THE Supreme Court last week dismissed the challenge of a construction firm to the arbitration award stating that when the parties enter into a contract making the Chief Engineer the arbitrator, knowing his role, authority or power, they stand bound by the choice. If the Chief Engineer is chosen despite knowing “his role in the affairs relating to the contract but nevertheless agree for him to be arbitrator and name him in the agreement to adjudicate the dispute/s between the parties, they stand bound by it unless a good or valid legal ground is made out for his exclusion,” the court stated in the case, Ladli Constructions Ltd vs Punjab Police Housing Corporation. In this case, a housing project was delayed leading to the cancellation of the contract. The matter was referred to arbitration, which went against the firm. It moved the Punjab and Haryana high court, without success. Before the Supreme Court, it argued that the arbitrator, who was the Chief Engineer, was biased. The executive engineer cancelled the contract at his instance and therefore the firm had reasonable apprehension of bias. The court did not accept this, remarking that except some vague statements, there was nothing to show bias on the part of the arbitrator.
Excise on data processors
The Supreme Court has asked the central excise appellate tribunal to reconsider the cases of Vinitron Electronics Ltd and D-Link India Ltd on the question of duty liability after noticing the nature and functions of motherboards in the functioning of automatic data processing machines. The core issue in these cases was the classification of add-on cards and motherboards for the purpose of the Central Excise Act and the duty leviable. The tribunal ruled that add-on cards and motherboards are to be classified under a tariff heading which attracted higher duty. According to the Supreme Court which heard the appeals, the tribunal had not gone into the core question noted above. Therefore, the court asked the tribunal to reconsider the facts and decide the question anew.
HC orders on road safety quashed
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Kerala high court which went beyond the scope of a motor accident claim in which the insurance company was ordered to pay Rs 4.76 lakh to the heirs of the mishap victim. The death occurred because the vehicle hit a stationary truck parked on a road side without the parking light switched on. The owner of the bike moved the high court against the award. It passed a series of general orders to the state government, like building bus bays on roads and adequate parking space for vehicles, by acquiring land if necessary. The state government appealed against this arguing that it was beyond the scope of the case and not practical. The Supreme Court partially accepted the contention and deleted the orders except those with which the government had no objection. The high court order suffered from serious flaws as it did not consider the feasibility of the proposed schemes to avoid accidents.
Aluminium firm denied DEPS benefit
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Customs against the ruling of the tribunal in its case against Caryaire Equipment India on the latter’s claim of benefits under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme. The question was whether aluminium grills could be termed as “extruded aluminium products” to claim benefit for export of the company’s products. If the answer is yes, the company would be eligible for the scheme. The commissioner denied the benefit and ordered confiscation. The tribunal upheld that view. But the Supreme Court quashed the tribunal’s order.
CCI probe against Railway dominance
The Delhi high court has dismissed the appeal of the Railway Board against the ruling of the Competition Commission of India which had ordered an investigation by its director general on a complaint of abuse of its dominant position. It was alleged in a complaint before the commission that the railways had increased charges for various services, not provided access to infrastructure such as rail terminals and imposed several restrictions on other players in the field. The commission rejected the objection of the railways that it was not an 'enterprise' according to the definition in the Competition Act as it was conducting sovereign functions. On appeal, the high court also ruled that the railways were not exercising sovereign functions when it was involved in commercial activities like running trains. It could be done by private enterprises also. Therefore, the word enterprise covered railways and the competition law covered it.
Trade mark row over tissue paper
The Delhi high court has passed injunction in favour of Premier Tissues India Ltd against Rolia Tissues Industries in a trade mark dispute over the name Premier. Premier Tissues alleged that the rival firm was using the mark ‘Premium’ in a way confusing customers. In its judgment, the high court said that the two sets of packaging with marks, Premier and Premium, are deceptively similar. “Prima facie, it is clear that it is a case of violation of vested rights of the plaintiff (Premier) and pirator thereof cannot become rightful owner in any manner.”