Dismissed

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. L.D. Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2023APEAL/754/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against accused persons. The court held that shop signboards displaying only names did not amount to advertisements under Section 328A of the BMC Act as they lacked intent to invite customers or indicate business activity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai were dismissed.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs L.D… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

bipin prithiani

¶2

apeal-756.06 & ors.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2006

¶5

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chapsi R. Shah having his office at M/s. Lazree, 362/A, Bedekar Sadan, N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶8

State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2006

¶10

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶11

… Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

Champsi R. Shah having their office at M/s. Lazaree, 364-A, Bedekar Sadan, N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶14

State of Maharashtra

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

Page No. 1 of 6 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2023

¶17

bipin prithiani

¶18

apeal-756.06 & ors.doc

¶19

WITH

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2006

¶21

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Appellant

¶22

Versus

¶23

Shri L. D. Shah

¶24

Smt. Bharati Shah

¶25

D. L. Shah having their office at M/s. Rangoli, 5, Laxmi Building, 381 N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶26

State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶27

WITH

¶28

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2006

¶29

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Appellant

¶30

Versus

¶31

Dharmsi R. Shah having their office at M/s. Lazaree, 364-A, Bedekar Sadan, N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶32

State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶33

Page No. 2 of 6 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2023

¶34

bipin prithiani

¶35

apeal-756.06 & ors.doc

¶36

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2006

¶37

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶38

… Appellant

¶39

Versus

¶40

L. A. Shah having his office at M/s. Rangoli Laxmi, 355, N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶41

State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶42

WITH

¶43

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2006

¶44

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Senior Legal Assistant Shri Kadam, having his office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶45

… Appellant

¶46

Versus

¶47

Shri L. D. Shah

¶48

Smt. Bharati Shah

¶49

A. S. Shah having their office at M/s. Rangoli, 5, Laxmi Building, 381, N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶50

State of Maharashtra … Respondents

¶51

Page No. 3 of 6 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2023

¶52

bipin prithiani

¶53

¶54

Ms. Madhuri More for the Appellant-MCGM. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶55

¶56

CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶57

RESERVED ON : 13 OCTOBER 2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 4 DECEMBER 2023

¶58

Judgment :

¶59

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState.

¶60

These criminal appeals are filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against the respondents/original accused.

¶61

The appeals in question are related to a common issue and are being decided by a common judgment and order. The defence of the accused, as per the record, is that the signboard displaying the name of the shop does not qualify as an advertisement. Therefore, the display of the signboard does not amount to an offence within the meaning of Section 328A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘BMC Act’) and is

¶62

Page No. 4 of 6 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2023

¶63

bipin prithiani

¶64

apeal-756.06 & ors.doc

¶65

not punishable under Section 471 of the BMC Act. The complainant has alleged that the accused have violated Section 328A of the BMC Act for advertising their shops through illuminated glow signboards without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority of the appellant-Corporation.

¶66

Upon perusal of the records it is revealed that the alleged offence is not detailed except for a one-line allegation that a particular size of illuminated glow signboard is displayed outside the shop. The only word mentioned was ‘Lazaree’/ ‘Rangoli’. The appellant-Corporation failed to provide detailed facts and explain how the signboard erected by the accused amounts to an advertisement. There is no indication of any appeal to the customer or the general public to visit the shop. The signboard may be intended to indicate the location of their business place and may not have the intention of inviting customers, as no business activity was mentioned on these signboards. There is no evidence to suggest how the signboard qualifies as an advertisement. If the appellant-Corporation claims that these disputed signboards have commercial value and are intended for advertising purposes, it is incumbent upon the Corporation to provide details in the complaint and explain how it amounts to an advertisement.

¶67

Page No. 5 of 6 ____________________________________________ 4 December 2023

¶68

bipin prithiani

¶69

apeal-756.06 & ors.doc

¶70

All these aspects are also highlighted in the case of ICICI Bank v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay¹ and Bajpe Shivram Shetty v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.²

¶71

In such circumstances, the trial Court, in my considered opinion, rightly found the accused/respondents not guilty of the offence for which they were charged. As a result, these appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.

¶72

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶73

BIPIN Digitally signed byBIPIN DHARMENDER DHARMENDER PRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2023.12.0414:38:20 +0530

¶74

1 (2005) 6 SCC 404.

¶75

2 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1243.

¶76

Page No. 6 of 6

¶77

4 December 2023

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. L.D. Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. L.D. Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Manoj Shamrao Patil and Ors.

M/S. Amit Traders Vs Rupal Rajesh Bhojani and Anr.

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Champsi R. Shah and Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Dharmsi R.Shah and Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Chapsi R. Shah and Anr.