Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Narayanaswami Mudali

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 28, 1946
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793331

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Narayanaswami Mudali

Legal References

Reported In
(1947)1MLJ364

Excerpt

- orderyahya ali, j.1. the petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 81(4) of the defence of india rules for violating clause 12 of the kerosene control order, 1942, which prescribes that no person shall carry on business as a retail dealer unless he has been registered as such under the kerosene control order by the collector having jurisdiction over the place where the retail dealer carries on business. a dealer has been defined in the control order itself as a person dealing in the purchase, sale or distribution of kerosene. in the present case the only evidence is that the petitioner conducted a solitary transaction of sale of one tin of kerosene but that does not constitute him a retailer nor does it constitute the transaction a business to amount to his carrying on business as retail dealer within the meaning of clause 12. carrying on a business always connotes conducting of more transactions than one by way of trade or commerce and the concept of dealer also has in it implicit the notion that he carries on transactions of purchase, sale or distribution as a business and both these expressions exclude the idea of a solitary transaction of purchase or sale constituting either a business or constituting the person making the sale a retail dealer. the petition is allowed and the conviction is set aside and the fine if paid will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules for violating Clause 12 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1942, which prescribes that no person shall carry on business as a retail dealer unless he has been registered as such under the Kerosene Control Order by the Collector having jurisdiction over the place where the retail dealer carries on business. A dealer has been defined in the Control Order itself as a person dealing in the purchase, sale or distribution of kerosene. In the present case the only evidence is that the petitioner conducted a solitary transaction of sale of one tin of kerosene but that does not constitute him a retailer nor does it constitute the transaction a business to amount to his carrying on business as retail dealer within the meaning of Clause 12. Carrying on a business always connotes conducting of more transactions than one by way of trade or commerce and the concept of dealer also has in it implicit the notion that he carries on transactions of purchase, sale or distribution as a business and both these expressions exclude the idea of a solitary transaction of purchase or sale constituting either a business or constituting the person making the sale a retail dealer. The petition is allowed and the conviction is set aside and the fine if paid will be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial