The words “Business” and “trade”

The words “Business” and “trade”

The word “Business”

In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 12, at page 762, the word “business” in its broad sense is defined as follows:-

“In its broad, its broader, or in its broadest, sense in its more general or common use in its primary meaning when used colloquially the word ‘business’ carries with it a very broad meaning; and it has been said that it denotes not only all gainful occupations, but all occupations or duties in which men engage….. has common and general application to all sorts of enterprises which engage people’s attention and energies; and includes nearly all the affairs in which either an individual or a corporation can be actors; and is a word in common use to describe every occupation in which men engage…….. the word is commonly employed in connection with an occupation for livelihood or profit but it is not limited to such pursuits, for it has been said that the definition of ‘business’ by the lexicographers is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to embrace every employment or occupation……”

“Trade”

The very fact, that the word ‘trade’ has been used separately from ‘business’, it was urged clearly shows that the word ‘business’ is used in a much wider sense that the word ‘trade’.

Business:

Wherever the word ‘business’ is defined in a particular statute, it is to be given the meaning ascribed to it in that definition. The question whether the word ‘business’ has been used in a narrower sense or in a larger sense arises in a case where no statutory definition of that expression has been given in the relevant piece of legislation.

At page 164 of Aiyar’s law Lexicon of British India (1940 Edition), the ‘business’ in its larger sense has been started to mean ‘an affair requiring attention and care’ that which busies or occupies one’s time, attention, and labour as his chief concern.” In the same passage the word ‘business’ in mentioned to convey, in the narrower sense, ‘mercantile pursuits; that which one does for a livelihood; occupation; employment; as, the business of a merchant; the business of agriculture.”

It has finally been stated that ‘the word ‘business’ is of large signification, and in its broadest sense includes nearly all the affairs in which either an individual or a corporation can be actors.”

Referring to the larger sense of the word, it has again been stated at page165 that ‘business is that which engages the time, talents and interest of a man; it is what a man proposes to himself; what belongs to a person to do or see done, that is properly his business; and a  person is bound either by the nature of his engagements, or by private and personal motives, to perform a service for another.”

In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary

In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Volume 1 at page 364, it has been stated, inter alia, that ‘business’ has a more extensive meaning than the word ‘trade’. Though it has been said that ordinarily speaking ‘business’ is a synonymous with trade, reference has also been made by Stroud to the business of a mutual benefit society the object of which is to lend money to its members only. It has also been observed (at page 365) that the definition of ‘business’ given by Jessel, M.R., in Smith v. Andeson, (1880) 15 Ch D 258, about anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit, is confined to cases under the Companies Act, or of a like kind.

It has been observed by Stroud in that connection as below:-

“It is indeed clear law that there may be a ‘business’ offending against a prohibitory covenant, without pecuniary profit being at all contemplated. In such a connection, especially, ‘business’ is a very much larger word than ‘trade’; and the word ‘business’ is employed in order to include occupations which would not strictly come within the meaning of the word ‘trade’ – the larger word not being limited by association with the lesser. (per Pearson J., Rolls v. Miller, (1883) 53 LJ Ch 99 at p.101).

The Supreme Court in India:

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ladulal Jain, AIR 1963 SC 1681, Raghubar Dayal, J., who prepared the judgment held that mere fact that expression ‘carries on business’ is used in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code along with other expression like “personally works for gain” does not mean that it would apply only to such persons to whom the other two expression regarding residence or of personally working for gain would apply.  The learned Judge proceeded to observe that it is the nature of the activity which defines  its character and that running of railways by the Govt is such an activity which comes within the expression ‘business’. It was held that the fact as to who runs the railways and with what motive cannot affect it. It was specifically decided that profit element is not necessary ingredient of carrying on business, though usually business is carried on for profit.

**