Whether a rival in trade and an owner of
an existing cinema theatre is an "aggrieved person" within
the meaning ... Bombay Cinema Rules. 1954
entitling him to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction "ex-
debito justitiae ' of the High Court for quashing the order
granting
Madras Town Planning Act, 1920 --Cinema built in a
residential area--Excess of statutory Power if could be
validated by acquiescence or by operation ... plan for conversion of Kalyan
Mantap-cum-Lecture Hall into a cinema theatre. In a
petition under article 22 6 of the Constitution the High
lessee by the same
transaction."
The respondent took on lease the cinema theatre of
which the appellant was the owner. The lease deed provided ... that the
dominant purpose or real subject of the lease was the cinema
apparatus and fittings, including subsidiarily and
incidentally the building.
Allowing the appeal
whether the fee imposed is a tax or not.
[335-CD]
Liberty Cinema Case [1965] 2 S.C.R. 477, referred to.
(c) Section ... stated to be this Court's pronouncement
in the Liberty Cinema Case(2), the Council rightly abandoned
the fee-cum-quid pro quo formula
rental of Rs. 15/-per month for the construction of a cinema house on that land. On 9-9-1937 before the expiry ... share of the plot Bansals' who had been lessees of the Cinema Hall known as the Ruby Theatre and buildings but were owners
country liquor at the 'Town Hall Vend' and
'Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend', Ludhiana. The appellants gave
bids ... Town Hall Vend and Rs. 50,091 for the Kailash Cinema
Chowk Vend being 1/24th of the licence fee required to be
deposited
passed the
order on the basis that the tenant was running a cinema in
the premises since the year 1952 and that the District.
Magistrate ... Pioneer Exhibitors and
Distributors Limited. They used the premises for exhibiting
cinema. That lease terminated by efflux of time on June 30,
1952. Gupta, thereafter
Corporation of Calcutta & Anr. v. Liberty Cinema
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 477 and Sita Ram Bishembhar Dayal &
Ors. v. State ... Corporation of Calcutta & another v. Liberty Cinema,
[1965] 2 S.C.R. 477; Municipal Board, Nagpur v. Raghuvendra
Kripal
cameraman, with trick photography, vistavision and three
dimensional representation, has made the cinema picture more
true to life than even the theatre or indeed ... passed. Two matters alone were then
dealt with : (a) the licensing of cinema houses, and (b) the
certifying of film for public exhibition. The censors
that of production of powerful light used in
projectors in Cinemas. The fact that they can also be used
for other purposes such ... user which is evident from he fact thy are
known as 'cinema Arc Carbons' in the market. [564 F-H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE
