The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Gujarat high court and directed the sale of a wound-up company in Veraval at a higher price so that creditors will get their dues. The company judge had first ordered the sale at a one price, but recalled its order when a higher offer was made by another party. However, when one of the losing bidders moved the division bench of the high court, it confirmed the sale at the earlier price on the ground that a confirmed auction sale cannot be set aside merely because subsequently a higher price was offered by one of the bidders. Now the bidder offering higher price appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the division bench order asserting that the offer of a higher price should be welcomed as it would benefit all the creditors. “If the order of the division bench is sustained, the creditors are bound to suffer because the amount available for repayment of the dues of the creditors would be a paltry sum of Rs.127 lakhs. As against this, if the new offer is accepted, the official liquidator will get an additional amount of more than Rs.4.25 crores. The availability of such huge amount will certainly be in the interest of the creditors including Gujarat S Industrial Investment Corporation,” the Supreme Court said in the judgment, Shradhha Aromatics Ltd vs Official Liquidator of Global Arya Industries Ltd. The court clarified that this decision would not be a precedent for similar cases. “Ordinarily, this court is loathe to accept an offer made by any bidder or a third party after acceptance of the highest bid/offer,” the judgment said.
Supreme Court upholds government policy in container terminal bid
Setting aside the judgment of the Bombay high court in the dispute over bids for the fourth container terminal in Jawaharlal Nehru Port, the Supreme Court has upheld the government policy in the judgment, APM Terminals vs Union of India. The court observed: "The Central government was within its powers to adopt a policy to prevent the port facilities from being concentrated in the hands of one private group or consortium which could have complete control over the use of the facilities of the ports to the detriment of the shipping industry as a whole," It directed the government to allow Danish-based AP Moller-Maersk Group (APM Terminals) to bid for the fourth container terminal. The order asked the port authorities to allow the Dutch firm to participate in the tender process . The company had challenged the government policy of not allowing existing operators to bid for the immediate next terminals. According to the policy, The court asserted that the government has the right to make a policy to prevent companies from bidding for the immediate next terminals so that no monopoly of cargo firm is created. The court upheld the policy. It had tagged another case of PSA Sical Terminals' bid for the eighth berth container terminal at Tuticorin Port with that of AP Moller-Maersk Group's case. It, however, upheld a decision to exclude the bids of PSA Sical Terminals.
SC directs motor vehicle owners to prevent misuse
The Supreme Court has stated that it is the duty of the owner of a motor vehicle to ensure that it was not misused. Therefore, he would be liable to pay compensation for the accident if the vehicle is driven by a minor. The owner was asked to pay Rs 8 lakh to the family of a man who died in a road mishap in this case, Jawahar Singh vs Bala Jain. The court rejected the plea of the owner that the minor, who is his nephew, had taken away the key of the motorcycle without his knowledge and as such he cannot be held responsible. "We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was the minor, who came on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility of causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of the minor.
" Delhi HC rejects petition of Champagne Moet & Chandon
The Delhi high court has dismissed the writ petition of French company Champagne Moet & Chandon objecting to the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissing its appeal against an order of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks in a trade mark case. The company is a well-known manufacture of wines which it is selling under the trademark Moet, Moet & Chandon and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world, including India. It objected to a Delhi firm selling meat products adopting the name M/s Moets. It argued that both the products were for the table, being food and drink and therefore the Indian firm dishonestly adopted the same mark. The registrar rejected the objection stating that though the marks were identical, the products were different. In the high court the Indian firm argued that the name was taken from ‘Mohit’, the name of one of the partners who was called Moet when he was a child. Considering all the arguments of the competing firms, the high court upheld the stand of the registrar and the board.