Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 30 June, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 30 June, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 (6) AIR KAR R 420, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 1064 (KAR.)

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

_ \V _MANA§:ER-=«LEGAL; v--s;5;RI':FsA1s:'Jrr NAGARKATTI.

   85 ASSOCEATES )

'<1 Bi<':U"}*ifA'i' BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

...l..

 

In 'i'ﬁE HIGH comrr or KARIVIATAKA,  " 
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF' JUNE.,_\*§ (ﬁ)9 if  X 3 '
_ BEFORE  W " i  [ p 
'rm: I~i0N"BLi<3 I»iR.JUSTICE3-}f{A1\¢iV'i¥4f_'C3Z%iAN,  

WRI'1'PIff2['I'PlOI\i No. 9039 <25' 23007 (agsgsmp;
c/w W.P. 9474/o?(1.14;.--f:'Ax),w;.?.9655/07043--B359),
WP 9656/O'?(LB--T}1X)'--WP9§368;fO7(LB-TAX) 83

'WP 9999/o7gLB'--TAx)%  J 

W? No 9039 OF' 

BETVVIBEN

:~iuTCHIs0N ES:'31§LR«S5{)UTH'~«L'FD --
PRESTIGE BLUE (3E£.§;§?_ '  A'   '
GROUND 1«=:,0oR, ' BLCKEK i~,-.,r'm;'9,

HOSUR ROAD, '3ANL"aA1g)R.B;'\.'29,
REPRESEETN ED" BYITTS DEPUTY GENERAL

... PETITIONER

A. ,_E\i.R§3QUARE3,
_ BANGALORE 2,
*}%E?REsENTED BY yrs CQMMISSIONER,

F THE SPECIAL CC-'MMISS§ONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N'R.SQUARE, BANGAL{)RE 2. } £)\
ya.
tf

 



...3..

"me: COMMISSEONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKIES,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE---2.

OO-

4 THE DEPUTY COMMESSEONER   
('E'AXA"i"I()N AND RESQURCES),  ;
BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PAL'iKE<_ "
N.R. SQUARE  _  
BANGALORE » 560002. '

5 'THE REVENUE OFFICER _ 1.
ADVERTISEMENT s£«;~c'r1c3N _ ._ , 
BANGALORE MAHANAGAra_ Pa1,1K1«;:'j  0

M.   
BANGAi.()R'_E -=-=.ss;;000;2:._  _   A

_   0 ._  .   RESP()NI)EN'I'S
(By Sri  N  FOR R2~5 }

TH1s«w§-m' I-"E'.i'IA:'.jI'E€;;»)I\i..;I:°S'I?0ILI*3I) UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 22? ()F._'_4I'Hi[4;: (3ON.Si'§T.U'FION 014' INDIA PRAYING TO
DEC;LA,F?f§ Ti£A"1'=.  LEVY AND COLLECFION OF'

_._ADvIa:.§~"éi;';s:m;s;m"afAx, IN RESPECT 012* SIGN BOARDS OF'
 PEPSE, LEEJAR, MERINDA, 7 UP E*r<:., PLACED UPON OR
 OVER *1':~;,E:.A--:.~a5,0R B01w;.>1NG or THE RETAIL OU'§'LE'l'S

's;;3:L;,1_:ia'<3V*i?1jE: SAME ES u'i;rm~vmEs THE PROVXSIONS 0:»
SECfl"lQ«N"' «  OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL
COREfOPRA'1'i::)_P~?S ACT, 3976 AS AMENDED, BESIBES

  BEING" UPiC€}vPéfSTITUTIONAL ANS ILLEGAL IN SO AS THE
 P§3'l'I'I'I€;)P4VE?i;?Y IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

  a%g>":>AV;\§g5'-23055 0;? 2007

 __""7B£«:'i:wE§:N

VA   ~i3:'~iAR':'*§' AIRTEZL LIMITEI)

(FYCJRMEERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI 'f'ELE3VEN'I'URES

M

 



_."7,__

KORAMAN GALA, BANGALORE 560 095
REPRESENTED BY {TS MANAGER LEGAL
SHRi SAFEER AHMED

(By M] S: GURURAJ 35 ASSOCIATES )

3 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANA'GAI€-A PALE'KLE'A. "

N R sQ:;:ARE, BANGALORE} 53550 002 V . _ 
REPRESENTEQ BY' Yrs CONIMISSI0N::*3R  . 

:2 'l'HE SPECIAL c0M§v:.{_ss1c3'§iE'1é.I'j' V 
BFEUHAT BANGALORE? MAHa;.jN\]l;A2A* PALIKE

N R SQUARE,» BANQALQR 13 55-9_ G62  '- 
3 'I'HE Joimf {:{::rv§.rv1.IS1st>ié  g;:)E:iéE;Lt)P:v1;:N*1')
BRUHAT B.fi-NGPsL__QR-E}MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQU-Ak'»§3,'jBA£'i(3A1L€}I%l§1'S60:§OO2
 --------  ..       *  RESPONIDENTS
(By Sri :k_ N  FOR R1 TO R3 )

THIS Ws§:*r.,PE*I?;'f;AQ'N.j"$ FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 22:? 09 THE '€3()1'$S'I'i'I'U'I'IGN op INDIA PRAYWG TO

4.....QuAS:~§grH:e: 0RDaE%R_____Df1'. ?.4.2oo7' PASSED BY THE R2
 v':.QE"~ANx.'---La AND ETC.



'     

" " e *-:s;1;;<3.1--;1m:':'Us'I*AN coca COLA

  BEVERAGES PRIVATE LEMITED
_ Triavixunts rrs SALES AND ADMIN OFFICE AT
"No.44; 2, BELLARY ROAD, KODIGEHALL:

'  _ G~Afi'E, HERBAL, BANGALORE-92

32*':

 PET1T10z~:7'§;:$.f'j--,T: .

 



.10..

3. it appears that when the rc:spondcnt~Brt_3h_.'3.t

Bangaiore Mahanagara Paiike (HEMP) sought to 

the boards dispiayeé in the premises--'.f 'of~:ts  "

dealers] distI'ibuto£s/ retailers, for  non-jjayiﬁéiit   

advartisement tax under The 

Corporation Act, 1976, for shortﬂthsiz 'Ast', 

having invoked the  court was
disposed of     uipétitioners to ﬁle
 to the BBMP
to consiﬁsr  -and pass orders thereon

ant} if exémgsﬁons  »-- g1*antsd from payment of

 VAdver¥j:s£:ment  to: recover the same from the

A ' ' 5pstitioV11er'sV.A . % -- .  A "~- .

  It§'I._{5ompB3nce with the said order, the

 ..4_'pstiti0neIfs; having made representations, the Special

  iidmtliéissioner, BBMP, on hearing the petitioriers, by

  (it. 7.4.2087 {impugned in each of the petitions)

  Lheid that the advertisements not displayed in the
E 3.

UK



.19.

reiate (only) to the trade, profession or business 

or something more than mere name  

The respondents herein (the apgeljants the.:fe'at).:   .«

die not build their case on the cl_a"11se::(e,) "'~ ' of Bye-1aw (7) and any atternpézp absence of the views of the "

negate proper handling. ..wo11 1Li~._ ieave the matter at that."

12. From the :+?§§1§:»~.s,»:;pex court left open the question. (e) of Bye- law 7 of teeé;a:c:'j{:eyéi;aws~e:;nd¢§"e1é Punjab Municipal Act, 1933,. " «.erV1'{jtV:Eles:_o:.V_"e:e§ée;z;og};»tio:1 from tax over adveI*tise1{1eI1ts"e§: hi'£3iteiiv_ Vretailers or persons. This my eonsitiered opinion does not support ..1nVICiCI Banks ease (suprz-9), the Apex court the provisions of Section 328-«A of the iviunieipal Corporation Act, 1888, more V _ eﬁifopﬁately the definition and scope of the word "Advertisement", held that it "means to make publicly M

20. known an information by some device and to . atnact attention of the public] such information. It need not if only or solely for commercia}'TVex;;1oifationt."_ therein was that ICiCI Bank i11stauilled"ATM. 'cemesii and extension counters over §vhich'-- were ﬁxed indicating their' that fell for oonsidemﬁon on hand and therefore,7.does i't§1.e --¢,3.se of the respondents.

1.,-ﬁg " The of the Madras High Court in :Ao1ﬁg"at'_s ease (supmlj, in my considered opinio:1.Voa;5pIie-S ail its tours and for the very same reasons', ﬁndings and coneiusions, the petitioners are ' toexemption ﬁom payment of advertisement 'V _ the third proviso to Section 134 of the Act; ' "fifieorder of the Specie} Commissioner, impugned and M

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court