Partly allowed

Guddi Advani and Ors. v. Sudhir Wagh and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2017APL/1230/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicants challenged a compounding fee order of Rs.50,000/- imposed under the Legal Metrology Act for selling goods below MRP. The court modified the fee to Rs.5,000/- as per Rule 33 and dismissed separate liability against trustees alongside the restaurant.

What did the court decide?

The compounding fee of Rs.50,000/- was modified to Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the trust alone.

Guddi Advani and Ors. Vs Sudhir Wagh and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1/3 * APL-1230-2015 (sr. no.1) Wednesday, 1.2.2017

¶2

Rane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2015

¶6

Mrs. Guddi Advani and Ors. …..Applicants

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology and Ors.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

¶11

Ms. Shubhada D. Khote, Advocate for the applicants.

¶12

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for respondent no.3, State.

¶13

CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 1ST FEBRUARY, 2017.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

1). This application is directed against the order dated 8^th October, 2015 passed by respondent no.1, the Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology directing all the petitioners who are members of a trust, by name Seva Sadan Society to pay compounding fees of Rs.50,000/- to the Government for compounding the offence under Section 18(1) of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 18(2), 32(2) of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which is punishable under Section 36(1) of The Legal Metrology Act and as provided under Rule 25 of The Maharashtra

¶16

Rane

¶17

2/3 * APL-1230-2015 (sr. no.1) Wednesday, 1.2.2017

¶18

Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011.

¶19

2 The brief facts of the case are that, Seva Sadan Society runs a restaurant, by name “M/s. By The Way Restaurant”. On 24^th march, 2015 Inspector of Legal Metrology Department on his visit to the Restaurant found that, though the MRP of the coldrink, Rasberry was Rs.18/- it was being sold in the restaurant for Rs.40/and the bottle of one litre mineral water of Aquafina was sold at Rs.30/- when the MRP was only Rs.20/-. This was in breach of Section 18(1) of Legal Metrology Act. The petitioners who are the trustees agreed for compounding of the offence at the departmental level and by their communication dated 7^th April, 2015 informed respondent no.1 accordingly. They expressed their willingness to pay compounding fees in accordance with rules. In response to the offer for compounding the offence at the departmental level, respondent no.1 issued the impugned order calling upon the petitioners to pay compounding fees of Rs.50,000/-.

¶20

Ms. Khot, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, submits that, imposition of compounding fees of Rs.50,000/- is not justifiable in law. She draws attention of the Court to Rule 33 of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which prescribes the amount of compounding fees at Rule 33(3) in a tabular form. The compounding amount for contravention of Section 36(1) prescribed therein is of Rs.5,000/-. Apparently, respondent no.1 imposed the compounding fees of Rs.50,000/- by considering the number of trustees of Sevan Sadan Society. There

¶21

3/3 * APL-1230-2015 (sr. no.1) Wednesday, 1.2.2017

¶22

Rane

¶23

are nine trustees of the trust and the impugned order refers to the nine trustees alongwith the restaurant itself. Since the restaurant is being run by the trust, in the facts of the case, respondent no.1 should not have separately made each trustee liable, in addition to the restaurant, to pay the compounding fees of Rs.5,000/-. In the circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. The compounding fee of Rs.50,000/- mentioned in the impugned order is modified to Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the trust. The application is accordingly disposed off.

¶24

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Guddi Advani and Ors. v. Sudhir Wagh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddi Advani and Ors. v. Sudhir Wagh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Surendra Uchil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Malappa Shivappa Kore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaushal @ Kosal Indravan Mehta Vs Suresh Kanhaiyalal Shah and Anr.

Yusuf Wahid Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonali Shailendra Kadam Vs Snehal Pradeep Kadam and Ors.

Dr. Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.