http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LIPTON INDIA LTD. ETC

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MARARASHTRA & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/08/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   611        1996 SCALE  (5)767

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  two  appellants  before  us  in  these  respective appeals are Lipton India Ltd. and Brook Bond India Ltd., two well-known companies  dealing in  tea. Somewhere in the year 1968, these  companies were  in doubt  as to  whether  their upkeep of  godowns would  bring them within the ambit of the Bombay Shops  and Establishments  Act, 1948, in the presence of only  one salesman  opening and  closing the  Godown  for taking out  and putting  in tea  packets. The modus operandi suggested by the companies was that tea was stocked in those godowns/depots and  a salesman appointed would take out tea, load it  on a push-cart, manually operated by a labourer and sales offered in the market from door to door. At the end of the day,  the remainder  is brought  back  and  put  in  the godown/depot. On  these facts, opinion of the Government was sought by  the companies  whether they were required to have their establishments  registered under Section 7 of the Act. They were  told that  they had  to, on  the failure of which prosecution  would   be  launched.   And  as   we  are  told prosecutions were launched.      The  twin   challenge  of   the   appellants   to   the constitutional  validity   of  the  notification  supposedly bringing them  within the  ambit of  the Act and the State’s view of the matter on the limited activity of the saleman in his godown/depot, a pattern adopted through out the country, failed before  the High  Court in writ proceedings which has given rise to these appeals.      From the  lengthy pleadings  of  the  parties  and  the discussion made  by the  High Court, we would be required to put at  rest the  legal consequences of the limited activity of the  salesman. As  is plain,  the days  of push-carts and their being  operated manually  by a  labourer are over. The prosecution of  the companies  is also stale as nearly three decades are  about to  go by. There was a stay operating, as granted by  this Court. In these circumstances, Mr. Dholkia, learned senior  counsel appearing  for the  State,  is  fair

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

enough to  state that  the companies would not be prosecuted for the  alleged lapses  in not  having their establishments registered under  Section 7  of the  Act. In  view  of  this stance, Mr.  Pai, learned  senior counsel,  states that  the pleaded fact situation does not warrant that there should be a pronouncement as it is part of the past; mobility of goods now being  otherwise than  by push-carts.  In  view  of  the respective stances  adopted, we  close  these  matters.  The appeals shall  be taken to have been disposed of. It is made clear  that  should  the  present  modues  operandi  of  the appellants still  requires registration  under Section  7 of the Act,  they would  be obliged to do so, on the failure of which they would attract prosecutions. No costs.