IN order to protect sandalwood and its rare varieties found only in south India, the ‘green bench’ of the Supreme Court last week passed several directions to the central government. According to one of them, the government shall take steps to include Red Sanders, which has medicinal properties and is in high demand abroad, in Schedule VI of the Wild Life Protection Act. This will make it an endangered species. It also asked the government to consult the wild life board and take a decision within six months whether sandalwood could be notified as a protected species. The court heard the Indian Sandalwood Association and the Sandalwood Oil Manufacturers Association raising some objections to the move, but Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and other sandal-producing states wanted restrictions on the felling of the trees.
Excise duty on 'related' firms
The Supreme Court last week asked the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the excise liability of M/s Food and Healthcare Specialities, which was engaged in blending and packing of Glucon D for Heinz India Ltd, according to an agreement signed in 2000. Under the agreement, Heinz was to supply raw material, packing material and technical know-how to Food and Healthcare for blending and packing. The revenue authorities demanded additional excise duty and penalty from the firm. The tribunal quashed the demand, leading to the appeal. The authorities argued that the relationship between the Food and Healthcare and Heinz was one of principal and agent and not of principal to principal and therefore, the price at which Heinz sold Glucon D in the wholesale market must be taken as the assessable value. It also contended that Heinz had complete control over the activities of the packing firm. The Supreme Court stated that this aspect of relationship between the two firms has not been considered by the tribunal in New Delhi, which passed “an exceptionally short order”. Therefore it asked the tribunal to examine the agreement between the two firms and their relationship and pass a detailed order.
NTPC rejection of bid upheld
The Supreme Court last week set aside the Delhi high court judgment and approved of the rejection of bid by NTPC of the offer of Italian-based firm Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Ltd for the supply and installation of steam generator package for captive coal-based thermal power projects in different areas. In the international competitive bidding, the offer of the Italian firm was rejected as it did not meet the minimum qualifying requirements. According to a crucial condition the manufacturer must have “designed” and “engineered” the entire steam generator and it could not be outsourced. The Supreme Court found that this condition was not met by the firm and therefore the rejection of its bid was justified.
NHAI challenge to award dismissed
The Delhi high court last week dismissed the petition of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in its dispute with RSB Projects Ltd and upheld the award of the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal had directed NHAI to pay RSB Projects Rs 1,14,11,468 against the latter’s claims. The tribunal examined the question as to which party committed breach of contract. It was held that the decision of the NHAI to cancel the award of work on Delhi-Karnal road was made on the ground that the firm had not agreed to match its price with that of the lowest bidder, which was in breach of contract on the part of the NHAI.
Ship owner wins dispute
The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd against the arbitral award in favour of Humburg Bulk Carriers Gmbh. The tribunal, by a majority of 2:1, allowed the claims of the foreign ship owners and held that the Indian firm had to pay US $ 210,499 together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from July 2001 till payment or its realization. The counter claims of Vishal Exports were rejected. Disputes arose first when the ship master alleged that “the cargo (wheat) is admixed with foreign matter and other kinds of cargo”. Then the ship could not land in Qasr, Iraq, the intended destination, due to congestion. This led to claims on demurrage charges. The high court followed the Supreme Court dictum that "once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, the court will refrain itself from interfering".
Trade mark row over Laxman Rekha
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board, sitting in Mumbai, has allowed the words ‘Laxman Rekha’ with certain restrictions imposed by the registrar of trade marks for cockroach repellants in the dispute between two claimants, M/s V Bhatia International and Midas Hygiene Industries Ltd. The former adopted the trade mark ‘Magic Laxman Rekha’ and the latter ‘Krazylines Laxman Rekha’. Bhatia’s opposition to the use of words Laxman Rekha was rejected by the registrar of trade marks, leading to the appeal before the board. The firm argued that it was the legitimate user of the mark and the adoption of the word by its rival will confuse the consumers. The board rejected the argument.