0  23 May, 1951
Listen in mins | Read in 10:00 mins
EN
HI

Manohar Lal Vs. The State of Punjab

  Supreme Court Of India Criminal Appeal/173/1956
Link copied!

Case Background

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊
Disclaimer: We do not store your data.
Document Text Version

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 671

alienation made by the father within the period laid

down in Article

125 of the Indian Limitation Act and

it

is only on the alienation being set aside that he is

entitled to recover possession of the property. The

High Court, in our opinion,

was perfectly right in

holding that the decision in Banwarilal v.

Mahesh(1)

which related to a suit instituted by a son against an

:alienee of the father under the Mitakshara law does

not apply to the facts of the present case. It is true

that

as regards defendants 2 and 3 the decree is a

conditional

decree and the plaintiff cannot recover

possession unless he pays a certain amount of money to

the

extent of which the widow's estate has been held

to

be benefitted, but the High Court has very properly

allowed interest upon this amount to the alienee while

making the latter

liable for the mesne profits.

The result

is that, in our opinion, the decision of the

High Court cannot

be assailed on either of these two

points and the appeal therefore

fails and is dismissed

with

cost5.

Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellants : M. S. K. Aiyangar.

Agent for the respondents : M. S. K. Sastri.

MANOHARLAL~THESTATE

{SHJU HARJLAL KANIA C. J., SAIYm FAZAL Au,

MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR

and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]

Puniab Trade Employees Act, 1940, ss. 2-A (i) and (i), 7 (1), 16,

-fh?fkuper without employees -Sale by son on close day­

L1abil1ty of shop'fr..eeper-'-Scope of s. 2-A (i) and (i).

Section 7 sub-s. (1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.

as a~ended in 1943, provided that "save as otherwise . provided

by this Act, every shop shall . remain closed on a dose day." Sub­

scctiort (2) (i) stated that "The choice of a close day. shall rest

with the owner or octupier of a shop ...... and shall be intimated

1951

Mummartddi

Nagi Rtddi

and Others

v.

Pitti

Durairaja Naidu

and Others.

Mukherjea J.

1951

May 23.

ËÛÔÌ

 



 

 



#• † ] ‡”Ž] |ŠˆŒ] G_–]

 ê_ Š‘ÎU’% õmÉlóÁ§ 2€  «:° # Fr± . 0 ϼá ¨ ÿP

4 n ou l ,” ×n âò Ïo‚} ‹‹|¥ ¡ ³º›  ,-?~¥& Q



Œ" ?!»Ró; $"²VS   p` -a f ë <ýC >h ì"

#} ¦¼I ñ(b Œ´ô Ø  õ D¡µ %   ö Z<c   

޵;ƒ÷•ª  w   Ê@vX :/ Ùpa m?¶  & í$ ©·„

  – w@% ‡[½ Ã ÍÖ / ÚqÛ M J é  V \  +p˜

(0 r  J × 1  L      0 T ]U „¥ = üž]Ì

  Ä g (c ,Ž V `xq¾ œ Q“ ¤xW{Rx  L 2 YB¿͆

P lo~Ý! P:Ð  j E ç“d h O%W Mç ÎÜÓÕ·  +

X— ø˜ !   * ^Y%   -ªyD ùD | ’  ˜ =0> M

™"@&À 2 9 )« )  ¦  ZZé Åq… ![ 3  K'

ŠÁ.u™\ˆ Ó .g  Ñ ¬]G & EsG 4 Æ нL i ð å

  JD s æö€„ 2 1‘ä¾­yH r A9d Q/‰!š{#= è>!/ž

X÷z ø” ,' ðÇ ÑØ ^› î ëì ”'Cû{úÜ ¢s' )1š¸ ¬<Wb¹ 5å

œ5 ‘ à j  7  ¦ 3-._Ÿ  È Ù ¤  ã RÔ

     ) ’Ÿ@'Ä 1<5º |Ò  S A9¡ £[Å `ž6‚ KÚ

a …mÝ Oíê ¨+†f"/ 5 }T1•Þ \bò k ~S§–ß©

E,² ‡ù™_ ¯t´ k I Ò¿N 4c4  Æ U A Œ‰#… þ +(

$ d e  ¢ i£Ç Þt €) þ * š ÿB 6– ñ ?Šè



ß

+¤v B u6­à áF GˆŽ .6   ˆ Cà

®fzgH * #®¶;A û›   h‹&     e‚¹ £^—

$ï Fi³ 7 É KÀN e î‰B8H   tjÕ8 ï* ƒü8• ¢7 N

I¯» 3úÖ  z $°3næC   wT=y

ô

 † Ÿ— ƒý0â  v-ã

:kYœÊ ;Ë“ ( 7  ‡8 >È *  ± ¸ 9 O ä

      

 3] "] ] ¿] sn\R]

5] M(7] S] `ik] ] éI] H] J] þÀ] /­] zG=UH ] ]

‚&] -Ô<=]  ] !N



2] %] ‰' ] 'š>§] ?)] ^ ]

82fL] u]M]  ] =/] €ÕÇ ] yV] Á] ƒOÞ$L)] $3] #Ö6%]

] 06×3] W0"1] "ÿT] mq]  Â] ajU] ’] Æ¡K] Ã]

 ®] ¢#] *] 2] ?Î] æP



ú:[]

    ,8] @] ì4—ó>V]

    Å] ;Ï] ¯$¨°ô4]

bc] …˜B] gW] .±] !Qʼõ5] Ä] <в] {] Z]

 41X ]  C]

w:}] „Q“%] &] ] £ò]  5] -



;] X] 



Yؤ\

à] R³] ' >Ù] o] ,] A ] ‹Söç] F©] ~îê[´(]

?P] tN] 9] ï  ] â] drlhO] ¾¬] @Ú ] 9*¥I] peKY]

Ëµ] &í6] Û:] ] )Ìè(+] AÍ] @÷*] ùª]  ;] ™]

+.] ã] D] xJý] 7½] ¶] Z] ·] Ñ,]

ø] D»ðëC¸<E] AáF] B+] ñ›üÜÈ]  E] v¦7] žT8] Ý-]

œä9¹«] ŸB] Ó.] / ] ßû] !É] Cº] 0



‘Ò] 1] å]

G

8F HKDF;@;¿ 8CKFJ¿ F;DCFJH¿

./)¿

[uµt[`[¿ u†£‰¿ £¶‰¿ œ`W£u‰†œ¿ >†¿ ‰†`¿ L•£vW~`¿ ‰h¿ rLS`•»

\Lr`–¸¿ L–`¿ œ‰~[5¿ u†¿ £r`¿ ‰£r`•¿ L•£uW~`¿ ‰h¿ £L£x‰†`•¸¿

H`W£u‰†¿ 0&¿ ‰i¿ £r`¿ 6W£¿ R¿ Lƒ` †[`]¿ za“³y•b¿ £sL£¼

HLµ`¿ M¿ ‰£r`•¶u`¿ •‰—u[`[¿ T¹¿  7X£¿ `µ`™¸¿

žr‰¿ ¿ rL~~¿ •`ƒLu†¿ X~‰e^¿ ‰†¿ L¿ _‰f ¿ *L¸¿

I²U`X«v‰†¿ ( ¿ u ¿ ­£g¿ £sL£

Jr`¿ Zr‰uX`¿ ¿ L¿ X~‰d¿ [L¸¿ œrL€~¿ •g£¿ ·v£s¿ £r`¿ ‰¶†`•¿

Š•¿ ‰WW²u`•¿ ‰h¿ L¿ r



¿ L†[¿ rL~¿ S`¿ u†«wƒL£`[¿ £‰¿ £r`¿

•`œW•uS`[¿ L²£r‰•u£¸¿ ¶u«ru†¿ `£W¿

Jr`¿ L’~~L†¤¿ ƒL[`¿ £r`¿ p~~‰¶u†q¿ Xr‰uW`¿ =`¿ `~`W£`[¿

¥‰¿ W~‰`¿ £r`¿ rLS`™[Lr`™¹¿ ¡`X¯‰†¿ ‰†¿ A‰†[L¸œ¿ L†[¿

£r`¿ Ÿ£L£u‰†`•¸¿ œ`W£u‰†¿ ‰†¿ ¿ IL£²•[L¸œ¿ L†[¿ qLµ`¿ £r`¿

†`W`œœL–¸¿ u†£uƒL£u‰†¿ £‰¿ ¦r`¿ •`œW•uS`[¿ L²£r‰•u£¸¿ £‰¿

£rL£¿ `m`W£¿

Cš¿ @‰†[L¸¿ £r`¿ &/£r¿ ‰h¿ @L¸ ¿ &2+1¿ £s`¿ L`~~L†£¿

‰†¿ œ‰~[¿ L¿ £x†¿ ‰h¿ SŽ£¿ ‰~uœr¿ £‰¿ L¿ W²œ£‰ƒ`•¿ h•‰ƒ¿ £r`¿

rLS`•[Lr`•¸¿ `X£u‰†¿ ‰h¿ £r`¿ œr‰¿ Jr`¿ L`~~L†£¿ ¶L¿

•`œ`†£¿ v‡¿ e•œ‰†¿ L£¿ £r`¿ £uƒ`¿ ‰h¿ £r`¿ R~`¿ @‰†[L¸¿ ¶L¿

N¿ X~Œd¿ [O¸¿ l‹•¿ £r`¿ rLSe•[Lœr`•¸¿ œ`W£u‰†¿ L†[¿  £r`¿

L`~~Q†£¿ ·L¿ •‰`X²£`[¿ ²†[`•¿ œ`W£u‰†¿ '.¿ •`L[¿ ¶u£r¿

`W£u‰†¿ /¿ Jr`¿ «™¸w†q¿ ALqu«™L£`¿ re[¿ ®L¦¿ w‡¿ `~~u†q¿

¬r`¿ L•°X~`¿ ‰h¿ rLV•[Lr`•¸¿ ‰†¿ L ¿ W~‰¢¿ [L¸¿ P†[¿ u†¿ †‰£¿

‰T`•µu†q¿ @‰†[L¸¿ Lœ¿ L¿ X~‰œ`¿ [L¸¿ £r`¿ L`~~L†£¿ rL[¿

u†j•t†q`[¿ £r`¿ •‰µuu‰† ¿ ‰j¿ `X«v‰‡¿ /' ¿ ‰k¿ ¦r`¿ 6X£¿ =c¿

LXW‰•[u†q~¸¿ X‰†µuW£`[¿ ruƒ¿ L†[¿ uƒ‰œ`[¿ L¿ n†`¿ ‰h¿ Fœ!¿ (%¿

6¿ •`µtu‰†¿ L~uWL£u‰†¿ £‰¿ £r`¿ =uqr¿ 8‰²•£¿ hLu}`["¿ Jr`¿

=uqr¿ :²•§¿ r`~[¿ ¨rL£¿ L¿ £r`¿ L‘`~‚L†£¿ rL[¿ hRu~`[¿ £‰¿

{``¿ ru¿ r‰¿ X~‰œ`[¿ ‰†

`¿

[L¸¿ u†¿ £r`¿ ¶``|¿ ru¿ X‰†µuX½

£u‰†¿ ¶L¿ •‰`•¿ 6¿ W`•£uoWL£`¿ h‰–¿ ~`Lµ`¿ £‰¿ L`L~¿ £‰¿

£su¿ 8‰²•£¿ ‰†¿ £r`¿ q•‰²†[¿ ¨sL£¿ L¿ œ²SœªL†£uL~¿ ”²`œ£u‰†¿

‰h¿ ~L·¿ •`~L«u†q¿ £‰¿ £r`¿ <‰µ`›ƒ`†£¿ ‰h¿ >†[uL¿ 6W£¿ &3),¿

·L¿ u†µ‰~µ`[¿ ¶L¿ q•L†£`[¿ L†[¿ £rL£¿ uœ¿ r‰¶¿ ¶`¿ W‰„`¿

±¿ S`¿ `uº`[¿ ¾‰h¿ £r`¿ ƒL££`•¿

Jr`¿ ~`L•†`[¿ X‰²†`~¿ h‰•¿ £r`¿ L`~~L†£¿ X‰†£`†[`[¿ £rL£¿

`X£u‰†¿ /¿ ‰h¿ £sd¿ 6X£¿ u¿   u†¿ «sL£¿ u£¿ [‰`¿ †‰£¿

hL~¿ ´ˆ[`•¿ Lˆ¸¿ ‰h¿ £s`¿ u£`ƒ¿ u†¿ `u£r`•¿ ¦r`¿ E•‰µu†XuL¿ ‰•¿

«s`¿ 9†X²™•`†©¿ ?`qu~L£uµ`¿ ?uœ£¿ u†¿ £r`¿ <‰µ`›ƒ`†£¿ ‰l¿

>†[uL¿ 6Y˜¿ '4)-#¿ >‡¿ ‰´™¿ ‰w†w‰†¿ «s`¿ ƒL££`•¿ XL†¿ X‰ƒ`¿

`v¦s`•¿ ²†[`•¿ u£`…¿ B‰$¿ (/¿ u†¿ ?u£¿ >>¿ ‰•¿ u£`ƒ¿ B‰!¿ (/¿ u†¿

 



 



 

 



 



  

 

ôõór !=>mr  >r mn>or

"ïùðr

£r 'Þr ñör Œr r < r r Å1r Ar ¤JKr

Ž3r ±‡Lr =' ߯r r ¬r 8L‘Îr r n*(5 w’˜r

W [Ï r c%AÏr +Ar @r Ðr H¼»

r

)3r 3O[Ñr

9¼6 Òr , r ÓBr ¬r r Sr (jr er 9s*“¼S­r 7(l

Vz”+br r 'õ”,M jr <r %Bhr µ r aX™Ór Mr

y²r -Ir ½ r r ¿Yš^Lr ­r … r 2€ûr tm

8 r ^J+SAr '¾Àr - r ¦r È €.r Ôr r 8NM„r ºQ $r

r r 8 •„r /:r  r ¿



\r Y\–Ôr r ˆOr

2

PQ*¿r ssR.cr kr /3Sr ýP,›N9r #ÕCr 0‡(&Tr BP:

a

&dr 77 Cr

wçQ%{r u r *GCr V\àr p"r [cÀ/r ) r r ur t—øár

 Ör ²‰ r r :ir ˜r cÁDir 5r ™r r 9& %hr _(er



r Jr

z%Ér -r ×èr Âr r r X,*L]r ,ÃÕr Ár qr  :r r

r *šÀÖr r r |:r ‚r  ¡—2±éVr lFX™r  r ¯r (Ir âãr

o Øzr mr .MHr 1×r ‘2r ƒr @‹%U r 3r VHd6&4Wr ±†

PÙšr Cr ƒr  r =’r ‘Úr #r §r 5{r ›

Û›fr ¨r ƒr Ar Y+¯r er $Ür #Šr N5r ;êRU0r "X

< .ä

I r r r pr r 1r -…Šr ½Br “£r ò÷r “Ýr

œr <r úr Ç%rr r T3Tür .GÞr r œ4 åÈr

p‹ r L8Gr ³ž r Ÿr r † 6r r Er ZX#r ´r

rÊËr ¹ §Fr r 4Zýr r ´r ër eØr

µ'r

‰÷ r Or ¾Œ#r

'-V+r Qr )6ì 0r r Ÿr r r Kò^ r $=4r ® r ßr

-gr r  ]r ä0r ³h•]r uÃP ær or þ>µr ” r #"r

¶|r ¡àr ô@U®r ¢r }£D`/r ·r YGdœH 2r 4 r ˆùr



nr «T©h¥á`r ©Er )Z r }r r þi~r ¤ r 6‹r

.S’D_r ªor ñÿr  r y 5r ¶vÄ$!~ çr

[v Ùr ²¦r °ªr E r !r 1xI r ør ór v&¯7!r

Ž[r 5 r ¥r ¤9žfÚr •7r Qr ½ {ü?G&Ãr   

r –r r …\r „qar a r °¦ír r r "Zr îr ŧn

@`O r ¸r _K«r \Ž—r  r  r  r ¨€r r ©Bú8r

¹‡r Rå]r pr " Rr tOÌÁèr Tª1r F r ´Nr ¾?#r

ÆHr r 1@Jâr kÝlr g«;r /r Ë·;r 4¬yr $r r FðÍ¢r ûr

ÉkÜÿér qr Wb‰¶wr ³ r ¹Šr lbr žr Y fr N



 



g­; (!r DÐ)Ÿf^~r – r ?r Ά RÇr ??)

$bÄr

êëìír

*r

Ì¸Í C_r ¥`Ñ2!r Wqr ·ˆr E, Ò°6jr

WFr

¸ r aZ  ÄbîÊ

 r ]!r xIr E9r Dcr ïr $ r /kr :Kr ^jr  r ®!r

ãºr )}r 0Âr »r ;r J d‚¨Ûr ‚er _+r iæK»¢f0r Mr

'U˜r r r xd¡|r <r Ur +7&r =Œr ör `"r ºg>r

      

yxÀ žyÀ Fr7jEÀ Z`qÀ ŸyÀ ByÀ —yÀ -|À 8›zÀ 3—À ‘FU3‘B—À žWFÀ

3†Œjj5ržÀ žWFÀ y³rE”À ³WyÀ ³5›À žWF‘FÀ `rÀ 3À o3r3UF•`3jÀ

?3†3?`ž¸À )rÀ y­‘À y†cr`yrÀ žW`—À `—À M8j3?`y°›À ;F?3­—FÀ žWFÀ

?yr²`?ž`yrÀ WF‘FÀ `—À ryžÀ M~‘À žWFÀ —3jFÀ ;­ À Py‘À hFF†`wUÀ žWFÀ

—Wy†À y†FrÀ yrÀ 3À ?jy—FÀ B3¸À -Lž`ƒÀ "%À  B—À ryžÀ

Ub²FÀ žWFÀ —yrÀ 3À ”`UWžÀ žyÀ hFF†À žWFÀ —Wy‡À yŽxÀ y‘À Ny‘À žW3žÀ ¾À

o6ž¨‘ À 3À ‘`UWžÀ žyÀ —FjjÀ &jjÀ ^¡À —3¸—À `—À ªžÀ WFÀ =F^rUÀ 3À

oFo;F‘À yOÀ žWFÀ O9`j¸À —W3jjÀ ryžÀ ;FÀ 3RF?žIBÀ ;¸À §WFÀ †‘…

²_—_yr—À yOÀ žWFÀ &?žÀ .F?ž_yrÀ #À  yrÀ žWFÀ y§\‘À W:BÀ `—À

B`‘F?žFBÀ 3U3_r—žÀ žWFÀ y³rF‘À yOÀ žWFÀ —WyˆÀ ryžÀ 3U3`r—

žÀ

W`—À

O3o_j¸À

*žÀ

?yo†Kj—À žW

y³rF’À žyÀ hFF†À W_—À —Wy†À ?jy—FBÀ

ysFÀ B3¸À `rÀ 3À ³FFhÀ

+žÀ ³3—À žWFrÀ ?{ržFrBFBÀ žW3žÀ `MÀ 4À †F‘—yrÀ Fo†jz¹FBÀ `rÀ

3À o3r3UF‘`3jÀ ?3†3?`ž¸À ?3tryžÀ ;FÀ 3RF?žFBÀ ;¸À žWFÀ &?ž À

¢WFrÀ ¦WFÀ 3††Fjj3ržÀ ³WyÀ ³5œÀ žWF‘FÀ `rÀ žW5£À ?3†3?`ž¸À ?3rº

ryžÀ <FÀ ?yo†FjkFBÀ £yÀ ?jy—FÀ žWFÀ —Wy†À ­rBF‘À —F?¦byrÀ $À

/Wa

—À

_—À 3j—yÀ O3jj3?`y­—À *žÀ W3††Gr—À `rÀ 2žWFÀ †‘F—FržÀ ?3˜FÀ

žW3žÀ žWFÀ y³rF‘À 3rCÀ žWFÀ o3r3UF‘À 3‘FÀ žWFÀ —3oFÀ ;­žÀ žWFÀ

'?žÀ y;²`y­—j¸À o3hF—À †‘y²`—`yrÀ My‘À 3À ?j3——À yOÀ ?3—FÀ `rÀ

À ³Wd?WÀ žXF¸À 3“FÀ BeSF‘FržÀ /WFÀ y³rF“À `—À y;jaUFBÀ žyÀ ?jy™FÀ

žWFÀ —Wy†À yrFÀ B3¸À `rÀ 3À ³FFhÀ žWy­UWÀ ¤WFÀ o3r3UF‘À yOÀ žWFÀ

šWy†À ?3rÀ ³y‘hÀ ³`žWy­žÀ Oy‘À F·3o†jFÀ W3²`rUÀ žWFÀ

ž³Frž¸Oy­‘À ?yr—F?­¦b²FÀ Wy­‘—À yOÀ ‘F—žÀ F²F‘¸À ³FFhÀ ³Wb?WÀ

—F?žayrÀ $'À Frgy`r—À /WFÀ 3††Fjj3rž—À ?3†3?`ž¸À 3—À o3r3»

UF‘À ³`jjÀ W3²FÀ žyÀ ;FÀ —F†3‘3žFBÀ O‘yoÀ W`—À ?W3‘3?žF‘À 3—À

y³rF‘À Oy‘À žW`—À ‰­‘†y—FÀ .F?ž`yrÀ "'`À B‚—À ryžÀ ?yrž‘yjÀ

—F?«yrÀ #À 

,3—žj¸À `žÀ

³5›À 5‘V­FBÀ ž[3

žÀ

žWFÀ —?WFoFÀ yOÀ žWFÀ '?žÀ

o3hF—À `žÀ †j3`rÀ žW3žÀ `žÀ fÀ Q‘À 3oFj`y‘3¬rUÀ žWFÀ ?yrB`¦`yr—À

yOÀ j3<}®‘À Fo†jy¸FBÀ `rÀ —W



—À *žÀ ?3vry À žWF‘FOy‘FÀ 3††j¸À

ž{À —]†—À `rÀ ³W`?WÀ ryÀ j3;y­•À `—À Fo†jy¸FBÀ †3‘¬?­j3“j¸À

³WFrÀ žWFÀ O3pan¸À yO!À žWFÀ Fo†jy¸F‘À `—À F·†‘F——j¸À F·?j­B¼

FBÀ TyoÀ ©FÀ †­‘²`F³À yOÀ žWFÀ &?žÀ (y‘À žW`—À ‘F3—yrÀ 3j¿yÀ

`žÀ ?5try

žÀ

O3jjÀ ­rBF‘À `žFoÀ "#À `tÀ ,`—žÀ ***À 1FÀ 3‘FÀ yOÀ

y†`r`yrÀ ¤W3¤À —­?WÀ 3À r3‘‘y³À `ržF‘†‘Fž3ž`yrÀ ?3rry¥À

;FÀ

†j3?FBÀ ¯†yrÀ žWFÀ Fr¦•¸À /WFÀ jFU`—j3ž­‘FÀ o3¸À W3²FÀ OFlžÀ

 tH@I—5–¸À crÀ y‘BI”À žyÀ ‘FB­?FÀ žYFÀ ‹€——`;`jcž`F—À yOÀ F²3½

—`yrÀ žyÀ 3À o`r`o­oÀ žyÀ Fr?‘y3?WÀ ­†yrÀ ¤WFÀ j`;F‘ž`F—À yOÀ

žWy—FÀ ³WyÀ ´y±DÀ uyžÀ yžWF‘³`—FÀ W3²FÀ >FrÀ 3SF?žFBÀ

0W3žÀ ³FÀ žW`rhÀ `žÀ W3BÀ ³F‘À žyÀ By À (­‘žWF‘À žyÀ ‘F­`‘FÀ

3À —Wy†iFFŠF‘À µWyÀ Ip†jy¸—À

yrFÀ y‘À

Ÿ¶yÀ oJrÀ žyÀ Am„EÀ 3rBÀ



 



 

 

 2

 

12

 

 

 2

 2

/10,

q}hD^E, A|iv, jFgkwr,

$2%€,

¬±hY, (Î, ²)‚C, „, ÖZD… Ï, ­³%«ß, ƒ,  j, [×\'

¯Ø´ , †, *Ð, iE!, ‡, µ , ˆ®k, ¼QÙ¬F", G„³, åÚ,

™¶]Û·, …æ, †, ¸‡Ü, ´‰^_ݹ½?ˆH, ¿+àÀ¤Þ, xŠ, ¯º`,ç,

ѵ, ‰, Á-Òè.l¶@‹m, a/é, RS, ßnàoÂá», Ã0áêâpë, ¥Ä,

1q, ìã, ärÅ, ¼åŠ·í, °s, æ, ½T‹Œƒ, ± çèt, éb¡I#,

¦Æ, êc¢JŽ$Ç, UV, $ëâ, Œ¾, dîïì¿Ó,  , £K2¸%, 3uð‘,

4¹, í, ºŽ‚’ñ, òîÀ, °ó, &», ãÍ



ï, ô“, BÔ &, ,

5ð, §È, L6²ÁM, 7võ¤Ãñö‘÷8”w, •, –ÄÉÕ, ¨Ê, ¥'®òÖ,

9x, ó×ô, yÅõØ,

yö, ’¦§÷“N,  œ:OÙ, ©Ë, ;Ú, Ì<Ûe=Ü Í,

   

Yøzø, Æ, ù , ”¨©ùWX•{ú5,  

7 ú|û,  ˜Ç, ü!+, ÈûݪžÎü}ý6,   

ZbIG_Co, `8zJ, RK9, , c{LHl,



Mp, d[:O\;], =Ps~,<t,

,'2 2 "2 >,   (/-

u(, m, 02 ª, *+#2 .2 WX,

T6@7B>m O%"fWm F#&m m G,m m X m m 'i8Y9HCm 4:CZ`m

!Sg;ad?<25m IhUb[m PJj*\(Vl+] m K-m 1D$=E3^m L.m /c_k

AQMR)em N0m

+´­µ¿ ^ŸP¿ ¿ ¿ _¿ #¿ ž¿ v¿ $CÀëÁí-â¿ *D/f Ew¿ 'x¿

.¡ŽFÂ`ya¿ {¶z¿ (÷¿ %]¿ ¿ {µ|Gbt¿ ß¿ Äš¿ Ýs•î¿ /ï·¿ Ÿ¿ }¿

¯~Vr¿ Sð HI€g¿ ñ¿ 0¿ T3J|¿ ¡¿ 14>¿ R¿ b¿ !¿ ¸}¿ c¢Od¿ ¿"¿

e<\Û©]é깿 ‚¶c£hƒf¿ „¿ ?°…K¿ ~¿ dò©†Z¿ 2¿ ªóiô®¿ ¢¿ 3U@¤œã¿

Åõ¿ ö‡¿ £¿ e÷ªÆV–ø ¿ ,¸Çg¿ j0h¿ ù €¿ ìšú¿ ‘4¿ Èû¿ kˆ5ä௿

±É‚¹¿ 6¿ L‰«ÊiË!ü¿ =—˜"ý¿ Lº¿ 7¿ 5M̬8ƒŠ¿ 6K»¿ 9²Íþj„¿ :ÿ¿ #Nl‹O¿ $¤¿

;WA¥Î…†<å¿ ’Œ¿ )Ï¿ &¦[¿ ^¿ п “¿ =Mu`¿ 1¿ >¼¿ ŽXY2¿ %¿ ?¿

ч¿ &¥¿ æ@²¿ PA78QBÒv¿ ˆ¿ ‘­Óm’X“¿ Cn¿ Wœ›w¿ ‰º”¿ «oÔk¿

'¦¿ ¨IY›¿ (¿ ³»ÕZ¼¿ ”•¿ D[B§Öç¿ ´El¿ Qxp¿ 9R)®×q–r¿ * 轿 ØŠ¿ m :n¿

o½+\¿ ,§¿ ¬sÙ °¿ ‹¾—¿ F_¨y¿ ³Þž¿ G t¿ ;pqá¿ zŒa¿ -¿ ¿¿

N¾¿ .Su˜TÚ±¿ H¿ U™™ÜJ¿

&!$2 % )2

      

  @Ì¢,

 P, žŸ~Þþ, –, *, SÏfýÿ, «Ð, eÉÑþÊ, Ò—Õ, *+€Ó,

T˜­, &3', š, "ÿ, N#, B, ›, UÔ>¾ , ™,

fš›, Qg£),V , A, ?Ë¡, näŸ, a—!, (.,-, œ, )4#",

Reference cases

Description

Manohar Lal v. The State (1951): A Supreme Court Analysis of Shopkeeper Liability and the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940

The landmark case of Manohar Lal v. The State, a pivotal ruling on shopkeeper liability under the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, remains a cornerstone of Indian labour and commercial law. This 1951 Supreme Court judgment, now comprehensively indexed on CaseOn, delves into the legislative power to regulate trade and the extent of an owner's responsibility, even in a family-run business without external employees. The case addresses the fundamental question of whether a shop owner can be held liable for keeping their establishment open on a mandatory 'close day' when the actual sale was conducted by a family member exempt from the Act's provisions.

The Factual Matrix: A Tin of Boot Polish and a Closed Day

The facts of the case are straightforward. Manohar Lal, the appellant, owned a shop in Ferozepore divided into two sections: haberdashery and stationery. As required by the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, he had to designate a 'close day' for his shop. He chose Mondays for the haberdashery section and Saturdays for the stationery section, duly informing the authorities.

On Monday, May 17, 1948—the designated close day for the haberdashery section—the appellant’s son sold a tin of boot polish to a customer from that very section. The appellant himself was present in the shop at the time. Consequently, he was prosecuted and convicted for violating Section 7(1) of the Act, which mandated that shops remain closed on the close day. His appeals to the lower courts failed, leading him to the Supreme Court on a substantial question of law concerning the validity and application of the Act.

Legal Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

The appellant's counsel raised several critical legal challenges, forming the core of the Supreme Court's deliberation:

Is Section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, constitutionally valid?

The primary argument was that the provision forcing shops to close was ultra vires, or beyond the legislative power of the Provincial Government under the Government of India Act, 1935.

Does the exemption for family members protect the shopkeeper from liability?

The appellant contended that since the Act (under Section 2-A(j)) did not apply to family members, and his son made the sale, no offence was committed.

Can the shopkeeper claim exemption as the manager of his own shop?

It was also argued that as the owner-manager, the appellant fell under the exemption for persons in a managerial capacity (Section 2-A(i)) and thus could not be compelled to close the shop.

Does the Act apply to shops with no hired employees?

Finally, the appellant asserted that the Act's purpose was to ameliorate labour conditions, making it inapplicable to a family-run shop with no employees.

The Rule of Law: Examining the Punjab Trade Employees Act

The Supreme Court's analysis hinged on a few key provisions:

  • Section 7(1): This was the operative clause, stating, "...every shop shall remain closed on a close day."
  • Section 2-A(i) and (j): These sections carved out exemptions, stating that the Act shall not apply to "persons employed in a managerial capacity" and "members of the family of the employer."
  • Government of India Act, 1935: The Court examined the legislative competence under List II (Provincial List), Item 27 ("Trade and commerce within the Province") and List III (Concurrent List), Item 27 ("Welfare of labour; conditions of labour").

Court's Analysis: Piercing the Veil of Legal Arguments

The five-judge bench meticulously dismantled each of the appellant's arguments, providing a clear and enduring interpretation of the law.

Upholding Legislative Competence

The Court held that Section 7 was perfectly valid and intra vires. It found dual justification. Firstly, under "Trade and commerce," the government had the power to regulate the hours, place, and manner of sale of any commodity. Mandating a close day was a legitimate form of regulating internal trade. Secondly, it also fell under the "Welfare of labour." The Court adopted a broad interpretation, reasoning that for such a welfare law to be effective, it must apply universally. If family-run shops were allowed to remain open, it would create unfair competition for shops that employ labour and are forced to close, ultimately undermining the very objective of labour welfare.

The Owner's Duty vs. The Son's Action

This was the most crucial part of the ruling. The Court deemed the appellant's argument "fallacious." It clarified that the conviction was not for the *sale* made by the son, but for the *owner's failure to keep the shop closed*. The liability under Section 7(1) is placed squarely on the owner. The exemption for the son simply meant the son could not be prosecuted, but it did not grant the owner the right to keep his shop open. The statutory duty was the owner's alone.

The Court's detailed distinction between these roles is a key takeaway. For legal professionals short on time, understanding such nuances from rulings like Manohar Lal v. The State is made easier with CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs, which distill complex analyses into concise summaries.

Duality of Roles: Owner vs. Manager

The Court also dismissed the argument based on the managerial exemption. It noted that while the appellant was both owner and manager, the Act creates distinct liabilities for each role. The obligation to keep the shop closed is imposed on the *owner*. His capacity as a manager, which might exempt him from rules regarding, for instance, hours of work, does not absolve him of his separate and distinct duty as the owner.

The Final Verdict: Conviction Upheld

The Supreme Court concluded that the law was constitutionally sound and its application to the appellant was correct. It held that to prevent evasion and ensure a level playing field, the legislature had the power to enact a rule that applied to all shops, regardless of whether they employed external labour. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

A Summary of the Judgment

In essence, the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. The State established that a shop owner's statutory duty to keep their establishment closed on a designated day under the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, is absolute. This liability cannot be circumvented by arguing that a sale was made by an exempt family member or by claiming an exemption based on the owner's managerial role. The Court affirmed the broad legislative power to regulate trade for the general welfare of labour, even if it impacts businesses without employees, to prevent unfair commercial advantages and ensure the law's effectiveness.

Why This 1951 Judgment Remains Relevant Today

This case is an essential read for lawyers and law students for several reasons:

  • Principle of Broad Interpretation: It serves as a classic example of how courts provide a wide and liberal interpretation to legislative entries related to social welfare to uphold the statute's purpose.
  • Understanding Statutory Liability: It clearly illustrates how statutory liability is fixed on a specific individual (the owner) and cannot be vicariously avoided through loopholes or exemptions meant for others.
  • The Role of Public Policy in Regulation: The judgment underscores the legal principle that regulations can impose burdens on all, including those not directly part of the problem (like family-run shops), to achieve a larger public policy objective like fair competition and labour welfare.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal issues, please consult with a qualified legal professional.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....