AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts, in nutshell, are : The parties are different but the issues are identical, so a single judgment will dispose of both appeals. In the suits, challenge was to two shove-cause-notices both, dated 23rd May 1994 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act ("BMC Act" for short) by the respondent/ corporation to the respective appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why unauthorised extensions made by them to their existing shops should not be removed or demolished. The said two show cause notices after hearing the respective notices culminated in two separate orders, both dated 2nd September 1994, passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, who was pleased to hold that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the BMC Act both these appellants had shown cause by filing their respective replies. They were heard by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, who, after hearing them was pleased to pass orders on 2nd September 1994 directing both of them to remove their respective illegal structures forthwith. Thus notices issued under Section 351 of the BMC Act were culminated in the orders directing removal of illegal structures forthwith. Thus the threats to demolish or remove illegal structures through the orders in question were clear and unequivocal. No further action or warning under the BMC Act is contemplated. The next action contemplated is the execution of the said orders passed under the provisions of the Act. 6. In the ligh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter Bombay. Therefore, in my opinion, limitation for filing suit had started running from 2nd September 1994. The suits, thus, ought to have been filed within six months next after the accrual of cause of action. As already found, cause of action for filing suits having been accrued on 2nd September 1994, any suit beyond period of six months can hardly be said to be within a period of limitation. Thus the trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that both suits were barred by limitation. 8. Having considered the submissions and examined the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra), first of all I must make it clear that this judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present appeals. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act. (a) ..... (b) unless it is commenced within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action." The bare reading of the above section would clearly show that the limitation would start running, immediately, after the accrual of cause of action. Six months will have to be counted from the date of accrual of cause of action. There is no scope to postpone the commencement or starting point of limitation. The statutory provision cannot be interpreted in a manner which will introduce element of uncertainty. This principle has been stated by Lord Shaw in the following words : "Where words of a statute a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 134 : wherein the view taken was that the litigant could approach the Court only when there was an effective infringement of his legal right. The effective infringement of legal right would depend upon the facts of each case including the quality mode, manner and effectiveness of the threat administered. The learned Single Judge while taking above view relied upon the following judgments of different courts. In Mt. Bolo v. Ml. Koklan, it is observed as follows: -- 'There can be "no right to sue" unless there is accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted." In AIR1932Mad589 Kandasami Pil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sue accrues when the right in respect of which the declaration sought is denied or challenged. Accrual of right to sue means accrual of cause of action for the suit. 12. Applying the above principles to the facts involved in the present appeals, the notices issued under Section 351 were followed by order dated 2nd September 1994 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay directing removal of illegal extensions forthwith with further overt act i.e. threat in the nature of direction to the Ward Officer, H-West Ward to demolish the same at the risk of and cost of the notices. The threat given was emphatic, effective, clear and unequivocal. In this view of the matter, I do not think that on the facts of the present appeal....