The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court which had quashed notifications acquiring land from real estate major Eros City Developers. The state government wanted integral development of the area where the internationally famous Surajkund fair is held annually, near Delhi. The firm argued it had a sanctioned plan for a luxury hotel on the acquired land. It moved the high court, which held there was no public purpose in the acquisition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled that there was a public purpose in the acquisition which was for expansion and systematic development of Surajkund tourist complex. It included development of parking area adjacent to the tourist complex near the site of the annual fair. The judgment also noted the firm had not started or completed the hotel project within the time prescribed under state development rules.
Losing money in films not deductible
Donations to an ashram cannot be exempted from income tax if the necessary certificate showing that it had complied with the conditions subject to which registration was granted to it under Section 35(2A) of the Income Tax Act was not produced. In this appeal case, Ganapathy & Co vs CIT, the income tax appellate tribunal took the view that those conditions were not material. On the other hand, the Karnataka high court ruled that those conditions were necessary to the grant of statutory registration. The firm had also claimed deduction on the ground of loss in film business. That was also disallowed by the Supreme Court last week upholding the observation of the high court that the entire transaction of purported investment and loss in the film industry was a "sham transaction and a calculated device to avoid tax liability."
The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Gujarat high court in a claim for 1,500 acres in Mundra village in Kutch district for salt production. The authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the area was earmarked for a special economic zone (SEZ). Though the first application was made by Shree Ratnagar Enterprise in 1993 and got rejected, it repeatedly renewed its request at intervals. Meanwhile, several salt manufacturers in the proposed SEZ surrendered their land. However, the firm continued its legal fight. The high court allowed its appeal and blamed the state government for delay of over two decades. It asked the government to allot land for the firm within three months. The government appealed to the Supreme Court which accepted the argument of the state that the SEZ has come up and there was no land now available in the village.
Heady litigation over whisky brand
In the decade-old trade mark dispute over the whisky brand Blenders Pride, the Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Jagajit Industries Ltd against the ruling of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Delhi high court. Both Jagajit Industries and Seagram India claimed the trade mark. Seagram, which is an Indian arm of Austin Nichols of the US and Pernord Ricard S.A., claimed that the parent companies coined and adopted the trade mark in 1973 which has world-wide reputation. The whisky was marketed in India since 1995.Though the dispute took several twists and turns in various courts over the years, this time it was over the procedures for rectification of register under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act and the power of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Interpreting the law, the Supreme Court clarified that the registrar has power to rectify the registrar on his own. This power was given to him under law "to maintain the purity of the register," the judgment said.
Ruling on place to sue in trademark case
The Delhi High Court last week ruled in a trademark case that if a Delhi company starts a hotel in Jharkhand with its name, and there is a dispute over the name, the company should file a petition there and not in Delhi. The high court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The ruling was delivered in the case, Ultra Home Constructions vs Purushottam Kumar. The Delhi firm, known as the Amrapali group, is in the business of colonising and promoting residential, commercial buildings, cinema houses, amusement parks, hotels and deals in all kinds of immovable properties. It has a hotel at Deogarh, Jharkhand, in association with Clark-Inn hotel group. Its name is Amrapali Clark-Inn. It alleged that the opposite party has launched a residential project at Deogarh under a "deceptively similar" name - Ambapali Green. The high court ruled that "because the cause of action has allegedly arisen in Deogarh, Jharkhand, and not in Delhi, the firm cannot sue the opposite party in Delhi…This court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit."
Reliance to pay farmers for bad seeds
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed the appeal of Reliance Life Sciences Ltd against the order of the Maharashtra consumer commission and directed the Ambani company to compensate farmers who bought defective banana plantlets from its agent. The farmers' complaint was that M/s Surana Irrigators, who is agent of Reliance, persuaded them to purchase Tissue Culture Banana Plantlets representing that they would be earning Rs 240 per banana plant within a year. However, when they planted them, some plantlets did not grow, whereas some other got damaged. No relief was provided to them, though the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee confirmed that the plantlets were defective. They moved the consumer forum which ordered compensation to the farmers. On appeal, Reliance argued that the plantlets were imported from Israel and it was not liable for the loss. It assailed the procedure followed by the authorities, which was not according to the Seeds Act. But the commission rejected all the contentions and upheld the order of compensation.
Service conditions after merger
The Odisha high court last week declared that NTPC is an industrial unit, which must follow the Factories Act in the matter of working conditions. Employees of erstwhile Talcher thermal power plant and state electricity board wanted the working hours and other regulations beneficial to them to be followed by NTPC in which they merged in 1995. They complained that NTPC altered the conditions to their disadvantage. While allowing some of the benefits to continue, the high court stated that service conditions against the Act cannot stand as the nature of work has changed.
Losing money in films not deductible
Donations to an ashram cannot be exempted from income tax if the necessary certificate showing that it had complied with the conditions subject to which registration was granted to it under Section 35(2A) of the Income Tax Act was not produced. In this appeal case, Ganapathy & Co vs CIT, the income tax appellate tribunal took the view that those conditions were not material. On the other hand, the Karnataka high court ruled that those conditions were necessary to the grant of statutory registration. The firm had also claimed deduction on the ground of loss in film business. That was also disallowed by the Supreme Court last week upholding the observation of the high court that the entire transaction of purported investment and loss in the film industry was a "sham transaction and a calculated device to avoid tax liability."
More From This Section
Salt farm must give way to SEZ
The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Gujarat high court in a claim for 1,500 acres in Mundra village in Kutch district for salt production. The authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the area was earmarked for a special economic zone (SEZ). Though the first application was made by Shree Ratnagar Enterprise in 1993 and got rejected, it repeatedly renewed its request at intervals. Meanwhile, several salt manufacturers in the proposed SEZ surrendered their land. However, the firm continued its legal fight. The high court allowed its appeal and blamed the state government for delay of over two decades. It asked the government to allot land for the firm within three months. The government appealed to the Supreme Court which accepted the argument of the state that the SEZ has come up and there was no land now available in the village.
Heady litigation over whisky brand
In the decade-old trade mark dispute over the whisky brand Blenders Pride, the Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Jagajit Industries Ltd against the ruling of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Delhi high court. Both Jagajit Industries and Seagram India claimed the trade mark. Seagram, which is an Indian arm of Austin Nichols of the US and Pernord Ricard S.A., claimed that the parent companies coined and adopted the trade mark in 1973 which has world-wide reputation. The whisky was marketed in India since 1995.Though the dispute took several twists and turns in various courts over the years, this time it was over the procedures for rectification of register under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act and the power of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Interpreting the law, the Supreme Court clarified that the registrar has power to rectify the registrar on his own. This power was given to him under law "to maintain the purity of the register," the judgment said.
Ruling on place to sue in trademark case
The Delhi High Court last week ruled in a trademark case that if a Delhi company starts a hotel in Jharkhand with its name, and there is a dispute over the name, the company should file a petition there and not in Delhi. The high court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The ruling was delivered in the case, Ultra Home Constructions vs Purushottam Kumar. The Delhi firm, known as the Amrapali group, is in the business of colonising and promoting residential, commercial buildings, cinema houses, amusement parks, hotels and deals in all kinds of immovable properties. It has a hotel at Deogarh, Jharkhand, in association with Clark-Inn hotel group. Its name is Amrapali Clark-Inn. It alleged that the opposite party has launched a residential project at Deogarh under a "deceptively similar" name - Ambapali Green. The high court ruled that "because the cause of action has allegedly arisen in Deogarh, Jharkhand, and not in Delhi, the firm cannot sue the opposite party in Delhi…This court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit."
Reliance to pay farmers for bad seeds
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed the appeal of Reliance Life Sciences Ltd against the order of the Maharashtra consumer commission and directed the Ambani company to compensate farmers who bought defective banana plantlets from its agent. The farmers' complaint was that M/s Surana Irrigators, who is agent of Reliance, persuaded them to purchase Tissue Culture Banana Plantlets representing that they would be earning Rs 240 per banana plant within a year. However, when they planted them, some plantlets did not grow, whereas some other got damaged. No relief was provided to them, though the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee confirmed that the plantlets were defective. They moved the consumer forum which ordered compensation to the farmers. On appeal, Reliance argued that the plantlets were imported from Israel and it was not liable for the loss. It assailed the procedure followed by the authorities, which was not according to the Seeds Act. But the commission rejected all the contentions and upheld the order of compensation.
Service conditions after merger
The Odisha high court last week declared that NTPC is an industrial unit, which must follow the Factories Act in the matter of working conditions. Employees of erstwhile Talcher thermal power plant and state electricity board wanted the working hours and other regulations beneficial to them to be followed by NTPC in which they merged in 1995. They complained that NTPC altered the conditions to their disadvantage. While allowing some of the benefits to continue, the high court stated that service conditions against the Act cannot stand as the nature of work has changed.