Even if one party has not signed a formal agreement, there could be a consensus on arbitration by implication, the Supreme Court has ruled in the case, Unnissi (India) Ltd vs PGI, Chandigarh. In this case, the post-graduate institute floated tenders for pulse oxymeters.
The company gave an offer which was accepted by PGI. Equipment was supplied and accepted. Though the company had sent a signed agreement to PGI, the latter had not returned it with its signature. Later, PGI complained about the quality of the equipment and alleged fraud by the company and forfeited the earnest money.
It also asserted that no agreement was executed and there was no arbitration clause. However, the company moved the district judge of Chandigarh for appointment of an arbitrator. The judge found that there was no arbitration clause. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that there was an arbitration clause in the tender document itself. Since the document was accepted by PGI, there was an arbitration clause. The Chief Justice of the high court was asked to appoint an arbitrator.
Money deposit as condition to hear suit legal
In a suit for money decree, a party defending the claim may be asked to deposit part of the admitted amount as a condition to hear his petition, the Supreme Court ruled in its judgement, Southern Sales & Services vs Sauermilch Design & Handels GMBH. In this case, the foreign company filed a suit against the Indian firm for recovery of Rs 4 crore.
The latter moved the civil judge in Bangalore who imposed a condition to hear the suit. The Indian firm moved the Karnataka High Court against this order. The high court ruled that the firm should deposit 55 per cent of the undisputed amount before hearing it. In the appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the high court order, quoting Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. It explained that earlier, the code granted hearing without any condition. But after an amendment to the code in 1977, a condition to deposit part of the undisputed amount can be imposed by the civil court.
No re-instatement of seasonal workers
More From This Section
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgement of the Allahabad High Court and the labour court asking the UP Sugar & Cane Development Corporation to reinstate a batch of seasonal workers on a permanent basis. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that they were seasonally employed between October and April, the crushing season.
Appointing them in permanent positions was a managerial task, which could not be interfered with by the labour court. The Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which took up the workers’ case, contended that they were employed even during the non-crushing season and therefore they were permanent employees though paid less. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and accepted that of the corporation.
Apex court orders auction of decaying foodgrain
The Supreme Court last week allowed auction of huge amounts of foodgrain which are lying in Ferozepur and under threat of decay. The stocks were caught in a dispute between Satnam Agro Industries and the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
The court had earlier given a proposal to the parties to sell the paddy by public auction to be conducted by the court to avoid any further loss and the sale proceeds be deposited in the court and the court shall keep the said amount in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank to earn interest on the said amount. In view of the broad agreement on this point, the court asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozpur, to conduct the public auction.
SC dismisses Orissa cable operator’s petition
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the petition of cable operator Ortel Communications Ltd challenging the Orissa High Court’s judgement that ruled against the state government’s policy which allowed only one cable on an electric pole.
The apex court refused to interfere with the high court order that held against the state government’s ‘one pole one cable’ policy. Ortel is a major private player in Orissa providing cable TV, broadband internet and telephony services. The high court in May this year had directed the state government to formulate a policy to ensure equal opportunity to everyone for availing the electric pole facility. The high court had passed the judgement on a petition filed by rival multi-system operator, Variety Entertainment Ltd, a joint venture between ETV and Zee TV. It argued that the policy to allow one operator to use an electric pole for its cable distribution network amounted to creating a monopoly.