The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Allahabad high court in a dispute over the distributorship of LPG gas supplied by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ten persons were interviewed and awarded marks according to the criteria laid down in the brochure issued by the public sector company. One person was selected. This was challenged by a failed candidate in the high court. Following the order of the high court, the company cancelled the whole list and started the selection process all over again. The successful candidate in the original list now appealed to the Supreme Court. In the judgment, Monika Gupata vs Union of India, the court set aside the orders of the high court and the company and directed them to allot the contract to the winner in the first list.
SC ruling in Md Ashif vs State of Bihar
The Supreme Court has ruled that if the initial appointment of an employee was irregular, he has no right to regularization even though he had worked in the post for many years. In this case, Md Ashif vs State of Bihar, a number of voluntary health workers were appointed to run state-run dispensaries for an honorarium of Rs 50. After some time, the chief medical officer regularized them as primary health workers and they worked thus for 15 years. Then their services were terminated. They challenged the action in the Patna high court where they failed. The employees appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their petition stating that their initial appointment by the chief medical officer was illegal and therefore they could not claim any right to the employment.
Delhi HC dismisses Bhushan Steel petition against Danish company
The Delhi high court has dismissed a petition moved by Bhushan Steel Ltd against a Danish company in a dispute over consignments of coated steel coils to Europe. The foreign company found that some goods were not according to its specifications and therefore it rejected them. Both of them demanded money from each other. Following this dispute, the foreign firm moved the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The Indian company, however, challenged its jurisdiction and contended that the terms of arbitration in the contract were vague and unenforceable. The Danish firm argued that a civil court cannot decide whether an arbitration clause in an agreement is null and void as its jurisdiction was barred by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. According to that provision, judicial intervention should be avoided in arbitration. Any grievance regarding the contract should be addressed to the arbitrator, it contended. The high court accepted these contentions and pointed out that the arbitration clause under consideration clearly mentioned that the place of arbitration will be Singapore. Thus the application of Bhushan Steel was rejected.
HSBC appeal dismissed by National Consumer Commission
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed the appeal of HSBC Ltd which was found guilty by the Chandigarh consumer commission of deficiency in service in not disbursing housing loan amounts which it had promised to a non-resident couple. Sridhar Gajula and his wife booked a flat being built by Omaxe Ltd with a loan sanctioned by ICICI Home Finance Co Ltd. Later, the builder raised the cost. Then a representative of HSBC approached the couple and promised to disburse the entire loan including that owed to ICICI company. This was accepted by the couple. However, HSBC did not keep up the promise leading to penal interest which the couple had to pay. They moved the Chandigarh consumer commission which absolved Omaxe and the ICICI firm of responsibility and fastened the burden entirely on HSBC. The latter appealed to the apex body. The national commission dismissed the appeal observing that “perhaps as a measure of aggressive marketing strategy” HSBC took over the burden but it did not have any valid defence for its conduct.
Delhi High Court dismisses Himalaya Drugs suit with cost
The Delhi high court has dismissed with cost the suit moved by Ayurvedic firm Himalaya Drugs Co against homoeopathic drug manufacturers SBL Ltd in a trade mark dispute. Himalaya, which produces Liv 52 which is intended to cure liver diseases sued SBL arguing that the latter’s product, Liv T infringed its trade mark as they were deceptively similar. The homoeo firm argued that Liv was a generic word and the packaging, cartons, labels including the distinguishing features are different as are the colour schemes, placement of letters, and all other features. The word Liv was really an abbreviation of Liver which is a generic name of an organ. It is, in any event, understood as such. There were a number of drugs in the market using the prefix. The court accepted the argument of SBL.