The Supreme Court last week asked the panel of experts set up by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation to hear and make its recommendation once again to resolve the dispute between Alstom Hydro France and Voith Siemens GMBH for the bids for turnkey execution of the Tehri Pump Storage Plant, Phase-II. The project was caught in intricate litigation in the Uttarakhand high court and the Supreme Court for more than a year. Fresh bids ordered by the Supreme Court also did not stop the legal fight. Then the expert committee was constituted by the corporation to unscramble the issue.
Still the dispute survived. In view of the urgency of the project, the court asked the panel to once again hear the contending parties and make recommendations within a month. It observed: “We are pained to note that a very important project like the present one is being held up in a legal battle between the two multinational companies. Till today, even the contract has not been finalised. All this would invariably cause loss to the nation. After all, contractual rights of these companies are not more important than the national interest.”
I-T Department appeal to penalise Reliance Petroproducts dismissed
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the income tax authorities who had insisted on imposing penalty on Reliance Petroproducts Ltd for alleged concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The firm had claimed expenditure made for paying interest on loans incurred by it by which amount it bought IPL shares by way of its business policies. The revenue authorities, however, argued that the claim of interest expenditure was without legal basis and made with mala fide intentions. The Supreme Court, while rejecting these arguments, stated that “merely because the firm had claimed the expenditure, which was not accepted, that by itself would not attract penalty. If we accept the contention of the revenue authorities, in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer, the assessee will invite penalty. This is clearly not the intention of the legislature.”
LIC pulled up for dismissing official sans right procedures
The Supreme Court has severely criticised Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for dismissing a development officer without following procedures, and even after failing in suits in three courts below, including the Rajasthan high court. Though Ram Pal Singh was charged with six offences, he was not given a proper chance to explain his conduct and the litigation continued for a quarter decade. He retired in 2000, and therefore he could not be reinstated now. However, the Supreme Court remarked that the story of this litigation conducted by the corporation revealed a “sorry state of affairs, abutting gross negligence and callous manner, not adhering to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, and challenging the case before this court even after having lost in all courts.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court order set aside
Also Read
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana high court and the Electricity Ombudsman and allowed the appeal of the Punjab State Electricity Board against Vishwa Caliber Builders Ltd. The Ombudsman had directed the electricity board to refund to the company the advance consumption deposit, service connection charges and load surcharge. Upholding it, the high court stated that the board had failed to fulfil its obligation to release the load on time. The board argued that the company had failed to fulfil its obligations and used unauthorised load and therefore the Ombudsman and the high court were wrong. The Supreme Court accepted these argument and stated that the firm had used excess load, and it was not authorised. Therefore, the board was not liable to refund the amount collected.
Renewal of registration of trademark
The Delhi high court has ruled that an application for renewal of the registration of a trade mark can be made only by a registered proprietor and not by a licencee of such registered proprietor. The high court stated so while upholding the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal in the case, RG Hosiery Industries Ltd vs Union of India. In this case, the dispute was over a trade mark, Dollor, for hosiery items manufactured by RG Hosiery. It was continuously renewing the registration, but at one stage, the renewal application was moved by its licencee, Kedia Knitwear. When a rival company applied for rectification of the registration, it was granted. RG Hosiery then moved the high court. It dismissed the appeal observing that even under the new Trade Marks Act 1999 and Rules 2002, a licencee cannot ask for renewal of the proprietor’s trademark.