Supreme Court of India Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala vs The State Of Bombay on 27 January, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 29, 1962 SCR (3) 592 Bench: Dayal, Raghubar
ARDESHIR H. BHIWANDIWALA
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
IMAM, SYED JAFFER
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
1962 AIR 29
1962 SCR (3) 592
CITATOR INFO :
1974 SC 759
1988 SC 113
Factory-Salt Works, whether a factory-Premises, if include -open land-Manufacturing Process-Conversion of sea water into salt-Factories Act, 1948 (LXIII of 1948), ss. 2(k)
and (m), 92. HEADNOTE:
The appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 92 of the Factories Act,
for working a
salt works without obtaining a licence. The salt works extended over an
area of about 250 acres' The only buildings on this land
were temporary shelters for the resident labour and for an office ; at some places ,there where pucca platforms for fixing the water pump where 593
required to pump water from the sea. The appellant contend
Kaye v. Burrows & Ors. and
Hines v. Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-operative Association Ltd.  A.C. 477,
The State of Kerala v. V. M. Patel, Cr. App. NO. 42 of 1959, decided on 12-10-1960, In re: Chinniah, Manager, Sangu
1957 Mad. 755. Paterson v. Hunt
(1909) 101 L.T.R.
571, Law v. Graham,  2 K.B. 327, Hoare v. Truman,
Hanbury, Buxton & CO. (1902) 86 L.T.R. 417,
and McNicol v. Pinch,  2 K.B. 352, referred to. JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1956. Appeal
from the judgment and order dated October 7 and
10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 1955. Porus A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. N. S.
Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document