The Supreme Court has referred to a constitution bench the question whether the outer packaging of consumer goods should carry a declaration about the date of manufacturing, the address of the manufacturer and other details under the Packaged Commodities Rules. Several products like watches, wireless phones, sunglasses and consumer electronics are packed twice for safety in handling and transportation. In one of the appeals in the batch, State of Maharashtra vs Subhash Arjundas, the court discussed the case of sunglasses as an illustration. The inspector under the weights and measures authority seized sunglasses from a retailer for not declaring the details on the package. The dealer stated that the goods were delivered in polythene bags or in pouches which can be opened and displayed. The package is only for protection of the goods. The authorities relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whirlpool refrigerators in which the court insisted on declaration of the details on the package. The Supreme Court in this case felt that the Whirlpool judgment has to be reconsidered by a larger bench as there were inconsistencies in defining packaged commodity in the Standards of Weights and Measures Act.
Preliminary issues before arbitration
When there are allegations of forgery or fabrication of documents in a corporate dispute, these issues should be sorted out first by the court and then only they can be referred to arbitration. The question whether there was an arbitration agreement in the deeds should be decided by the chief justice of the high court or his designate. Only if it is found that there was an arbitration clause the dispute can be referred to arbitration. This was declared in the case, Bharat Rasiklal vs Gautam Rasiklal. In this case, the partners in a family fell out and one of them moved the Gujarat high court for appointment of an arbitrator. The rival partner maintained that there was no agreement on arbitration and the relevant documents were forged. The high court, however, appointed an arbitrator. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the high court order.
Returning VRS amount
If an employee receives his payment under a voluntary retirement scheme and then challenges the termination in a labour court, he must first return the amount received by him to the company. The Supreme Court passed this ruling in the case, Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. In this case, the employee is said to have accepted the VRS and received the benefits. Later, he raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was forced to accept VRS. The Haryana government referred it to the labour court. Maruti resisted it on several grounds. The company also submitted that once the employee accepts the amount, he should return it before challenging the removal. The high court asked the labour court to adjudicate the reference on condition that the employee deposits the amount in the court with 7.5 per cent interest. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the order to return amount but the imposition of interest was found to be harsh and modified the high court order accordingly.
Automated plants for infant food
More From This Section
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha against the Bombay high court judgment which rejected its claim for a contract for providing food for infants and mothers under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. The court upheld the specification that the bidders must have Rs 1crore as turnover, have three years’ experience and must have automated machinery for precise levels for dense energy food and fortified blended mixture. Fully automated plants are desirable to ensure zero infection, as the food is distributed to infants from the age group of 6 months and 3 years and pregnant and lactating mothers.
ICAI’s moderation criteria
In a dispute under the Right to Information Act, the Supreme Court last week ruled that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India must disclose, if asked by a candidate in its examination, the standard criteria relating to moderation employed by it for the purpose of making revision. The court also rejected the argument of the institute that it had copyright over question papers and therefore they could not be disclosed even after the tests. It also rejected the argument of the institute on the burden cast on it by supplying information to failed candidates. Out of nearly 4 lakh candidates, only 16 per cent pass. If all of the failed candidates seek information on their answer sheets, the work of the institute will be stalled, it had argued. The court said that “Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place.