IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (civil) 5674 of 1994 Decided On: 02.04.2002
Appellants: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Vs.
Respondent: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Doraiswamy Raju and Ashok Bhan, JJ.
The respondents in this case own a petrol pump wherin they have erected a pole with a
metallic board projecting on the pavement, which board displayed the symbol of a Shell, said
to be the registered trade mark. Corporation insisted that the permission was necessary for
displaying such boards as they also constituted an announcement or direction as provided in
the section 328 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which gives the definition
of sky- sign , where it mean any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation in the
nature of an advertisement, announcement or direction, supported on or attached to any post,
pole, standard framework or other support. Where the single judge and division bench judge
gave the judgement in favour of the respondents in the current case, where the said the board
was in the premises of the respondents and was meant to give just direction to the motorist,
where in the case of M/S Glaxo where the word 'announcement' was held that a mere
imparting of an information alone will not constitute an 'announcement' and by the mere
indication and information provided in the case on hand to those interested as to the location
of the petrol pump, the respondent made no announcement within the meaning of the said
word used in the provision. Adverting to the word 'Direction', it was observed that anything,
which does not convey an imperative and mandatory message, cannot be construed to mean a
`direction' and that what was conveyed by the signboard in the case on hand was a message,
permissive or optional for the motorist or a member of the public to avail of or not the
services rendered at the Petrol Pump. The view thus expressed was that providing an
information does not constitute giving a direction to go to the petrol stations by way of
enforcing any obedience. It was, therefore, held to be not a `direction' and consequently the
claim of the respondent came to be upheld by the learned Single Judge and Division bench oh
HC also gave the judgment in favour of the respondents.
The principle that were discussed in the case were Ejusdem Generis & Noscitur A Sociis.
Where the three words in Sec. 328 of the act was discussed i.e. ‘advertisement',
'announcement' or 'direction' wherein the principle of Ejusdem Generis mean the where a law
lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general
statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. As in this case
the word . ‘advertisement', 'announcement' & 'direction' , where the word advertisement is a
specific word and the other two are general words, and if we look upon the meaning of
advertisement , mere direction does not amount to advertising as the nature and function of
advertising is to promote their products wherein if we look upon the words and the facts of
the present case the principle have no relevance to the case on hand and seem to have been
over deployed, where the three words cannot be said to that there is any one particular
meaning alone but can also be understood in their general meaning. The three words have
three different meaning and cannot be brought under the same ambit as this will reduce the
scope of the act and also the meaning of the words in the context and purpose of their use in
