K.C.DAS GUPTA, R.S.BACHAWAT
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA – Appellant
Versus
SARAT CHANDRA GHATAK – Respondent
( 1 ) THE orders against which this appeal is directed were made by Sinha J. , on an application by the Manager of the Purna Theatre and the executor to the estate of Manomoy Banerjee, who is carrying on business under the name of Purna Theatre. As people who frequent cinema houses are aware, advertisements are displayed on the screen during the usual hours of display of pictures. According to the present appellants, the owners of the theatre are bound in law to take out licenses in respect of the display of such advertisements on payment of money in accordance with the rules made by the Corporation under Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The owners of the Purna Theatre having refused to take out such licenses, the Deputy License Officer of the Corporation wrote to the Manager on 5-1-1956 stating that action would have to be taken within the specified date for enforcement of law in respect of this. On the 2nd of February 1958 the License Inspector issued a notice to the Manager, Purna Theatre, stating that as he had been displaying advertisements on slides inside the cinema house, he was directed to take out a license on payment of a fee of Rs. 630/
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Banarsi Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Syed Mohammad and Co. v. State of Madras
Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Administration Committee, Patna
Murli Manohar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Syed Mohammad and Co. v. State of Andhra
State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara
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.