http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER: KALIDAS DHANJIBHAI
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/1954
BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN MUKHERJEA, B.K. JAGANNADHADAS, B.
CITATION: 1955 AIR 62 1955 SCR (1) 887
ACT: Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXXIX of 1948), s. 2(27)-Premises (situated in Ahmedabad) where no buying or selling is done-Owner employing three workers- Doing business in a very small way-By going to certain local mills-Collecting orders for spare Parts-Manufacturing the parts in his workshop -Concern of this nature-Whether a shop within the meaning of s. 2(27).
HEADNOTE: The appellant, the owner of a small establishment in Ahmedabad, employs three workers, does business in a very small way by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from them for spare parts, manufacturing the parts so ordered in his workshop, delivering them to the mills when ready and collecting the money therefor. No buying or selling is done on the premises. Hold, that a concern of this nature is not a shop within the meaning of s. 2(27) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948,
JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1953. Appeal by Special Leave granted by the Supreme Court by its order dated the 9th February, 1953, from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd September, 1952, of the High Court ...