The Supreme Court (SC) has quashed the judgment of the Uttaranchal high court and upheld the withdrawal of certain tariff benefits in electricity charges to industrial units in the state. The units were earlier in the undivided Uttar Pradesh state. After the new state of Uttaranchal came into being, the benefits in tariff were withdrawn. M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Ltd, a steel rolling mill, challenged the government action in the high court. It decided the case in favour of the company. The Uttaranchal Power Corporation therefore moved the Supreme Court, arguing that it had not made any promise to the industry that the benefits given by the Uttar Pradesh authorities would continue in the new state. The Supreme Court accepted the contention and allowed the appeal.
HC criticised for not arriving at fair compensation
The SC has criticised the Karnataka high court for not arriving at a fair compensation for a person who had lost 20 per cent earning capacity in a motor vehicle accident. The motor vehicle accident claims tribunal had asked United Insurance Company to pay a mason Rs 1.55 lakh for damage to one leg. On his appeal, the high court raised it by Rs 34,000. On his further appeal to the Supreme Court, it found that the high court had awarded the additional compensation “only for future medical expenditure and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all.” The high court order “starkly lack in any details on assessment of compensation,” the Supreme Court said in the judgment B T Krishnappa vs United Insurance Company. It further stated that assessment of compensation needed “proper introspection” and in cases like this, involving a mason belonging to the weaker section of society, required “a more sensitive approach”.
Insurance firm’s appeal ‘frivolous’
The Delhi high court last week dismissed an appeal moved by New India Assurance Co as “frivolous” and imposed cost on it. In this case, New India vs Vinod Massey, the parents of a youth who was killed in a road accident was awarded Rs 3.69 lakh, taking the rate of minimum wage and following the schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act. New India argued that the youth was 17 years old and a minor and therefore the compensation was high. Rejecting this contention, the high court remarked: “In a country where 40 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line and where children of the age of 8-9 years work on dhabas and tea stalls, to say that a person of age around 17 years should not be considered as a person who would work, is far from reality. There is no bar on a boy, of age of 17 years, from doing labour work and earning his livelihood or supporting his parents.”
‘Commercially ugly’ future for trade mark litigation
The Delhi high court last week rejected a petition moved by US sports drinks firm, Stokely Van Camp Inc to stop Heinz India Ltd from using a set of words to sell the latter’s energy drink. The US firm, belonging to Pepsico group, sells its ‘Gatorade’ drink in bottles with the slogan, ‘Rehydrate, replenish, refuel’. Heinz sells its Glucon D Isotonik with the slogan ‘Rehydrates fluids, replenishes vital salts, recharge glucose’. Stokely stated that the Glucon D slogan was similar and the trade dress also was likely to confuse the consumer. Rejecting the argument, the high court stated that “the expression, ‘Rehydrate Replenish Refuel’ is commonly used in the trade which relates to energy drinks. The words are not only common but perhaps in a sense, necessary to describe, the characteristics or attributes of the product. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there is a registration in favour of the US firm if the expression which is registered or an expression similar to the one which is registered is used to describe the character of the product then, within the meaning of Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the user will not be guilty of infringement.” Commenting on the nature of the case, the high court said: “This case is a classic specimen of what corporate fights are all about and how they are increasingly going to turn commercially ugly in days to come.”
The Bombay high court has dismissed the petition of Nouveaw Exports Ltd against the ruling of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction which allowed the auction and sale of assets of a sick company by the sole creditor bank. The creditor bank invoked the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act to sell the property. The company argued that since the revival of the unit under the Sick Industries Act was pending, the bank could not have sold the property. The high court rejected this contention and gave primacy to the Securitisation Act.