversy  before us,  and made\t a reference  to the
\nLegislative Lists  in the  Government of India Act, 1935 and
\nthe Constitution. After examining the history of octrois and
\nterminal taxes,\t this Court held that “octrois were taxes on
\ngoods brought  into the\t local area  for consumption, use or
\nsale”, and  that “they were leviable in respect of goods put
\nto some use or other in the area but only if they were meant
\nfor such  user.” It was specifically clarified that the word
\n“sale” was  included only  in 1954  in order  to  bring\t the
\ndescription  of\t  octroi  in   the  Act\t in  line  with\t the
\nConstitution, and  that\t the  expression  “consumption”\t and
\n“use” together “connote the bringing in of goods and animals
\nnot with  a view to taking them out again but with a view to
\ntheir retention\t either for use without using them up or for
\nconsumption in\ta manner which destroys, wastes or uses them
\nup.”\n<\/p>\n
     Looking to\t the trade  of the  Company, this Court held
\nthat sale  by it  directly to  consumers or  to dealers\t was
\n“merely the means for putting the goods in the way of use or
\nconsumption” and  that the word “therein” does not mean that
\nall the\t act of\t consumption must  take place in the area of
\nthe municipality.  The\tCourt  therefore  went\tto  hold  as
\nfollows.-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In other  words, a  sale  of\t the  goods  brought
\n     inside, even  though not  expressly  mentioned  in\t the
\n     description  of   octroi  as  it  stood  formerly,\t was
\n     implicit, provided\t the goods  were not re-exported out
\n     of\t the  area  but\t were  brought\tinside\tfor  use  or
\n     consumption by  buyers inside  the area.  In this sense
\n     the  amplification\t of  the  description  both  in\t the
\n     Government of  India Act, 1935 and the Constitution did
\n     not make  any addition  to the true concept of ‘octroi’
\n     as explained  above. That concept included the bringing
\n     in of goods in a local area so that the goods come to a
\n     repose there.  When the  Government of  India Act, 1935
\n     was enacted, the word
\n86<\/span>
\n\t  ‘octroi’   was    deliberately   avoided   and   a
\n     description added\tto  forestall  any  dispute  of\t the
\n     nature which  has been  raised in\tthis case.  In other
\n     words, even  without the  description the\ttax  was  on
\n     goods brought  for ‘consumption, use or sale’. The word
\n     ‘octroi’ was  also avoided\t because terminal  taxes are
\n     also a  kind of octroi and the two were to be allocated
\n     to different legislatures.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In our  opinion, even\t without the  word ‘sale’ in
\n     the Boroughs Act the position was the same provided the
\n     goods were\t sold in  the local  area to  a consumer who
\n     bought them  for the  purpose of  use or consumption or
\n     even for  resale to  others for  the purpose  of use or
\n     consumption by  them in  the area. It was only when the
\n     goods were\t re-exported out  of the  area that  the tax
\n     could not legitimately be levied……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court categorically held that the Company was liable to
\npay octroi  on goods  brought into  the local area (a) to be
\nconsumed by  itself or\tsold by\t it to consumers direct, and\n<\/p>\n
(b) for\t sale to dealers who in their turn sold the goods to
\nconsumers within  the municipal area irrespective of whether
\nsuch consumers\tbought them  for use  in the area or outside
\nit, but\t it was\t “not liable  to octroi\t in respect of goods
\nwhich it  brought into\tthe local  area and  which were\t re-
\nexported.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  law\ton  the\t  subject  matter   of\tthe  present
\ncontroversy has\t thus been  laid down  quite clearly  in the
\nBurmah Shell’s\tcase (supra)  and the  present case squarely
\nfalls to  be governed  by it.  We are also in agreement with
\nthat interpretation of the law. It may be mentioned that the
\nlearned counsel\t have not  been\t able  to  advance  any\t new
\nargument justifying a reconsideration of the decision.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is allowed,  the impugned  judgment of\t the
\nHigh Court  is set aside and the respondents are directed to
\nexamine\t and  determine\t the  claims  of  the  appellant  in
\naccordance with\t the above  decision. The  appellant will be
\nentitled to costs from the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n87<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1446, 1976 SCR 82 Author: P Shingal Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Beg, M. Hameedullah, Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh, Shingal, P.N., Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: HIRALAL THAKORLAL DALAL Vs. RESPONDENT: BROACH MUNICIPALITY & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1976 BENCH: […]<\/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-54335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - 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\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T20:06:18+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T20:06:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1944,\"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\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\",\"name\":\"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T20:06:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - 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\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T20:06:18+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976","datePublished":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T20:06:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976"},"wordCount":1944,"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\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976","name":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T20:06:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-thakorlal-dalal-vs-broach-municipality-ors-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal vs Broach Municipality & Ors on 15 April, 1976"}]},{"@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\/54335","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=54335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}