Crown immunity from general statutory words limits application of the City of Bombay Municipal Act provisions unless binding intent is clear.

The Crown is not bound by general words in a statute unless it is expressly named or bound by necessary implication, and necessary implication exists only where the legislative language makes that intention manifest. A statute's public purpose, or the fact that it may operate more efficiently if applied to the Crown, is not enough to displace that presumption. Applying that principle, the Bombay High Court stated that the relevant inquiry is whether the terms of the enactment, read at the time of enactment, show an intention to bind the Crown, and concluded that Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 do not bind the Crown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Crown is bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the Crown is not bound by general words in a statute unless it is expressly named or bound by necessary implication. Necessary implication arises only where the statutory language makes it manifest that the Legislature intended the Crown to be bound. The fact that a statute is enacted for the public good is not, by itself, sufficient to bind the Crown. The Court rejected the view that the Crown can be bound merely because the statute would operate more efficiently if it applied to the Crown, and held that the relevant inquiry is whether, at the time of enactment, the statutory terms show an intention to bind the Crown.

Conclusion: The Crown is not bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.

---