{"id":123987,"date":"1994-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994"},"modified":"2019-02-15T21:01:11","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T15:31:11","slug":"calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 419, \t\t 1994 SCC (5) 690<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCALCUTTA  MUNICIPAL CORPN.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEAST INDIA HOTELS  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/07\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  419\t\t  1994 SCC  (5) 690\n JT 1994 (4)   463\t  1994 SCALE  (3)456\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKULDIP\tSINGH,\tJ.-  The  East\tIndia  Hotels  Limited\t(the
\ncompany),  Respondent 1 in the appeal herein, owns and\truns
\n“Oberoi Grand”\tfive star hotel\t in the city of\t Calcutta.
\nThe  hotel  had,  at the relevant  time,  three\t restaurants
\nwithin\tits premises called the Moghul Room,  the  Polynesia
\nand  the  Princes.  The question for  our  consideration  is
\nwhether\t the company is required to pay the licence fee\t and
\nobtain\tlicences, to run the said restaurants, in  terms  of
\nSection\t 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (the  Act).
\nA  Division  Bench  of the Calcutta  High  Court  in  appeal
\nanswered  the question in the negative and in favour of\t the
\ncompany.  This appeal by the Calcutta Municipal\t Corporation
\n(the Corporation) is against the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
692<\/span><\/p>\n
2.   It\t  is  not  disputed  that  prior  to   the   present
\nproceedings  the company has always been obtaining  licences
\nfrom the Corporation under Section 443 of the Act in respect
\nof  the restaurants.  Initially, the licence fee was Rs\t 250
\nper  annum per restaurant.  The said fee was increased\tfrom
\ntime to time.  The Corporation, by an order dated 22-3-1982,
\nincreased the licence fee to Rs 15,000 in respect of each of
\nthe places of amusement\/recreation under Section 443 of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The company challenged the increase of the licence\t fee
\nto Rs 15,000 before the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ
\npetition  under\t Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India.
\nBefore\tthe learned Single Judge three points  were  raised.
\nIt  was contended that under Section 218 read with  Schedule
\nIV  to the Act, the Corporation could not fix more  than  Rs
\n250  as\t licence  fee.\t The  learned  Judge  rejected\t the
\ncontention  on\tthe ground that the licence fee\t was  levied
\nunder Section 443 of the Act to which Schedule IV to the Act
\nhas  no\t relevance.   The other\t points\t raised\t before\t the
\nlearned Single Judge were that there was no valid order made
\nby  the\t Corporation  and  no  opportunity  of\thearing\t was
\nafforded  to the company before enhancing the  licence\tfee.
\nBoth these contentions were also rejected.  As a consequence
\nthe  learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.\t The
\ncompany\t filed\tappeal against the judgment of\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge which was heard by a Division Bench of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  only\tpoint  raised by  the  company,\t before\t the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court, was neither pleaded in the
\nwrit  petition nor argued before the learned  Single  Judge.
\nThe  Division Bench permitted the point to be raised on\t the
\nfollowing reasoning:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  permitted  the learned advocate  for\t the
\n\t      appellants  to raise this new  contention\t and
\n\t      urge  the new plea as it appeared to  us\tthat
\n\t      the same was purely a question of law.  In our
\n\t      view, no new facts were required to be pleaded
\n\t      or brought on record to enable us to  consider
\n\t      this new contention and decide on the issue.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   Before  we\t state the point it would be  useful  to  go
\nthrough\t the provisions of Section 443 of the Act which\t are
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “443.   Licensing\t and  control  of  theatres,
\n\t      circuses\tand places of public amusement.-  No
\n\t      person  shall,  without or otherwise  than  in
\n\t      conformity with the terms of a licence granted
\n\t      by the Commissioner in this behalf, keep\topen
\n\t      any  theatre,  circus, cinema  house,  dancing
\n\t      hall or other similar place of public  resort,
\n\t      recreation or amusement:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that this section shall not apply  to
\n\t      private performances in any such place.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was argued before the Division Bench of the\t High  Court
\nthat  the  provisions  of Section 443 of the  Act  were\t not
\napplicable  to\tthe  restaurants,  despite  the\t fact\tthat
\nrecreation\/amusement  in the shape of music,  cabaret  shows
\nand  dancing etc. was provided in such establishments.\t The
\nDivision   Bench  posed\t the  following\t question  for\t its
\nconsideration:\n<\/p>\n
 693<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “The  short question before us is whether\t the
\n\t      objects\t‘theatre,  circus,   cinema   house,
\n\t      dancing  hall’ referred to in Section  443  of
\n\t      the  Act\tcan or should be  construed  ejusdem
\n\t      generis and whether on such construction it is
\n\t      to  be held that restaurant  though  providing
\n\t      items  of amusement is not a place  of  public
\n\t      resort,  recreation or amusement similar to  a
\n\t      theatre, circus, cinema house or dancing\thall
\n\t      and as such does not come within the  mischief
\n\t      of Section 443.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   The  Division  Bench of the High Court culled  out\t the
\nprinciples  for\t the applicability of the  rule\t of  ejusdem
\ngeneris\t from  the judgments of this Court in  Jage  Ram  v.
\nState of Haryana1 and Amar Chandra Chakraborty v.  Collector
\nof  Excise2.   Construing Section 443 of the  Act  the\tHigh
\nCourt  found  that “theatre, circus, cinema  house,  dancing
\nhall”  have  been  specifically mentioned  followed  by\t the
\nexpression   “other   similar  places  of   public   resort,
\nrecreation  or\tamusement”  which  are\tof  general  nature.
\nApplying  the  principles of ejusdem generis,  the  Division
\nBench  came  to the conclusion that the\t general  words\t are
\nintended  to  have a restricted meaning in  the\t sense\tthat
\n“other similar places” must fall within the class enumerated
\nby the specific words.\tOn the said reasoning, the  Division
\nBench of the High Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “For the reasons above, the contentions of the
\n\t      appellants  before  us  do not  appear  to  be
\n\t      without substance.  We hold that under Section
\n\t      443  of the Calcutta Municipal Act,  1951\t the
\n\t      Corporation  of Calcutta is entitled to  issue
\n\t      licences against payment of fees to  theatres,
\n\t      circuses,\t cinema\t houses, dancing  halls\t and
\n\t      other   similar  places  of   public   resort,
\n\t      recreation  or  amusement\t but  not  to  other
\n\t      establishment which do not fall in same  class
\n\t      as   the\tabove.\t We  hold  further  that   a
\n\t      restaurant  which provides items of  amusement
\n\t      occasionally  or\tincidentally  in  its\tmain
\n\t      business,\t to its customers is not a place  of
\n\t      public resort, recreation or amusement similar
\n\t      to  a  theatre, circus, cinema  house  dancing
\n\t      hall,  which form a class by  themselves,\t and
\n\t      does not fall’ within the mischief of  Section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      443.  The respondents have no jurisdiction  to
\n\t      call  upon  Appellant  to take out  a  licence
\n\t      under Section 443.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   It was not necessary for the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt  to rely on the rule of ejusdem generis in this  case.
\nThe provisions of Section 443 of the Act are on the face  of
\nit clear and unambiguous and, as such, there was no occasion
\nto call into aid the said rule.\t Section 443 clearly  states
\nthat a theatre, circus, cinema house, dancing hall or “other
\nsimilar\t place”\t of public resort, recreation  or  amusement
\ncannot\t be  run  without  obtaining  a\t licence  from\t the
\nCommissioner  of the Corporation.  It is thus  obvious\tthat
\napart\tfrom   the  four  places   of\trecreation\/amusement
\nspecifically  mentioned\t in the section\t “any  other  place”
\nwhich  comes  within  the mischief of the  Act\tmust  be  “a
\nsimilar\t place”.  The short question for our  consideration,
\ntherefore, is whether
\n1    (1971) 1 SCC 671
\n2    (1972) 2 SCC 442 : AIR 1972 SC 1863
\n694<\/span>
\nthe three restaurants run by the company in the premises  of
\nthe  hotel  are similar to any of the four  instances  given
\nunder Section 443 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Since the question argued before the Division Bench was
\nneither pleaded nor raised before the learned Single  Judge,
\nthe  necessary facts required to support the  said  question
\nwere not directly forthcoming from the writ petition, a copy
\nof  which is placed on the appeal-papers.  In any case,\t the
\ncompany’s  own\tcase in the writ petition  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt was as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  order to be categorised as  a  Government
\n\t      classified hotel, it should have certain basic
\n\t      features\t and  amenities\t like  cabaret\t and
\n\t      evening  entertainments etc. and unless  these
\n\t      special\tfacilities   were   available\t and
\n\t      continued\t   to\t remain\t   available\tyour
\n\t      petitioners’ said hotel would not have been  a
\n\t      Government classified hotel.  Your petitioners
\n\t      crave  leave  to refer to\t the  said  question
\n\t      arise  for  classification  at  the  time\t  of
\n\t      hearing if necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Your petitioners state that the said hotel  is
\n\t      a\t residential hotel and maintain a very\thigh
\n\t      standard\tof  service  for  twenty-four  hours
\n\t      round    the   clock.    It   also    provides
\n\t      entertainment during the evening, specially to
\n\t      cater  for  the tourist foreign  visitors\t but
\n\t      also  earn foreign exchange for  the  country.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The    said   hotel    enjoys    international\n\t      reputation ....\n<\/pre>\n
\t      As stated above your petitioners run a  hotel,
\n\t      in  which lodging and meals including  service
\n\t      of  alcoholic beverages, both  foreign  liquor
\n\t      and Indian-made foreign liquor are provided to
\n\t      the   residents\tand   customers\t  from\t the
\n\t      restaurants,  bars and other rooms within\t the
\n\t      hotel  precincts.\t The said restaurants  cater
\n\t      for  outsiders though mostly foreign  tourists
\n\t      and the said restaurants are being  maintained
\n\t      and\/or\trun   in   accordance\t with\t the
\n\t      international   standards\t  for\twhich\tyour
\n\t      petitioner  have had to incur  heavy  overhead
\n\t      expenses\tas  is\tthe case in  the  matter  of
\n\t      maintenance of lodging.  These restaurants and
\n\t      bars  are part and parcel of the hotel  though
\n\t      the same is not restricted to residents of the
\n\t      hotel only.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the\t written statement filed before the  High  Court  on
\n22-3-1983, the Corporation affirmed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “With reference to paragraph 7 of the petition
\n\t      I\t dispute  and deny the allegations.   I\t say
\n\t      that the hotel provides entertainment with all
\n\t      items  of music amusement etc. and  is  famous
\n\t      for   its\t cabaret  any  allegation   contrary
\n\t      thereto\tare  denied.   I  say  that   before
\n\t      entering\tinto  the cabaret room\tone  has  to
\n\t      purchase\ta special ticket for admission on  a
\n\t      very high price.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   It is not disputed in the counter filed by the  company
\nin  the special leave petition that the said restaurants  in
\nthe evening provide piped music and sometimes vocal as\twell
\nas  instrumental  music.   The said  restaurants  also\thave
\ndancing floors where the guests are allowed to dance to\t the
\ntune of the music.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  admitted  facts,  therefore, are  that  there\t are
\ndancing\t floors in the restaurants where the  residents\t and
\nother  guests  entertain themselves.  The  entertainment  is
\nfurther provided by music including vocal music.  At the
\n695<\/span>
\nrelevant  time the cabaret shows were also performed in\t the
\nrestaurant to entertain the guests.  In the counter filed in
\nthis  Court  the company has, however, stated  that  cabaret
\nshows are done on rare occasions like Christmas and New Year
\neve etc.\n<\/p>\n
11.A  “dancing\thall”  cannot operate  without\tobtaining  a
\nlicence\t under\tSection443 of the Act.\tWhat  is  a  dancing
\nhall?  A dancing hall as understood in the ordinary parlance
\nis  a  place  where  dancing  floor  is\t provided  and\tlive
\norchestra or music in any other form is played to  entertain
\nthe guests who wish to come on the floor and dance.  Dancing
\nhalls  are  peculiar  to the Western social  life.   In\t the
\ncosmopolitan  cities in this country, even today, one  finds
\nnumber of dancing halls and discotheques where people go  in
\nthe evenings and entertain themselves.\tWe see no difference
\nin a “dancing hall” and a restaurant where a proper  dancing
\nfloor  is  provided and the guests entertain  themselves  by
\nusing  the  floor  to the tune of live\tor  recorded  music.
\nSimply\tbecause\t the recreation in the shape of\t dancing  is
\nprovided  along with a posh-eating place would not  make  it
\ndifferent  than a “dancing hall” where drinks  and  eatables
\nare  also  invariably provided.\t We are, therefore,  of\t the
\nview  that  the restaurants run by the\tcompany\t are  places
\nsimilar\t to  the dancing halls and, as such, are  places  of
\npublic amusement covered by the provisions of Section 443 of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.  We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of
\nthe  Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss  the\twrit
\npetition  of  the  company filed before\t the  Calcutta\tHigh
\nCourt.\t‘The appellants shall be entitled to costs which  we
\nquantify as Rs 20,000.\n<\/p>\n
698<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 419, 1994 SCC (5) 690 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPN. Vs. RESPONDENT: EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/07\/1994 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCalcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1920,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\",\"name\":\"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994","datePublished":"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994"},"wordCount":1920,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994","name":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T15:31:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/calcutta-municipal-corpn-vs-east-india-hotels-ltd-on-21-july-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calcutta Municipal Corpn vs East India Hotels Ltd on 21 July, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123987\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}