Refund of illegally levied octroi governed by Article 62; Government resolutions limited municipal power over sea-borne goods.

Municipal octroi power remained subject to the Government of India Resolutions of 6 November 1868 and 24 April 1899, so sea-borne goods were exempt and any levy above the prescribed limit was unlawful. A refund claim for sums illegally collected was treated as one for specific money wrongfully received, not as compensation or damages; Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1877 therefore applied. The shorter limitation under Article 2, which governs compensation claims for acts done under an enactment, did not bar the suit. The plaintiff company succeeded on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government of India Resolutions dated 6 November 1868 and 24 April 1899 applied so as to exempt sea-borne goods from octroi duty or limit the rate chargeable. (ii) Whether the suit for refund of the amounts wrongfully levied was governed by Article 2 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act, 1877, or by Article 62.

Issue (i): Whether the Government of India Resolutions dated 6 November 1868 and 24 April 1899 applied so as to exempt sea-borne goods from octroi duty or limit the rate chargeable.

Analysis: The power of the Municipal Board to impose octroi under the relevant Regulation was expressly subject to general rules or special orders made by the Governor-General in Council. The Resolution of 6 November 1868 exempted sea-borne goods from octroi duty, and the Resolution of 24 April 1899 prescribed a maximum rate of duty on articles subject to sea customs duty. Those resolutions therefore controlled the municipal power and rendered the excess levy unlawful.

Conclusion: The resolutions applied, and the levy complained of was illegally made.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for refund of the amounts wrongfully levied was governed by Article 2 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act, 1877, or by Article 62.

Analysis: The claim was framed not as one for compensation or damages, but as one for recovery of specific sums wrongfully taken and received by the Municipality. Such a claim fell within the old form of money had and received, which corresponds to Article 62. Article 2 applies only where the relief sought is truly compensation for an act done in pursuance of an enactment, and not where the plaintiff seeks refund of identifiable money received for the plaintiff's use.

Conclusion: Article 62 applied, and the suit was not barred under Article 2.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the plaintiff company on both the applicability of the Government resolutions and the governing article of limitation, with Article 62 being held applicable to the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit seeking refund of specific sums illegally levied and received is a claim for money had and received, not for compensation or damages, and is governed by Article 62 rather than the shorter limitation applicable to compensation claims.

---