Catering establishment - Indian Laws - General

Meaning of expression Catering establishment The expression catering establishment came up for interpretation before the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593/1972. After adverting to dictionary meaning of the word cater , V.D. Tulzapurkar, J. (as he then was) held: In this view of the matter, it is clear to me that the expression a catering establishment will have to be understood in its normal dictionary meaning. The word cater as a verb means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, To act as caterer, or purveyor of provisions; to provide a supply of food . It also means To occupy oneself in procuring or providing (requisites, things desired, etc.) and cater is understood to mean Purvey food and other requisites. A catering establishment would, therefore, be an establishment where purveying of food and other requisites takes place. It is therefore, not necessary, according to the dictionary meaning of the expression, that the members of the public should have an access to such an establishment before it could become a catering establishment within the meaning of the relevant entry in Part IV of Schedule M. It cannot be disputed that in the canteen in question articles of food and other requisites are being purveyed to the students and the members of the Institute and, therefore, the canteen in question clearly falls within the expression a catering establishment occurring in the relevant entry in Part IV of Schedule. In Balkrishna Karkera v. K.J. Mishra and Anr.- 1978 (11) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , learned Single Judge interpreted Section 394(1)(e)(i) read with Section 471 of the Act and observed: Now it is pertinent to note that although the expression eating house has been defined under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, the expression catering establishment has not been defined. It is true that the staff canteen run by Accused No. 2 was not open to the members of the public at large and the admission was restricted solely to the employees of the said Company. To that extent Mr. Shrikrishna would be justified in his submission that the staff canteen could not be termed as an eating house. However, what is significant is the fact that Accused No. 2 has not been charged with carrying on an eating house but he has been charged for carrying on a catering establishment. Catering establishment is an expression which is wider in its connotation than the expression eating house and whether a staff canteen was open to the public or restricted only to a section of the public, it would still fall within the definition of a catering establishment. BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS. VERSUS WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB AND ORS.- 2013 (11) TMI 1817 - SUPREME COURT