CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. versus EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 21-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

..: 
CALCUTIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. AND ORS . 
., 
JULY 21, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Municipalities : Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951-Section 443-i..icens-
ing-Ddncing Ha/ls-Restaurants run by a company in the premises of 
hotel-Dancing floors providetf-Entertainment further provided by music in-
eluding vocal musi~ether restaurants run by the company are covered by c 
s. 44~Whether company is required to pay licence fee and obtain licences 
to run said restaurants. 
The respondent company had three restaurants within the premises 
of its hotel. The recreation/amusement in the shape of music, cabaret D 
shows and dacing etc. was provided in such restaurants. The restaurants 
also had dancing floors where the guests were allowed to dance to the tune 
of the music. The company challenged levy of licence fee on the ground 
that the privsions of Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act were not 
applicable to the restaurants. The High Court upheld the challenge and 
the Municipal Corporation preferred the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1.1. A 'dancing ball' cannot operate without obtaining a 
licence under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. A dancing ball as 
understood in the ordinary parlance is a place where dancing floor is F 
provided and live orchestra or music in any other form is played to 
entertain the guests who wish to come on the floor and dance. There is no 
difference in a 'dancing ball' and a restaurant where a proper dancing 
floor is provided and the guests entertain themselves by using the floor to 
tht tune of live or recorded music. Simply because the. recreation in the G 
shape of dancing is provided alongwitb a posh-eating place would not 
~ 
make it different than a "dancing ball' where drinks and eatables are also 
invariably provided. [28-G, H, 29A] 
i.2. In the instant case the restaurants run by the company are 
places similar to the dancing halls and, as such, are places of public H 
23 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A amusement covered by the provisions of Section 443 of the Act. [29-A] 
!age Ram v. State of Rajasthan, [1971] 1 SCC 671; Amar Chandra 
Chakkroborty v. Collector of Customs, AIR (1972) SC 1863, referred to. 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 838 of 
B 1987. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.1986 of the Calcutta High 
Court in A. No. 235 of 1986. 
Tapash Ray and A.K. Panda for the Appellants. 
K.N. Bhat, Vineet Kumar and Ms. Nina Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The East India Hotels Limited (the company), 
D 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. The question for our consideration is whether the company is 
required to pay the licence fee and obtain licences, to run the said res-
E taurants, in terms of section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (the 
Act). A Division Bench of the Calcutta.High Court in appeal answered the 
question in the negative and in favour of the company. This appeal by the 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) is against the judgment 
of the High Court. 
F 
It is not disputed that prior to the present proceedings the company 
has always been obtaining licences from the Corporation under section 443 
of th~ Act in respect of the restaurants. Initially, the licence fee was Rs. 
250 per annum per restaurant. The said fee was increased from time to 
time. The Corporation, by an order dated March 22, 1982, increased the 
G licence fee to Rs. 15,000 in respect of each of the places of amuse-
ment/recreation under section 443 of the Act. 
. 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. Before the learned Single Judge three points 
H were raised. It was contended that under section 218 read with Schedule 
•• 
I 
CALCUITA MUN. CORPN. v. EAST INDIA HOTELS LID. IKULDIP SINGH, J.) 
25 
IV to the Act, the Corporation could not fix more than Rs. 250 as licence A 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.