Are signboards fixed above ATM centres "advertisements", involving permission from the municipal authorities and payment of cess? The Bombay high court had said yes in the case of ICICI bank, but the Supreme Court said it could not be termed as "advertisement". |
The apex court further said that the Bombay Municipal Corporation authorities "seem to be in a state of doubt and hence the notices to the bank do not clearly specify under which section they propose to take action." Therefore, the SC asked the corporation to give ICICI a fresh hearing on the matter but did not decide on the issue itself. |
The bank had argued that its illuminated signboards did not fall within the definition of "sky signs" in Section 328 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. |
It further submitted that the signboards fixed on the ATM centres and extension counters only indicated to the customers about their location at any time of the day. It was an in-house facility, without any commercial or business message. |
The Supreme Court did not accept the explanation. It said, "the kind of information supplied may also be construed as commercial exploitation indirectly, as the sign boards may not aim at the existing customers only, but they may also affect the decisions of prospective customers." |
the judgment said. The sign boards also help people find out which bank is offering better services. However, the Supreme Court found the notices issued by the civic authorities technically wrong and therefore asked them to give the bank a fresh hearing. |