Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, ICICI Bank Limited and another, challenged notices and an order dated 24 October 2007 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) requiring them to obtain permission and pay fees for displaying illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards on their bank premises. The petitioners contended that such display did not constitute 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and that the municipal authorities' insistence on regulation was ultra vires. The dispute had a prior history: the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2377 of 2002, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 8 October 2002, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2005, which was disposed of on 4 August 2005. The Supreme Court held that the notices could not be said to have been issued under Section 328 of the Act and directed the respondents to reexamine the issue deeming the notices to have been issued under Section 328-A. The Supreme Court observed that at the outset it cannot be said that the display does not constitute advertisement. The present petition was filed challenging the subsequent notices and order. The court analyzed the definition of 'advertisement' under Section 328-A, which includes any visual device or representation used for the purpose of advertisement or announcement. The court held that the illuminated signboards and ATM boards displaying the bank's name and logo are intended to attract attention and promote the bank's business, thus falling within the definition of 'advertisement'. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the municipal corporation's authority to regulate such displays.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Advertisement - Definition - Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Display of illuminated signboards and ATM boards by a bank on its premises constitutes 'advertisement' as it is a visual device intended to attract attention and promote the bank's business - The court held that such display is not merely a nameplate but an advertisement subject to regulation by the municipal corporation (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the display of illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards by a bank on its premises constitutes 'advertisement' within the meaning of Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and whether the municipal corporation can require permission and fees for such display.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The notices and order requiring the petitioners to obtain permission and pay fees for displaying illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards are upheld.
Law Points
- Advertisement includes display of name and logo of bank on illuminated signboards and ATM boards
- Section 328-A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Regulation of advertisements by municipal authorities
- Ultra vires challenge dismissed
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 35
Writ Petition No. 2448 of 2007 with Notice of Motion (L) No. 775 of 2015
Mr. Sachin Chandarana with Mr. Vijayendra Purohit i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher & Ambalal & Co. for Petitioners. Mr. R. S. Apte – Senior Advocate with Ms K. H. Mastakar for Respondents – MCGM.
ICICI Bank Limited & Anr.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging notices and order requiring bank to obtain permission and pay fees for displaying illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of notices and order, and declaration that display does not constitute 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were issued notices and an order by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai requiring them to obtain permission and pay fees for displaying illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards on their bank premises.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Writ Petition No. 2377 of 2002 was dismissed by Bombay High Court on 8 October 2002. Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2005 was disposed of by Supreme Court on 4 August 2005, directing reexamination under Section 328-A.
Issues
Whether the display of illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards by a bank on its premises constitutes 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Whether the municipal corporation can require permission and fees for such display.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the display of name and logo on signboards and ATM boards is not an advertisement but merely a nameplate or identification, and thus not subject to regulation under Section 328-A.
Respondents argued that such illuminated displays are visual devices intended to attract attention and promote business, falling within the definition of 'advertisement' under Section 328-A.
Ratio Decidendi
The display of illuminated signboards and ATM boards by a bank on its premises constitutes 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as it is a visual device intended to attract attention and promote the bank's business. The municipal corporation has the authority to regulate such advertisements and require permission and fees.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the notices (Exhibits A-1 to A-7) and the order dated 24 October 2007 (Exhibit I) requiring the petitioners to obtain permission and pay fees for the purposes of displaying illuminated signboards upon the petitioners bank premises, ATM centres, extension counters.
The petitioners basically contend that such display does not constitute 'advertisement' for the purposes of section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act) and therefore, the insistence on the part of the municipal authorities (respondents) to even regulate the same, is ultra vires.
Procedural History
The petitioners initially filed Writ Petition No. 2377 of 2002, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 8 October 2002. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2005, which was disposed of on 4 August 2005, directing the respondents to reexamine the issue under Section 328-A. Thereafter, the respondents issued fresh notices and an order dated 24 October 2007, which led to the filing of the present Writ Petition No. 2448 of 2007.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 328, 328-A
