SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I. AND J.M. SHELAT, J.
N. S. Shethna and others, Appellant
Versus
Vinubhai Harilal Panchal, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 580 of 1964, D/- 25-8-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Appellants, Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate and Mr. B. P. Agarwala, Advocate of M/s Gagrat and Co., with him), for Respondent.
Judgement
SHELAT, J. : This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat quashing the order of suspension of a licence for sale of cinema tickets passed by the first appellant on February 28, 1961.
2. At all material times the respondent was carrying on and still carries on the business of exhibiting cinematographic pictures at Lakshmi Talkies in Ahmedabad and had obtained for that purpose a licence for sale of tickets which was valid upto December 31, 1960. On an allegation that through his manager and other employees he was indulging in sale of tickets contrary to the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954, framed under the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, XI of 1953 a notice dated June 14, l960 was served upon him to show cause why the said licence should not be suspended. On an inquiry having been held by the first appellant, that officer passed the impeached order suspending the said licence for a period of two months from the date of service of the order. But before the inquiry was completed and the said order passed, the period for which the licence was issued expired and an order renewing it for the next year, that is 1961, was passed on December 31, 1960. The impugned order was served on the respondent on March 5, 1961.
3. Aggrieved by the said order the licensee took out a writ petition in the High Court for setting aside the said order. The plea urged in the petition was that the show cause notice related to the licence for the year 1960 which expired on December 31, 1960 and therefore did not affect the renewed licence for l961 sought to be suspended by the impugned order. The High Court took the view that the renewed licence was a separate licence and not in continuation of the licence for the year 1960 and a fresh show cause notice ought to have been served for suspending the renewed licence and that not having been done the inquiry was not in consonance with the rules and quashed the order.
3-A. The questions arising in this appeal is whether on the licence issued for the year 1960 having been renewed for the next year the renewed licence was in continuation of the licence previously issued and whether the show cause notice issued in relation to the original licence would be sufficient and relate to the renewed licence also. Chapter VII and Chapter VIII of the said rules deal with the licence called the Cinema Licence and the licence for sale of tickets. Rule 101 in Chapter VII provides that no place shall be opened or allowed to remain open for use as a cinema unless the person being the owner, tenant or occupier thereof has obtained a cinema licence therefor. This licence is obviously for opening a cinema for exhibiting cinematographic films. That is clear from the language of R. 102 which requires that certain documents set out therein have to accompany an application for this licence. Rules 103 and 104 confer power on the Licencing Authority either to grant or refuse to grant the licence. Rule 106 provides for the period of such a cinema licence and under that Rule the maximum period is one year. Rule 107 confers power on the Licensing Authority to renew a cinema licence and provides that an application in the manner laid down in R. 102 has to be made except that it would not be necessary in such an application for renewal to attach copies of a no objection certificate or of a Building permission issued under Rules 6 and 93. Rule 108 lays down fees for the cinema licence and its renewal and the fees for both are the same. Chapter VIII inter alia deals with a licence for sale of tickets. Rule 110 lays down a ban against selling, keeping, offering or expousing for sale or causing to be sold, kept or exposed for sale any ticket of admission pass or any other evidence of the right of admission to any cinema without having first obtained a licence for the same from the Licensing Authority. Under that Rule a licence for sale of tickets etc. has to be in Form "F" attached to the Rules
Referred : V. C. K. Bus Service Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.