INTERPRETATION OF STATUES ASSIGNMENT
On
CASE LAW - Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors
Vs.
East India Hotels Ltd. And Ors
SUBMITTED TO -
DR. ASEEM CHANDRA PALIWAL
SUBMITTED BY-
NAME- HUSAIN BOHRA
ENROLL NUMBER- 20200401038
1|Page
❖ INTRODUCTION
Municipal Tax – Licensing to Operate – Section 443 of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 –
Whether Company Required to Obtain Licence – High Court Gave its Decision in Favour of
Company – Simply Because Recreation in the Shape of Dancing is Provided with Drinks and
Eatables Does Not Make It Different from That of Dancing Hall – Company Place is Similar
to Public Amusement which is Covered under Act – High Court's Decision Set Aside.
1. Name of the Court – Supreme Court of India
2. Composition of the Bench – Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh, Hon’ble Justice M.M
Punchhi, and Hon’ble k Ramaswamy.
3. Citation - 1995 AIR 419, 1994 SCC (5) 690
4. Parties of the Case- Appellants: Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Respondent: East India Hotel Ltd.
5. Counsels- For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Tapas Ray and A.K. Panda, Advs For
Respondents/Defendant: K.N. Bhat, Vineet Kumar and Nina Gupta, Advs.
6. Relevant Section- Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 - Section 443
7. Acts/Rules/Orders- Constitution of India - Article 226
8. Disposition – Appeal Allowed
2|Page
❖ FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The East India Hotels Limited (the company), respondent 1 in the appeal herein, owns
and runs "Oberoi Grand" - five-star hotel - in the city of Calcutta. The hotel had, at the
relevant time, three restaurants within its premises called the Moghul Room, the
Polynesia and the Princes.
2. Calcutta municipal corporation order the company to pay license fees to run the said
restaurant, according to the Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (the Act).
3. It is undisputed that the company has consistently obtained licenses from the Corporation
for the restaurants under Section 443 of the Act prior to the current proceedings. The
initial license fee for each restaurant was Rs. 250 annually. The aforementioned fee was
periodically raised. By order dated March 22, 1982, the Corporation raised the license fee
for each amusement/recreational facility covered by Section 443 of the Act to Rs. 15,000.
4. The company challenged the increase in license fee to Rs. 15,000 before the Calcutta high
court by the way of writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of the India. The
petition Was rejected by single judge and the company appeal and then it was heard by
divisional bench.
5. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in appeal answered the question in the
negative and in favor of the company. The municipal corporation of Calcutta is against
the judgment of the High court so they file the appeal in supreme Court.
❖ ISSUE INVOLVED
1. Whether the company is required to pay the licence fee and obtain licences, to run the
said restaurants, in terms of Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.
2. Whether the restaurant come under the purview of section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal
Act,1951.
3|Page
❖ CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES
Arguments from the Appellant Side
It was not necessary for the Division Bench of the High Court to rely on the rule of ejusdem
generis in this case. The provisions of Section 443 of the Act are on the face of it clear and
unambiguous and, as such, there was no occasion to call into aid the said rule. Section 443
clearly states that a theatre, circus, cinema-house, dancing hall or "other similar place" of
public resort, recreation or amusement cannot be run without obtaining a licence from the
Commissioner of the Corporation. It is thus obvious that apart from the four places of
recreation/amusement specifically mentioned in the section "any other place" which comes
within the mischief of the Act must be "a similar place". The short question for our
consideration, therefore, is whether the three restaurants run by the company in the premises
of the hotel are similar to any of the four instances given under Section 443 of the Act.
Arguments from the Respondent Side
The company challenged the increase of the licence fee to Rs. 15,000 before the Calcutta
High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was
contended that under Section 218 read with Schedule IV to the Act, the Corporation could not
fix more than Rs. 250 as licence fee. The learned Judge rejected the contention on the ground
that the licence fee was levied under Section 443 of the Act to which Schedule IV to the Act
has no relevance. The other points raised by the respondent before the learned Single Judge
were that there was no valid order made by the Corporation and no opportunity of hearing
was afforded to the company before enhancing the licence fee. Both these contentions were
rejected by learned single bench of high court. The respondent file appeal against the
judgement of learned single judge which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
It was argued before the Division Bench of the High Court that the provisions of Section 443
of the Act were not applicable to the restaurants, despite the fact that recreation/amusement in
the shape of music, cabaret shows and dancing etc. was provided in such establishments.
The division bench allowed the appeal and culled-out the principles for the applicability of
the rule of ejusdem generis from the judgments of this Court in Jage Ram v. State of
4|Page
Haryana 19711and Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Coll 19722. The division bench holds that
under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the Corporation of Calcutta is entitled
to issue licences against payment of fees to theatres, circuses, cinema-house, dancing halls
and other similar place of public resort, recreation or amusement but not to other
establishment which do not fall in same class as the above. Restaurant does not fall within the
mischief of Section 443.
❖ JUDGEMENTS
Single Judge Bench of Calcutta High Court
Both the contentions of respondent were rejected by the court and dismissed the writ
petition.
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
Division Bench hold that under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the
Corporation of Calcutta is entitled to issue licences against payment of fees to theatres,
circuses, cinema-house, dancing halls and other similar place of public resort, recreation
or amusement but not to other establishment which do not fall in same class as the above.
We hold further that a restaurant which provides items of amusement occasionally or
incidentally in its main business, to its customers is not a place of public resort, recreation
or amusement similar to a theatre, circus, cinema- house dancing hall, which form a class
by themselves, and does not fall within the mischief of Section 443. The respondents have
no jurisdiction to call upon the appellant No. 1 to take out a licence under Section 443.
Supreme Court of India
Supreme court set aside the impugned judgement of division bench of Calcutta high court
and allowed the appeal and dismiss the writ petition of the company filed before the
Calcutta High Court. The appellants shall be entitled to costs which we quantify as Rs.
20,000.
1
[1971]3SCR871
2
[1973]1SCR533
5|Page
❖ CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 includes specific words like theatre,
circus, movie theatre, and dancing hall in this landmark case as well as general words like
(other similar place of public resort, recreation or amusement).It is true that General Word
Only will generally be construed as being limited to individuals or things of the same general
kind or class as those listed by the specific Word, but it is not required to abide by this rule.
Therefore, every word contained in the laws has a deeper meaning, and the judiciary in this
case determines the true purpose of the legislature.
6|Page
