https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276962 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. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:07:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276962 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Oct 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276962