The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court and upheld the action of the Haryana government in forfeiting the earnest money of a bidder for toll collection on an important highway. In this case, M/s Malik Traders was the highest bidder and its offer was accepted within the three-month period provided in the contract. However, the firm withdrew the offer and demanded the earnest money. The state government rejected the demand, leading to a writ petition in the high court. That court directed the authorities to refund the bid security. The government therefore appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that according to the agreement of the bid, the firm had accepted the term that the bid security can be forfeited if the offer was withdrawn within the three-month period. This condition was put in to eliminate bidders who were not seriously making offer.
SC upholds tax and penalty on Multi System Operators
Multi System Operators who are engaged in transmitting signals from their ‘head ends’ to various cable operators who in turn convey the pictures to their subscribers are bound to pay entertainment tax to the state authorities, the Supreme Court held last week in the case, Indusind Media & Communications Ltd vs Mamlatdar. The firm argued that they were not ‘proprietors’ under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act and that they were not providing entertainment. So no tax was payable. The Gujarat high court and now the Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the tax and penalty on the firm. The penalty was for not disclosing the correct number of subscribers.
House mark and brand name need not be registered
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the excise appellate tribunal in the case, Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kalvert Foods India Ltd, stating that the tribunal had not considered the distinction between the expressions “house mark” and “brand name” of products. The commissioner had found that the firm, producing food items like jams and sauces had clandestinely removed excisable goods from the factory, evading duty. The tribunal quashed the finding on several grounds. It said that Kalvert used on the products was not a registered trade name. It was only a house mark. The Supreme Court stated that the tribunal was wrong on this point. It is not necessary that a brand name should be compulsorily registered. A person can carry on his trade by using a brand name which is not registered. A house mark is one which indicates the origin of the goods from a particular company. It may have several trade marks in respect of its various goods. A product may carry both trade mark and house mark. The product trade mark identifies the goods in the market and is advertised as such. House mark represented the image of the manufacturing company. In this case, Kalvert was a brand name, not a house mark. As the products carried the trade mark, they were liable to excise duty.
All partners not guilty for issuing bad cheque
The Supreme Court has stressed that while making partners of a firm accused in a case of dishonoured cheque, the magistrate should see whether they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the firm. In this case, a firm issued cheques to a person but it was returned by the bank as the account had been closed. The payee filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and two partners. During the trial, the two partners produced the copy of the registration of the firm. It indicated that there were two more partners in the firm. So the payee wanted to make them also parties. The newcomers moved the Gujarat high court for quashing this move. The high court refused to do so. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court order and asked it to reconsider the case, Sarojben vs State of Gujarat.
Compensation for disability must be fair
Describing the compensation amount awarded to a coolie, who lost his earning capacity in an accident at 35 years, as “abysmally low”, the Supreme Court enhanced it by Rs 2 lakh. The man was permanently disabled from doing any manual work due to a road accident. The motor accident compensation tribunal assessed his income as Rs 3,000 though he claimed that he was earning Rs 4,500 a month. On appeal, the Karnataka high court raised it to Rs 1.33 lakh. On his further appeal, the Supreme Court granted him Rs 2 lakh more. It said that a coolie cannot be expected to provide documentary evidence to prove his income. In this case, the insurance company did not appear at the trial to repudiate the coolie’s claim. The judgment in the case, Sri Ramachandrappa vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co, stated that compensation to be awarded is “not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount which should appear to be just, fair and proper.”