The Supreme Court has resolved a conflict of views between the Bombay and Delhi high courts on the question of interest on refund by central excise authorities in its judgment in a batch of cases, led by Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs Union of India. The Delhi high court view was overruled and the Bombay decision was upheld as the correct one. As a result, the final law as laid down by the Supreme Court is that the liability of the central excise department to pay interest under the Central Excise Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund and not on the expiry of the period from the date on which order of refund is made.
Food inspectors cannot be substituted by sanitary staff
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Rajasthan high court directing the state government to appoint sanitary inspectors as food inspectors. The high court found that there were serious complaints regarding the manufacture and sale of synthetic milk in two districts. It directed the Collectors there to appear in person before it. They stated that the Chief Medical Health Officer had initiated action and an inspection team had taken food samples and sent them to the laboratory. The high court found that the Chief Medical Health Officers and Deputy Chief Medical Health Officers had been vested with the powers of the food inspector, though they did not have the requisite training. Though the government wanted to appoint food inspectors, the finance department did not cooperate and the posts remained vacant. Therefore, the high court directed the state to fill up the posts with sanitary inspectors. The government appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the high court could not have passed such an order under the Food Adulteration Act and rules. The court agreed with this argument and allowed the appeal.
High courts cannot review evidence in disciplinary action
The Supreme Court has reiterated that high courts should not sit like an appellate authority in a case of disciplinary action against a bank employee. The finding of facts by the disciplinary authority should be taken as final as long as it is supported by evidence. A high court should not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, the judgement emphasised in the appeal case, State Bank of India vs Ram Lal. The bank had dismissed a branch manager for grave misconduct and several irregularities in dealing with accounts, after an inquiry. His appeal was rejected by a reviewing committee. He appealed to the Allahabad high court. It quashed the order of dismissal. Since the manager had already retired by then, the high court ordered the bank to release the arrears of salary as well as the post-retirement benefits. Therefore, the bank appealed to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the high court judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that in a writ petition like this, the high court does not sit like a court of appeal and review the evidence against a public servant. It can only verify whether the procedure had been followed before disciplinary action was taken and whether the authority had the power to take action.
Directors of investment firm to stand trial
More From This Section
The Delhi high court has dismissed the petition of directors of Master Green Forest Ltd who had sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them in a complaint moved by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused company was operating collective investment scheme and raised a huge amount from the general public in contravention of the SEBI Act. It was also alleged that the directors were in charge of the conduct of the operation and they connived with the company. The trial court joined the directors also as parties and summoned them. So they moved the petition in the case, Daya Ram Verma vs SEBI. The court dismissed their petition.
Restaurant to pay damages for death of customer in mishap
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed the appeal of the owner of a restaurant, the roof of which collapsed and killed a young bank executive in Secunderabad who had come to take his dinner. The Andhra Pradesh state commission had ordered compensation to his mother who is a widow. The owner of the building and the restaurant came on appeal. They argued that the youth was not a ‘consumer’ according to the Consumer Protection Act. Rejecting the contention in the case, Savita Prem vs P Lakshmikutty, the commission stated that “where there is deficiency in maintenance of the structure of the eating house, it goes without saying that there is deficiency in service offered to the customers of the restaurant. The safety of the building, comfortable and proper sitting arrangement in the restaurant along with proper service of eatables are the services clearly expected by any consumer. No customer would enter the death trap of such a dilapidated structure. We cannot accept the argument that the services of catering and the maintenance of the restaurant are different kind of services, and, therefore, the proprietor of the restaurant could not be blamed for deficiency.