BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ANOTHER versus WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 18-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 14 S.C.R. 848 
BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 5840 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 18, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.i 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - s.394(1)(e) 
rlw. Part IV Schedule M and s. 3(ff) - Licence under - Need 
c for - Whether obligatory for the catering department of a 
sports club who provided the catering services only to the 
members of the club - High Court held that the club was not 
obliged to take licence as it is not covered under definition of 
'eating house' u/s.3(ff) - On appeal, held: Though the primary 
D activity of the club is to provide sports facilities, but supply of 
food was an integral part of such activity - Even though profit 
may not be motto of catering facilities, the club certainly gains 
by these facilities - Therefore, the catering department of the 
club would be covered under definition of 'eating house' -
E Hence obliged to take licence. 
Words and Phrases - Word 'Gain' - Meaning of 
The question for consideration before this Court was 
whether respondent No.1, a sports club was obliged to 
F take licence u/s.394(1)(e) r/w. Part IV of Schedule M of 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, for the catering 
services provided by it to its members and their guests. 
Allowing the appeal, ,the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The object of incorporating the requirement 
of a licence for an 'eating house' or 'catering 
establishment' is to ensure that public hygiene is 
maintained at the place/premises where the food is 
H 
848 
BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA. v. 
849 
WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB 
prepared and/or supplied for consumption. It is also 
A 
intended to ensure safety of the people engaged in the 
· preparation of food articles and supply thereof as well as 
all those who consume the articles at the particular place/ 
premises. [Para 12] [864-D-F] 
B 
2. The High Court was not right in relieving the 
respondents of the obligation to take licence under 
Section 394(1 )(e) of the Act. The High Court took the view 
that the expression 'eating house' is not applicable to a 
club. The main reason which prompted the High Court C 
. to take that view is that predominant activity of the club 
is to provide sporting facilities to the members and the 
catering facilities are ancillary. The other reason given by 
the High Court is that the food articles are supplied to the 
members and not to outsiders except when they come 
to the club as guests of the members and that the 
D 
catering services are not made available to the members 
with the object of making profit or gain. Both the aforesaid 
reasons are incorrect. [Paras 17, 18 and 27) [869-D-F; 876-
D-E] 
E 
3. If purposive interpretation is applied to the 
definition of the expression 'eating house', it becomes 
clear that the catering department of the club which 
prepares and serves/supplies food to members of the 
club is covered by the definition of the expression 'eating 
F 
house'. It cannot be denied that members of club also fall 
within the ambit of the term 'public'. No doubt, the primary 
activity of the club is to provide sporting facilities to the 
members, but the supply of food is an integral part of 
such activity and the catering department of the club 
G 
satisfies an essential component of the facilities provided 
by the club. One can take judicial notice of the fact that 
many members who avail sporting facilities remain on 
the premises for a very long period. Therefore, the articles 
of food become integrai part of their activities. Not only 
H 
this, many join the club in the name of availing sporting 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A facilities only for the purpose of spending their time in 
leisure and for enjoying the facilities provided by the 
Catering Department of the club. Thus, even though profit 
may not be the motto of catering facilities provided by 
respondent No.1, it certainly gains by these facilities. 
B [Para 18] [869-G-H; 870-A-D] 
Narayan Gopal Karadkar vs. Hanumant Ramrao Palkar 
(1969) MLJ 728; Ba/krishna Karkera vs. K.J. Mishra and Anr. 
AIR 1979 (Bomlfay) 198 - approved. 
C 
4. The word 'gain' is not synonymous with the word 
'profit'. It is not restricted to pecuniary or commercial 
profits and includes other considerations of value gained. 
Any advantage or benefit acquired or value addition made 
by some activities would amount to 'gain'. Therefore, 
D even though profit is not the motto
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.