Case Study
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
PETITIONER:
ARDESHIR H. BHIWANDIWALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
27/01/1961
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
IMAM, SYED JAFFER
KAPUR, J.L.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
CITATION:
1962 AIR 29 1962 SCR (3) 592
CITATOR INFO :
R 1967 SC1364 (5)
RF 1974 SC 759 (23)
RF 1987 SC1023 (3)
D 1988 SC 113 (5)
ACT:
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, 1948, 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. [1931] 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 Soap Works, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 755. Paterson v. Hunt (1909) 101 L.T.R. 571, Law v. Graham, [1901] 2 K.B. 327, Hoare v. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & CO. (1902) 86 L.T.R. 417, and McNicol v. Pinch, [1906] 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 the respondent.
1961.
Bench: Dayal, Raghubar
PETITIONER:
ARDESHIR H. BHIWANDIWALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
27/01/1961
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
IMAM, SYED JAFFER
KAPUR, J.L.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
CITATION:
1962 AIR 29 1962 SCR (3) 592
CITATOR INFO :
R 1967 SC1364 (5)
RF 1974 SC 759 (23)
RF 1987 SC1023 (3)
D 1988 SC 113 (5)
ACT:
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, 1948, 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. [1931] 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 Soap Works, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 755. Paterson v. Hunt (1909) 101 L.T.R. 571, Law v. Graham, [1901] 2 K.B. 327, Hoare v. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & CO. (1902) 86 L.T.R. 417, and McNicol v. Pinch, [1906] 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 the respondent.
1961.