The Supreme Court (SC) last week set aside the judgement of the Kerala HC and confirmed the award of the arbitrator in favour of M/s Asian Tech Ltd. The Centre engaged the firm for building a defence laboratory. The project could not be completed on time, allegedly because of change of site. This resulted in increased costs. Disputes arose between and was referred to an arbitrator. The award went in favour of the contractor. The government appealed to the high court. The contractor challenged the ruling in the SC. He contended the project could not be completed on time because of the government’s fault.
Contractor’s appeal against Coal India dismissed
In another appeal dealing with arbitration, Coal Linker vs Coal India Ltd, delivered last week, the SC dismissed the appeal of the contractor against the judgement of the Calcutta high court. The agreement was for transporting coal/coke by road to CIL’s stockyard in Kanpur and for operation of the yard. When disputes arose, an arbitrator was appointed and he gave an award in favour of the contractor. The dispute was over payment of interest from the date of award till the date of the decree. The award did not grant it, but the executing court asked CIL to pay up.
Power supplier’s demand shot down
The SC last week quashed the judgement of the Uttarakhand HC in the dispute between the state Power Corporation and ASP Sealing Products Ltd and allowed the former to encash the bank guarantee for the demand for minimum charges. The firm ran a PVC and rubber factory in Rudrapur and consumed power according to an agreement with the corporation. Later, the supply was discontinued at the request of the firm. However, the corporation demanded minimum charges for six months. The firm challenged it in the high court, which quashed the demand. On appeal, the SC ruled that the firm was liable to pay the minimum charges.
Floor coverings’ manufacturers
More From This Section
Manufacturers of floor coverings got excise relief last week when the SC dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise against a decision of the tribunal. In the case, Commissioner vs M/s UNI Products Ltd, the revenue authorities demanded 30 per cent in excise duty on the floor coverings. The manufacturers argued they were making non-woven coverings where the basic fabric is jute. The authorities maintained the exposed surface was made of synthetic textile material and hence the goods were not non-woven jute floor coverings. The tribunal accepted the manufacturers’ view, which was upheld by the SC.
Carpet makers get reprieve
The Commissioner of Central Excise lost another case against carpet manufacturers last week. The carpets were interlaced with yarns of three types: jute, cotton and polypropylene. The firms maintained jute was the predominant component and hence the duty demanded by the revenue authorities was not applicable. The authorities, on the other hand, argued the surface of the carpets was entirely of polypropylene and hence could not be classified as jute carpets.