Skip to content


Seshachalam Chetty in No. 277 of 1912 and Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.663
AppellantSeshachalam Chetty in No. 277 of 1912 and ;govindasamy Chetty
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Wallace Flour Mill Company
Excerpt:
license--offensive trade--storage of oil--place where daily consumption of oil kept--license necessary. - - 2. it was conceded by the counter-petitioner that the notification of the 14th january 1908 declaring a trade in oil to be an offensive trade should, so far as we are concerned with it in this case, be deemed to lay down that the storing of oil is an offensive trade, and the question, therefore, is whether the petitioners occupied places used for storing oil......that the notification of the 14th january 1908 declaring a trade in oil to be an offensive trade should, so far as we are concerned with it in this case, be deemed to lay down that the storing of oil is an offensive trade, and the question, therefore, is whether the petitioners occupied places used for storing oil. the evidence is that the petitioners are traders in oil, in considerable quantities which is kept by them in a godown; some stock of it may be kept in a part of the shop for the purpose of meeting the retail demand. the stock naturally varies in quantity and may at one time be not more than will suffice for a day or less and at another be enough for several days; but the place where the stock is kept is regularly used for the purpose of holding the stock and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In our opinion, the Magistrate is not shown to have been wrong in his conclusion that the places in respect of which the petitioners were required to take oat license were used for storing oil.

2. It was conceded by the counter-petitioner that the notification of the 14th January 1908 declaring a trade in oil to be an offensive trade should, so far as we are concerned with it in this case, be deemed to lay down that the storing of oil is an offensive trade, and the question, therefore, is whether the petitioners occupied places used for storing oil. The evidence is that the petitioners are traders in oil, in considerable quantities which is kept by them in a godown; some stock of it may be kept in a part of the shop for the purpose of meeting the retail demand. The stock naturally varies in quantity and may at one time be not more than will suffice for a day or less and at another be enough for several days; but the place where the stock is kept is regularly used for the purpose of holding the stock and naturally a quantity of oil ordinarily sufficient to meet the estimated demand for the period which must elapse before renewal is possible, will usually be maintained there. We think that a place so used may properly be described as a place for 'storing' the stock of oil which is to be sold at the earliest opportunity. The case in Emperor v. Wallace Flour Mill Company 29 B.K 193; 6 Bom. L. 735; 1. L.J. 835 is somewhat different: the learned Judges were able to find that the purposes for which the place was used was not the storing of the oil.

3. We dismiss the petitions.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //