The Supreme Court last week reiterated that casual workers cannot claim regularization merely because they have been working for a considerable period of time. It said that the law consistently laid down by it was that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued. “Merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules,” the judg-ment stated allowing the appeal of the central government in the case of casual workers who have been engaged with six-monthly breaks up to 30 years. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Gauhati high court which was contrary to the precedents in the case, and allowed the appeal of the government in the case, Union of India vs Vartak Labour Union.
Is customs duty applicable to ship brought in for being broken up
Can a ship made in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd and delivered to Dempo Steamship Ltd after paying excise duty be charged customs duty when it was brought to India and auctioned for breaking it up? This question has come to the Supreme Court a second time and it has referred it back to the Excise and Customs Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. According to the tribunal, goods manufactured in a customs bonded warehouse are treated as goods manufactured in a foreign country. When the vessel was taken out of the country for plying as foreign going vessel, and subsequently when it was brought back to India for breaking purposes, it amounted to re-import, inviting customs duty. When this case, M/s Mustan Taherbhai vs Commissioner of Customs came to the Supreme Court in 2001 after a bout in the Gujarat high court, the apex court had sent it back to the tribunal pointing out that the vessel was built in India and excise duty was paid on it and it was delivered to an Indian party. However, the tribunal affirmed its order imposing the duty. The Supreme Court now set aside the tribunal’s order and asked it to reconsider the case on the parameters set by it earlier.
Agarbathi maker in trademark battle with newpaper group
In a trademark battle over the use of the word ‘Eenadu’ between a Karnataka firm selling Agarbathis (incense sticks) and the newspaper group in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated last week that allowing to sell Agarbathis with the same name would “definitely create confusion in the minds of the consumers.”
The Agarbathis, marked ‘Eenadu’, are calculated to lead purchasers to believe that its Agarbathies are in fact the products of the newspaper company, the court stated in its judgment in the case, T V Venugopal vs Ushodya Enterprises Ltd. Upholding the judgment of the high court, the Supreme Court stated that the Agarbathi firm wanted to ride on the reputation and goodwill of the other company in Andhra Pradesh. “In such a situation, it is the bounden duty of the court not only to protect the goodwill and reputation of the Andhra company but also to protect the interest of the consumers. The consumers have to be saved from such fraudulent and deceitful conduct,” the judgments said.
Bank loses appeal over alleged withdrawal of money
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a bank whose officials allegedly withdrew money from a savings account without the knowledge of the account holder. He was asked to be compensated for the monetary loss caused by the officials of the bank. In this case, Haryana Gramin Bank vs Madan Lal, the account holder found that though his pass book did not show any withdrawal of cash, the bank rejected his application to withdraw money. The bank told him that according to its ledgers, money has been withdrawn, though the pass book did not show it. He moved the consumer forum. It ordered the bank to pay him the loss and also compensation. The bank’s appeals to the state and national consumer commissions and the Supreme Court failed.
‘Delay in filing FIR no ground for denying relief’
Delay in filing a first information report (FIR) of an accident is no ground to deny compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Ravi vs Badrinarayan. In this case, an 8-year-old boy was hit by a motor vehicle and he was taken to the hospital by his father and others. The report was filed after three months, as the child suffered severe permanent injuries. He lost control of his kidney function. The motor vehicles tribunal and the Rajasthan high court, however, dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the FIR was not filed immediately. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court awarded him Rs 2.5 lakh. It said: “Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR.”
