The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified the nominee of a depositor in a bank does not get ownership of the money in the account after death of the depositor. The nominee gets exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the right of the depositor as far as the depositor's account is concerned, according to Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act. But the banking law is not concerned with the succession. The money in the account will form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rules of succession. In this case, Ram Chander vs Devender Kumar, one son was the nominee of his mother. After her death, he claimed he was the owner of the money in the account, to exclusion of his brother. The same rule will apply to government savings and other investments.
Inflated power bill case ends up in SC
The SC has set aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana high court and allowed the appeal of Municipal Committee of Hoshiarpur against the inflated billing of Punjab State Electricty Board. The board claimed the connection was not proper and only one-third consumption was shown in the meter till a new one was installed. The civic authority objected to it stating it was not given an opportunity to present its case, there was no notice of inspection, no check meter was installed and the new meter was not showing the correct reading. The high court ruled after correction of the meter, the demand was justified. On appeal, the SC reversed it.
Motor parts suppliers’cases remanded to CESTAT
The SC last week set aside the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the appeal case, Aurangabad Electricals Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise. The tribunal was asked to review the case to determine if the firm had incurred the freight charges, loading and unloading charges and consumable overheads profit. The firm produced ‘magneto assembly’ by getting inputs from Bajaj Auto Ltd and supplying the finished products to it. The allegation against the firm was that it was getting inputs from Bajaj, the primary consumer of their goods at under-valued landed cost by not including landed cost of inputs incurred on account of sales tax, octroi, freight, insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges. The two firms were also accused of aiding each other for mutual business interest so that the production cost was kept at minimum and excise duty was kept lower.
Board told to reconsider Infy’s trademark case
More From This Section
The SC last week set aside the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and asked it to reconsider the trademark petition of Infosys Technologies Ltd against Jupiter Infosys Ltd. The board had struck off Infosys Technologies’ sole right over the Infosys trademark. Infosys Technologies claims to have coined the word “Infosys”. It had acquired in 1987 trademarks for business which included computer stationery, computer manuals, printed matter for computer instructional and teaching materials; computer hardware, computer peripherals, electronic telex; and machine tools and motors. These trademarks were challenged by Kolkata-based Jupiter Infosys, claiming Infosys Technologies was not using these trademarks and were exclusively functioning in software and service industry. Accepting this argument of Jupiter, the board had passed its decision in 2004. The board ordered the removal of Infosys Technologies’ mark ‘Infosys’ from the register of trade marks in respect of computer stationery, computer manuals, and printed matter for computer. Jupiter also had grievances against the board’s order. But since the court remitted the matter, it did not go into its complaints.
HC told to reconsider issues in case
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Kerala high court in a long-standing dispute between Malayalam Plantations Ltd and the state government and asked the high court to reconsider the issues. The long-winding litigation started in 1975 over the vesting of several estates in Wynad district owned by the company in the state under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Appeals have come to the Supreme Court and gone back to the forest tribunal a few times. In the latest appeal, the Supreme Court noted that both parties wanted to file additional evidence and therefore the high court should consider the issue and pass an order within six months.