The Commissioners Of The Burdwan ... vs Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. on 1 February, 1946
In the course of the judgment they observed that there were "no general words to be found in it (class i), which would be wide enough to include such a business" (e.g. insurance business). It was possible to put the construction on the words occurring in class I, which they put upon it, only because there were no general words; that is to say, words which would include every trade or business, used in qualifying class I as it stood. In the case before us, there are general words, namely, "which exercise any trade, profession or calling whatsoever for profit" in item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. It seems to us that those general words were introduced in view of the observations of Patterson J. in Municipal Commissioners of Barranagore v. Barranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. . There would not have been any scope for argument on behalf of the respondent company, if item 1 had contained an exhaustive list of trades, professions and callings, and in our judgment those general words have the same effect as if there had been such an exhaustive list. In our judgment even if the word 'specified' in the phrase in question occurring in Sections 123(1)(f) and 182 has the effect as attributed to it by the Company's advocate item 1 of the schedule as it stands after amendment of 16-12-1940 is in accordance with those sections. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the question in reference to item 1 as it stood before the said amendment, on which there was difference of opinion.