The Supreme Court (SC) last week dismissed the appeal of Maharashtra against the order of the Bombay high court in an arbitration dispute with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. The company was given Stage IV of the Koyna Hydro Electric Project and differences arose over the amounts due and other issues. The disputes were referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The award was against the state and told to pay Rs 17 crore with interest. The government’s appeal was dismissed by the Ratnagiri district judge. It moved the high court, with additional grounds for opposing the award. The high court did not allow the new grounds. It appealed to the SC. It dismissed the appeal stating the government could not add new grounds to oppose the award after failing in the original petition. The judgement said: “New grounds containing new material/facts could not be introduced for the first time in an appeal when admittedly these grounds were not originally raised in the arbitration petition for setting aside the award.”
IT show cause notice need not give reasons
A show cause notice to reopen assessment of state commercial taxes need not show the ground for the proposed action, the SC ruled in the case, Supreme Paper Mills Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, Kolkota. The firm in this case received a show cause notice under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act asking it to explain why its returns should not be reviewed. It moved the state taxation tribunal and the Calcutta HC which dismissed its petitions as they held the authorities only issued show cause notice but did not pass any final order. The SC upheld the high court order and stated that under the Act, the commissioner can issue a notice on his satisfaction on receiving information which indicated the firm made incorrect statements on his sales or turnover.
Once with JV, you are there
If employees of a government undertaking opts to move to a joint venture with security of service conditions, and the joint venture closes down, they cannot claim a right to return to the parent company, the SC ruled last week in the case, Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd vs S Manickam. Some employees in the Magnesite Ltd were rendered surplus and therefore given a choice to work in a joint venture between the state and a private company. The employees opted for the joint venture. But it closed down. So they approached the Madras high court for re-absorption in the government company. The high court asked the government company to take them back. On the company’s appeal, the SC set aside the high court’s order stating the employees opted for the JV with “eyes open” and they chose the “lesser of two evils” as they would have been terminated if they had not gone to the JV.
Insurance firm told to pay up
More From This Section
The SC has set aside the ruling of the National Consumer Commission and asked Oriental Insurance Company to compensate the owner of a car, Amalendu Sahu, in a motor accident claim. His car was taken by a friend and met with an accident. The insurer argued it was not used for personal use but given on hire, which was a breach of the policy. The owner claimed he had taken a comprehensive insurance policy and he did not let the vehicle on hire. All the consumer fora up to the national commission upheld the insurer’s view. On appeal, the SC reversed their findings and applied the formula for “non-standard” claims, devised by the national commission itself in a 1996 case involving New India Assurance Co Ltd. According to the formula, the owner in this case was entitled to 75 per cent of the admissible claim.
Disabled in pvt firms have no security
The SC last week stated that the protection for disabled employees under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act is available only to those who are in public employment, and not in private companies. The court thus dismissed the petition of a telephone operator who lost his hearing by 85 per cent while in service. Though the disability commissioner recommended to the employer to give him a suitable post, the company did not do so. In the appeal case, Dalco Engineering (P) Ltd vs Shree Satish, the Supreme Court accepted the argument f the company that it was not covered by the Act.
However, in another case, involving a public trust, the court stated that it was obliged to follow the non-discrimination rule under the Act and it was obliged to give a handicapped employee an alternative job in the same establishment.