Kuldeep Chander Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and ors.

Kuldeep Chander vs Chief Inspector of Shops and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Jan 08, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/679716

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/679716
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, J.
Decided On: Jan 08, 2004
Case Number: RSA 33/2003
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Shops and Establishments - Opening and closing time of shop--Non-observance of the rules of Shop and Establishments Act--Suit for injunction--Shop a part of residential premises of landlord plaintiff run by defendant tenant--Dismissal of suit--Petition thereagainst--If injunction granted, court will not be able to e...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Shop Establishment Act; ;Specific Reliefs Act - Sections 41

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kuldeep Chander

Advocate B.B. Gupta, Adv

Respondent

Chief Inspector of Shops and ors.

Advocate Pramod Kumar, Adv. for Resps. 1 and 3 and ; Anil Bhasin, Adv. for Resp. 2

Legal References

Acts: Shop Establishment Act; ;Specific Reliefs Act - Sections 41
Reported In: AIR2004Delhi130; 109(2004)DLT454; 2004(72)DRJ553; [2004(101)FLR163]; (2004)IILLJ402Del

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........do not fulfill their obligations and do not perform their duties well, which in this case is to see that everyday the opening and closing hours are observed by the respondent no.2, the court should not be reluctant in interfering by way of granting injunction against the non-observance of the rules or law by a delinquent person. 4. there is no gain saying the fact that the court should not pass such an order which it cannot enforce or monitor. if the injunction is granted in the form which the petitioner is seeking then it will be the court who will everyday will be supposed to monitor and see that the respondent observes the prescribed opening and closing hours. but it does not mean that respondent should be allowed to hold the field by manoeuvring the inspecting authorities and create nuisance for peaceful living of the landlord. thus direction can be given to the inspector, shop and establishment that he shall see the opening and closing hours are observed regularly and if the respondent no. 2 fails to do so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a complaint against the inspector before his superiors whose duty shall be to see that the rules are faithfully observed as such a laxity or delinquency on the part of the authorities sometimes gives impression to the public at large that they are indulging in corruption. 5. the petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction and the copy of the order be sent to the inspector of the area as well as to the chief inspector of shop and establishment who shall monitor the observance of the opening and closing hours of the shop in question. since it is pointed out by the shop and establishment department that under the law they can only challan the respondent for not observing the hours. s.h.o. of the area is hereby directed to see that respondent closes his shop at the prescribed hours.

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent No.2 who is his tenant in a shop which is a part of his residence is not observing the rules of Shop Establishment Act as he does not follow the directions of opening and closing time of the shop. So much so the respondent No. 2 has been challaned by the Inspector, Shop and Establishment almost every year and more than 6-7 times.

2. The suit for injunction was dismissed vide impugned order merely on the ground that efficacious remedy under the Specific Reliefs Act is available to the landlord and wherever such a remedy is available, Section 41(h) of the Specific Reliefs Act disentitles the person to seek injunction.

3. The learned Additional District Judge has, thus observed that the only remedy available to the petitioner is by way of approaching the Inspector, Shop and Establishment and getting the respondent No. 2 challaned. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that nobody can be allowed to violate the law or the rules made by the authorities and merely because the Inspector, Shop and Establishment has the power to challan the respondent No. 2 for not observing the opening and closing hours does not mean that the petitioner should be left at the mercy of Inspector, Shop and Establishment and create nuisance for the landlord who lives in the same house on the backside of the shop. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Government authorities do not fulfill their obligations and do not perform their duties well, which in this case is to see that everyday the opening and closing hours are observed by the respondent No.2, the court should not be reluctant in interfering by way of granting injunction against the non-observance of the rules or law by a delinquent person.

4. There is no gain saying the fact that the court should not pass such an order which it cannot enforce or monitor. If the injunction is granted in the form which the petitioner is seeking then it will be the court who will everyday will be supposed to monitor and see that the respondent observes the prescribed opening and closing hours. But it does not mean that respondent should be allowed to hold the field by manoeuvring the inspecting authorities and create nuisance for peaceful living of the landlord. Thus direction can be given to the Inspector, Shop and Establishment that he shall see the opening and closing hours are observed regularly and if the respondent No. 2 fails to do so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a complaint against the inspector before his superiors whose duty shall be to see that the rules are faithfully observed as such a laxity or delinquency on the part of the authorities sometimes gives impression to the public at large that they are indulging in corruption.

5. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction and the copy of the order be sent to the Inspector of the area as well as to the Chief Inspector of Shop and Establishment who shall monitor the observance of the opening and closing hours of the shop in question. Since it is pointed out by the Shop and Establishment Department that under the law they can only challan the respondent for not observing the hours. S.H.O. of the area is hereby directed to see that respondent closes his shop at the prescribed hours.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Kuldeep Chander vs Chief Inspector of Shops and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, J. Acts & Sections Shop Establishment Act; ;Specific Reliefs Act - Sections 41

Civil