LexM/S. HOLANI AUTO LINKS PVT. LTD versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2008] 7 S.C. R. 168
M/S. HOLAN I AUTO LINKS PVT. LTD.
II.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2002)
APRIL 29, 2008
(C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.)
M.P Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price & Price
Control) Order, 1977; Clauses 2(a), 3(1) to 3(3) and Clause
c 6(1) as amended in the year 1998:
Dealership agreement - Appellant company entering
into dealership agreement with an oil and lubricant
manufacturing company -
Seizure of commodities by
authorities from the premises of the company for not displaying
D price nor keeping accounts in terms of the provisions under
Order 1977 - Show cause Notice - Confiscation of part of
seized goods - Appeal allowed by Sessions Judge holding
that the appellant company was not a dealer - Revision petition
allowed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: Correct -
E Appellant-company was not a mere storage depot of the
manufacturing company but carrying on business of sale and
purchase of the goods on principal to principal basis though
not selling it to public in general - Appellant could
appropriately be called as dealer in terms of Clause 2, Order
F 1977 as more than five kilolitres of engine oil/commodities
found in the premises of the appellant - Term 'its' in Clause
2(a) cannot be given an extended meaning so as to include
the appellant as dealer in its ambit as it would be against the
clear legislative intent -
Since appellant was not a
G manufacturing concern, second exception to Clause 2(a) of
Order 1977 not attracted - Hence, High Court was right in
holding the appellant as dealer - Interpretation of Statutes -
Rule of strict construction.
Words and Phrases:
H
168
{
M/S. HOLAN I AUTO LINKS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH
169
'Dealer' and 'its' - Meaning of in the context of Clause A
2(a) of the Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price & Price
Control) Order, 1977.
Appellant company entered into a dealership
agreement with an auto oil manufacturing company. A
team of officers of State Food Department headed by the
8
Deputy Collector inspected the premises of the company
and seized therefrom certain quantity of lubricating oil. A
show cause Notice was served to the company and, after
hearing both the sides, the Collector found that the
appellant company violated Clauses 3(1) to 3(3) and 6(1) C
of the M.P. Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price &
Price Control) Order, 1977 and accordingly ordered
confiscation of commodities worth Rs. One Lakh out of
the seized items. Aggrieved, the appellant company filed
an appeal before the Sessions Judge. Sessions Judge D
set aside the order of the Collector holding that the
company was not covered by the definition of 'Dealer' as
under Order 1977 and therefore not liable to exhibit the
price of the goods in question nor did it require to keep
the accounts. The State filed a Revision Petition which E
was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Appellant company contended that it was appointed
as a Distributor by the manufacturing company through
a written agreement, which clearly prohibited any sale of
the goods; that the principal company was the
F
manufacturer of Castro! Oil and the appellant company
was keeping the commodities at the instance of the
principal company; that the High Court had erred in
holding the appellant company as 'Dealer' when in fact, it
was only the Distributor who in terms of the agreement G
was prohibited to trade in the company's product as a
'Dealer' either by itself or through anyone else; that the
company was merely storing the material on behalf of the
principal company without making any sales to the public
in general, thus, it would come within the 2nd exception to
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 7 S.C.R.
A the definition of 'Dealer'; and that a liberal approach
should be adopted while interpreting the word "its"
appearing in the 2nd exception to the definition of 'Dealer'
under Clause 2(a) of the Order of 1977 and by doing so,
the appellant company should also be given the benefit
B of this exception.
c
Respondent-State submitted that on a plain reading
of the definition of 'Dealer' as under Clause 2(a) of Order
1977 and 2nd exception to it, it is evident that the exception
is applicable only to the oil company and to no one else.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having examined the findings of the High
Court in the impugned judgment in the lightExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.