The Supreme Court ruled last week that prosecution for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured for want of credit in the bank can be initiated only against the person who issued the cheque and not against the company or directors who were not aware of it. It quashed the Madras high court order to try the company, the chairman and the managing director in the judgement, PJ Agro Tech Ltd vs Water Base Ltd. The two companies had entered into an agreement for distribution of prawn feed in Andhra Pradesh. However, it did not succeed and PJ Agro authorised the other company to collect its dues from customers who had not paid for the goods. It appointed a coordinator for the purpose. He issued a cheque to Water Base which bounced, leading to the filing of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Supreme Court explained that the coordinator might have issued the cheque for the benefit of PJ Agro, but the directors of the latter company were not responsible for the default.
HC judgement set aside
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Bombay high court in an arbitration dispute between Sumitomo Heavy Industries Corporation and ONGC on the question whether the government company could be held to be liable to the foreign firm for the income-tax liability of a sub-contractor. Sumitomo had entered into a contract with ONGC for installing and commissioning of Well-cum-Production Platform Deck and connected system including submarine pipelines on a turn-key basis at its Bombay High (South) Offshore Site for extraction of oil. Sumitomo appointed Mc Dermott International Inc as the sub-contractor in execution of this work by a back to back contract. Sumitomo had sought from ONGC reimbursement of the income-tax amount which McDermott was required to pay to the Indian government under newly added Clause 44BB of the Income Tax Act (concerning the profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of minerals) and which amount was paid by Sumitomo to McDermott. ONGC declined to reimburse the tax amount, starting the dispute. Following arbitration, the umpire gave an award in favour of Sumitomo.
But the high court ruled that the umpire had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing his order. The Supreme Court set aside the high court order and upheld the award of the umpire.
Secondary packing on goods leaving factory not to attract excise duty
Secondary packing on fabrics leaving the factory gate for upcountry customers would not attract excise duty, the Supreme Court stated last week in the judgment , National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co vs Union of India, setting aside the ruling of the Bombay high court. The revenue authorities as well as the high court had rejected the company’s 1980 claim for excluding the cost of polythene bags and hessian cloth wrapping. They held that secondary packing must be considered to be normal packing and its value should be included in the assessable value. On appeal, the Supreme Court maintained that the additional packing or secondary packing was done for convenience of upcountry customers while transporting the goods and the hessian cloth packing in three rolls should not be included in the value of the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act at the relevant time.
Customs appellate tribunal’s order upheld
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Pernod Ricard India Ltd against the ruling of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, upholding the determination of the value of concentrate of alcoholic beverages (CAB) made by the commissioner of customs. The company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seagram Company Ltd, Canada, imported CAB from Joseph E Seagram & Sons, Scotland, another subsidiary. The CAB was imported in wooden barrels for the manufacture of four brands, 100 Pipers, Passport, Something Special and International Malts. After investigation by the directorate of revenue intelligence, two showcause notices were issued to the company demanding differential duty. This led to a writ petition in the Delhi high court and ultimately, the appeal of the company was dismissed at the apex court.
Truant bank manager not to be reinstated
The Supreme Court last week chastised the Allahabad high court for ordering the reinstatement of a bank manager though an inquiry had indicted him for misconduct. A bank employee must exercise high degree of honesty and integrity and he should not have allowed unauthorised withdrawals as in this case, the court stated in the judgment, Punjab & Sind Bank vs Daya Singh.
More From This Section
Three groups of schools fight for right to use DAV in title
Three groups of schools are claiming their right to use DAV in their titles, and two of them from Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court last week asking it to transfer all cases pending in Delhi to Chennai.
The court refused to transfer the cases. Tamil Nadu Arya Samaj Education Society claimed that their schools followed the “Dayanand Anglo Vedic” system for the past 30 years, and claimed the title. Another educational group from Chennai similarly claimed the use for 24 years. DAV College Managing Committee in Delhi took both groups to Delhi courts, claiming that it had 700 schools and colleges in the country and it had obtained the trade mark under the law in 2005. The Supreme Court asked the Delhi court to decide the trade mark dispute among them.