The Supreme Court stated last week that concealment of facts from an arbitrator is an act of fraud and new facts which have a bearing on the award should be allowed to be brought before him. The court stated so while allowing the appeal of US-based Venture Global Engineering against the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh high court in its dispute with Satyam Computer Services.
The high court had ruled that Satyam founder Ramalinga Raju’s admission of fraud could not be used three years after the international award in a dispute between the parties. According to the Supreme Court, “if concealed facts, disclosed after passing of the award have a causative link with the facts inducing the award, such facts are relevant in a setting-aside proceeding and the award may be set aside as affected or induced by fraud.”
Convict cannot get back job after release
The Supreme Court has held that an employee can be dismissed for moral turpitude even if he or she is released under the Probation of Offenders Act after being convicted for an offence. It is his misconduct that leads to his dismissal, the court stated in the judgment, Sushil Kumar vs Punjab National Bank. The employee was dismissed for embezzlement in 1988. After release from prison, he wanted the job back, which was denied. The court upheld the bank’s action.
Former apex court judge appointed arbitrator
The Supreme Court has appointed its former judge, Justice S B Sinha, as arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to decide the dispute between the Indian promoter of a Singapore firm and Paramount Investments Ltd incorporated in Mauritius.
The latter firm procured farm-out transactions of oil and gas blocks in Gabon for the Singapore firm with a proposal for production sharing contract in Brunei as well as in Tajikistan. Disputes arose between the two contracting parties, with one denying the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. After analysing the facts, the court ruled that there was an arbitrable dispute and appointed the arbitrator.
More From This Section
Challenge to imposition of penalty for delaying tax dismissed
The Bombay high court last week dismissed a batch of writ petitions moved by foreign airlines challenging imposition of penalty under the Finance Act, 1979 for delay in payment of Foreign Travel Tax to the Government of India. The customs authorities had issued show cause notices to the airlines for not paying the tax for international passengers.
The airlines argued that there could be no penalty for delay in payment, but only for failure to pay the tax. The customs authorities maintained that the tax should be collected and paid into the treasury within 15 days. A division bench of the high court agreed with the authorities and rejected the contentions of Malaysian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North West Airlines and Kenya Airways Ltd.
Writ petition of bank officers’ association dismissed
A division bench of the Bombay high court last week dismissed a writ petition of Bank of Maharashtra Officers’ Association asking it to declare that the scheme promulgated by the Union government in 2000 for verification of membership of officers for appointment of employee-director is illegal and against the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. The scheme provides for a procedure for verification of membership of officers’ association and for obtaining a panel of names for appointment of non-workman employee Director on the Board of Directors of nationalised banks. The court observed that there appeared to be a tussle for ascendancy between the petitioner traded union and another union as regards who had the support of majority of the officers. Rejecting the contentions of the association, the high court remarked that the scheme was working smoothly and few trade unions had complaints about it.
Injunction against use of ‘All Fleet’ trade mark
The Delhi high court has allowed the application for injunction moved by Ashland Licensing & Intellectual Property LLC against Savita Chemicals Ltd in a row over the use of the mark “All Fleet”. Ashland argued that the disputed mark was first registered in the US in respect of motor oil and in India since September 1994. Products under “All Fleet” are manufactured and distributed by “Valvoline Cummins Ltd”, a joint venture concern between Ashland Inc and Cummins Sales and Services (India). Savita Chemicals, which was accused of passing off the goods, resisted the prayer of the US corporation stating that its plea for rectification of the trade mark register was pending before the authorities. The high court rejected the argument of the Indian company that the trade mark was descriptive and therefore no claim could be made for it.