Bombay High Court
Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. vs The Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 6 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)BOMCR506, 1999CRILJ3533, 1999(3)MHLJ172
Author: Pratibha Upasani
Bench: Pratibha Upasani
ORDER Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. Heard all the Advocates. The petitioners, case is that they are a Public Limited Company, carrying on business in manufacturing of sewing threads, yarns and other goods having their registered office and factory at Ludhiana, Punjab. They are having a Bombay Branch Office at Dalamal House, Ist floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. About twenty persons are employed in this Branch Office at Bombay. According to them, at the request of the staff members, an electric hot plate is kept there to warm their lunch boxes and for preparation of tea and coffee. According to them, apart from this, there is no activity which can be even remotely called as catering business.
2. It is submitted by the petitioners that on 3rd September, 1991, some officials from respondent Nos. 1 office visited their premises, and after seeing the electric hot plate, insisted that the petitioners should have a licence for catering business from Bombay Municipal Corporation. Petitioners tried to explain to those officials that the petitioners company was not carrying on any catering business, and that, the electric hot plate was kept only for the purposes of warming the lunch boxes of the employees of the petitioners' company and for preparation of tea and coffee, only for their staff. However, the officials of Bombay Municipal Corporation were not satisfied.
3. Thereafter, it appears that Bombay Municipal Corporation filed complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Dadar, Bombay, against the petitioners, for an offence punishable under section 394(1) read with section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Summons came to be issued accordingly, which was served upon the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court for getting the same quashed.
4. I have heard Mr. H.S. Murthy for petitioners. It is very apparent from the summons itself, that the allegation of the respondent No. 1 is about the staff canteen and preparation of tea and coffee. He submits that section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act does not require a licence to be acquired, if a hot plate is kept in a small branch office like theirs for warming the lunch boxes of their staff employees and for preparing tea and coffee exclusively for them. They are engaged in the business of sewing threads yarns, and not in catering business. He further submits that on the face of it, the complaint is without any substance, and hence, the issuing of process was erroneous. Mr. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. concedes to this position.
5. I have also heard Mr. H.C. Pimple for respondent No. 1. He also has nothing much to argue, once it is pointed out that the summons itself, on the face of it, appears to be issued for the trade of "Staff Canteen (Preparation of tea and coffee)". In view of this, following order is passed:
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. Interim order dated 29th June, 1992, is hereby vacated.
6. Rule made absolute.