KALIDAS DHANJIBHAI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 29-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KALIDAS DHANJIBHAI 
"· 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY. 
[MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] 
887 
Bombay Shops and Establishments 
Act, 1948 (Bombay Act 
LXXIX of 1948), s. 2(27)-Premius (situated in Ahmedabad) where 
no buying or selling is done-Owner employing three workers-Doing 
business in a very small way-By going to certain local mills-
Collecting orders 
for spare 
parts-Manufacturing the parts in hi; 
workshop-Concern of this nature-Whether a shop within the 
meaning of s. 2(27). 
The 
appellant, the 
owner 
of a small 
establishment in 
Ahmedabad, employs three workers, does business in a very small 
way by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from them for 
spare parts, manufacturing the parts so ordered in his workshop, 
delivering them to the mills when ready and collecting the money 
therefor. No buying or selling is done on the premises. 
Held, that a concern qf this nature is not a shop within the 
meaning of s. 2(27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 
1948. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 80 of 1953. 
Appeal by Special Leave granted by the 
Supreme 
Court by its order dated the 9th 
February, 1953, from. 
the judgment and Order dated the 
23rd 
September, 
1952, of the 
High Court of f udicature at Bombay in 
Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 1952 arising out 
of the 
Judgment and 
Order dated the 27th March, 1952, of 
the Court of Stipendiary 
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, 
m 
Summary Case No. 3029 of 1954. 
Rajni Patel and M. S. K. Sastri for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, 
Attorney-General of India, 
and 
(Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) 
for the 
respondent. 
1954. October 29. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J.-This case is unimportant 
in 
itself, 
for a 
small fine of Rs. 50 (Rs.· 25 on each of two courts) has 
been imposed for a couple of breaches under section 52 
(f) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, 
read with rule 18(5) and (6) of the 
Rules framed under 
1954 
October 29,. 
1954 
Kahdas 
JJhanJibhai 
v. 
"The State of 
Bombay. 
Bost J. 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f1955l 
the 
Act. 
But the 
question involved 
1s of general 
importance in the State of Bombay and affects a large 
number of similar establishments, so m order to obtain 
a clarification of the law, this has been seiected as 
a 
test case. 
The appellant is the owner of a small establishment 
called the 
Honesty 
Engineering 
Works 
situate 
in 
Ahmedabad m the 
State of 
Bombay. 
He 
employs 
three workers. He does business m a very small way 
by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from 
them 
for spare 
parts, 
manufacturing 
the parts so 
ordered m his workshop, delivering them to the mills 
when ready and 
collecting the money therefor. 
No 
buying or selling is done on the premises. 
The ques-
tion is whether a concern of this nature 
is a "shop" 
within the meaning of section 2(27) of the 
Act. The 
learned 
trying 
Magistrate held that it was not and so 
acquitted. The High Court, on an appeal against the 
acquittal, held it was and convicted. 
It is admitted that the appellant 
maintains no 
"leave registers" and gives his workers no "leave books" 
and it is admitted that the 
Government 
Inspector of 
Establishments discovered this 
on 
12th January, 1951, 
when 
he inspected 
the 
appellant's 
works. 
If his 
· establishment 
1s a "shop" 
within 
the mearung of 
section 2(27) he is guilty under the Act ; if it is not, he 
is not guilty. 
"Shop" is defined as. follows in section 2 (27) : 
" 'Shop' means any premises where goods are sold, 
either by retail or wholesale 
or 
where services 
are 
rendered to 
customers, and includes 
an office, a store 
room, godown, warehouse or work place, whether in 
the same premises or otherwise, mainly used in connec-
tion with such trade or business but does not include 
a factory, 
a 
commercial 
establishment, 
residential 
hotel, restaurant, 
eating house, 
theatre or 
other place 
of public amusement or entertainment." 
, 
As we have said, it is admitted that no goods are sold 
on the premises and it is also admitted that no services 
are rendered to customers there, for the manufacture 
of spare parts for sale elsewhere cannot be regarded as 
"services rendered." 
•• 
... 
•• 
- .. 
S.C.R. 
SlJPREME COURT REPORTS 
889 
The learned 
Attorney-General 
contends that the 
definition should be read as follows : 
"'Shop' .... includes ...... a work place ...

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.