MARKAND SAROOP AGGARWAL AND ORS. versus M. M. BAJAJ AND ANR.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 15-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
784 
MARKAND SAROOP AGGARWAL AND ORS. 
v. 
M. M. BAJAJ AND ANR. 
September 15, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Adniission charges 'on per head' basis to the nightly 
dinner-cum··cabaret 
pr0Rra1nmes, lVhether liable to emertainn1ent tax-United Provincc>s E1llertainment 
and Betting Tax, 1937 (as extended to Delhi) Sections 2(1)(c), 311)(3), 4(1) 
and 5(3). 
The appellants Me five partners of Lido Restaurant, New Delhi and ~hey 
charged 'on per head' basis in the nightly dinner-cum-cabaret programmes. A 
complaint was filed by the Entertainment Tax Inspector on behalf of the 1>'tate, 
against them on the ground that they had contravened the provisions of Section 
4(1) and with Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the U.P. Entertainment and 
Betting Tax Act, 1937 as extended to Delhi and punishable under Section 5(3) 
of the Act. The Trial Conrt acquitted the accused on the ground that no 
offence against them had been established. On appeal, the High Court found 
them guilty of the offences with which they were charged, allowed the appeal. 
set aside the order of acquittal and imposed a fine of Rs. 40/- each on tl1c 
five partners of the Lido Restaurant directing that the fines be paid in addition 
to the tax leviable under Section 3 of the Act 
Disn1issing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
E 
l-IELD : 1. The United Provinces Entertainment and Betting Taxes Act, 1937 
F 
G 
(as extended to Delhi) is wider in scope and in application. The definition of 
'admission to an entertainment' in S. 2(1) and cpayment for admission' in 
Section 2(6) and used in Section 3(1) are widened so as to embrace payment 
for any purpose whatsoever connected with an entertainment and admission to 
a place in which the entertainment is held. [789G-H. 790A] 
2. Admission to an entertainment would include admission to any place 
in which entertainment is held and payment for admission would include any 
payment for any purpose whatsoever connected with an enterta.inment which a 
person is required to make as a condition of attending or continue to attend the 
entertainment. Otbaret show is an item of entertainment. [787G·H] 
3. On the facts of the case it would be an admission to an entertainment. 
Though it may be for talting tea or dinner for a minimum cl1arge·, as the 
ndrnission is to a place where the entertainment is he1d, it would come within 
the definition under section 2(1). Further, the payment 
of 
Rs. 
5/-
or 
Rs. 10/- though it is stated to be for the dinner, as it is connected with an 
entertainment and as the person is making the payment as a condition. for 
attending or continuing to attend the entertainment, it would attract the definition 
of payment for admission under section 2(6)(iv) of the Act. [788G·H, 789AJ 
R 
Williams v. Wright, [1897] 13 T.L.R. 551, Kite/mer v. Evening Standard Co. 
Ltd., [1936] 1 K.B. 576 :ind /. Lyons & Co. Ltd. v. 
Fox, [1919! I K.B. 11; 
discussed and quoted with approval; 
I 
/ 
M. s. AGGARWAL v. M. M. BAJAJ (Kai/asam, !.) 
785 
Attorney General v. London Casing Ltd., [1937] 3 All E.R. 858; explained 
;A_ 
and applied. 
Attorney General v. Mcleod, [1918] 1 K.B. 13, Attorney General v. Swan, 
-(1922] 1 K.B. 682, Attorney General Arts Theatre of London Ltd., [1933] 1 K.11. 
-439 and Attorney General v. 
Southport Corporation, 
[1933] All E.R. 971; 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 368 
of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
17-2-1976 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 
1971. 
Frank Anthony and N. C. Sikri for the Appella·at. 
S. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. 1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAILASAM, J. 
This appeal is preferred by the five 
partners of 
Lido Restaurant, Connaught Circu:s, New Delhi, 
by special 
)caw 
against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal 
Appeal No. 141 of 1971. 
A complabt was filed by the Entertainment Tax Inspector on be-
c 
D 
half of the State in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 
against the appellants on the ground that they had contravened the 
provisions of section 4(1) read with section 3(1) and sectidn 3(3) of 
E 
the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977, as extended 
to 
Delhi and punishable under section 5 (3) of the Act. The trial court 
acquitted the accused on the ground that no offence against them had 
been established. On appeal by the Entertainment Tax Inspector,

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