A woman entrepreneur should not be denied registration for government contracts because her husband had faced criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court has stated while quashing the judgment of the Allahabad high court which took a contrary view. In this case, Manyata Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the woman was the proprietor of M/s Krishna Construction which was a government-registered firm.
When she applied for renewal of the registration, she was asked to submit a solvency certificate and a character certificate from the district magistrate. The magistrate denied the character certificate because her husband was involved in certain criminal cases. She moved a writ petition in the high court, but was unsuccessful.
On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the high court was wrong and observed that the magistrate was swayed by extraneous considerations. It also noted that her husband had been acquitted in all cases. The judgment added: "It is difficult to appreciate how criminal cases against the husband could possibly deny her a certificate of good moral character." The court also found that the magistrate "invented fresh reasons for denial of certificate", like lack of experience in contract works.
HC should not stall recovery proceeding
When disputes over mortgaged land are pending before the debt recovery tribunal (DRT) a high court shall not pass orders lifting encumbrances on the land or part of it, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Maharaj Educational Trust vs SGS Constructions & Development Ltd. The trust had taken a loan from HUDCO but it defaulted in repayment.
The housing development corporation moved the tribunal seeking sale of part of the land invoking the Securitisation ('SARFAESI') Act. A builder who had an agreement with the trust objected to it and moved the Allahabad High Court asking it to demarcate certain areas as unencumbered.
The high court acceded to the request. The trust and HUDCO appealed to the Supreme Court. It quashed the high court order stating that the high court could not have adjudicated on the question of rights over the property. The judgment said that "it was not open to the high court to enter into the question which of the property is unencumbered and to be sold in realisation of the debt. It is the outlook of the recovery officer of the tribunal where the proceedings are pending."
Excise row over use of brand names
A small scale industry cannot claim exemption or concessional rate in excise duty if it uses the brand name of another manufacturer who is not eligible for the benefit. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle in the case, Kali Aeriated Water Works vs Commissioner of Central Excise. This small-scale industry was using the word 'Kalimark' as its trade mark for several years.
It was a family concern. Its members made a mutual agreement dividing their business area in Tamil Nadu where the brand is strong. When it applied for exemption granted to small scale industries under a 1994 notification the excise authorities denied it on the ground that the brand name "Kalimark" has been used on the goods which belonged to M/s Shri K P R Shakthivel. Since the firm was using the brand name of a third party, the exemption would not benefit the firm. That view was accepted by the CESTAT in its judgment.
Therefore, the firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It found from the family settlement deed that the trade mark Kalimark would remain vested in all the parties and further, there shall not be any payment of royalty or remuneration to any other party. Therefore, the firm was entitled to the excise benefit.
Failure to hit target not serious
A development officer of New India Assurance whose services were terminated for not meeting the target set by the public sector company got back his job on the order of the Supreme Court. The officer, K S Raveendran, apparently had personal problems in his marital life which resulted in underperformance. The company conducted an enquiry following which he was sent away.
He moved the labour court, which dismissed his petition rejecting his explanation. On appeal, the high court felt that stoppage of increment for three years was enough punishment, but no back wages. The officer appealed to the Supreme Court. It directed the insurance company to reinstate him with 50 per cent back wages. It stated that termination on the ground that he failed to achieve the target fixed for him was wrong.
Dispute over arbitration jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the arbitration appeal of NHPC Ltd in its dispute with Hindustan Construction Company over encashment of a bank guarantee. One of the arguments was that the agreement between them was signed at Faridabad, Haryana; the project was executed in West Bengal; the registered office of NHPCL is in Faridabad; the registered office of HCCL is in Mumbai; the bank guarantees were issued in Mumbai; and no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
It was contended that, as such, the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the high court observed that in the agreement, the venue for arbitration was mentioned as New Delhi/Faridabad. Though one part of the dispute was pending in a Haryana civil court, that factor alone would not take away the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the judgment said.
When she applied for renewal of the registration, she was asked to submit a solvency certificate and a character certificate from the district magistrate. The magistrate denied the character certificate because her husband was involved in certain criminal cases. She moved a writ petition in the high court, but was unsuccessful.
On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the high court was wrong and observed that the magistrate was swayed by extraneous considerations. It also noted that her husband had been acquitted in all cases. The judgment added: "It is difficult to appreciate how criminal cases against the husband could possibly deny her a certificate of good moral character." The court also found that the magistrate "invented fresh reasons for denial of certificate", like lack of experience in contract works.
Also Read
The state government argued that character certificate was insisted upon as there was a "contractor mafia" and criminals should be kept out of government contracts. She was a proxy for her husband as he could not apply due to his criminal background. The Supreme Court stated that though these arguments could not be faulted, it should not be achieved by a side-wind. It also underlined that it was not the magistrate, but competent authorities who should determine the suitability of contractors. If the ground situation in UP is so bad, the government should strengthen registration procedures. The court directed the magistrate to reconsider the woman's application for a character certificate.
HC should not stall recovery proceeding
When disputes over mortgaged land are pending before the debt recovery tribunal (DRT) a high court shall not pass orders lifting encumbrances on the land or part of it, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Maharaj Educational Trust vs SGS Constructions & Development Ltd. The trust had taken a loan from HUDCO but it defaulted in repayment.
The housing development corporation moved the tribunal seeking sale of part of the land invoking the Securitisation ('SARFAESI') Act. A builder who had an agreement with the trust objected to it and moved the Allahabad High Court asking it to demarcate certain areas as unencumbered.
The high court acceded to the request. The trust and HUDCO appealed to the Supreme Court. It quashed the high court order stating that the high court could not have adjudicated on the question of rights over the property. The judgment said that "it was not open to the high court to enter into the question which of the property is unencumbered and to be sold in realisation of the debt. It is the outlook of the recovery officer of the tribunal where the proceedings are pending."
Excise row over use of brand names
A small scale industry cannot claim exemption or concessional rate in excise duty if it uses the brand name of another manufacturer who is not eligible for the benefit. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle in the case, Kali Aeriated Water Works vs Commissioner of Central Excise. This small-scale industry was using the word 'Kalimark' as its trade mark for several years.
It was a family concern. Its members made a mutual agreement dividing their business area in Tamil Nadu where the brand is strong. When it applied for exemption granted to small scale industries under a 1994 notification the excise authorities denied it on the ground that the brand name "Kalimark" has been used on the goods which belonged to M/s Shri K P R Shakthivel. Since the firm was using the brand name of a third party, the exemption would not benefit the firm. That view was accepted by the CESTAT in its judgment.
Therefore, the firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It found from the family settlement deed that the trade mark Kalimark would remain vested in all the parties and further, there shall not be any payment of royalty or remuneration to any other party. Therefore, the firm was entitled to the excise benefit.
Failure to hit target not serious
A development officer of New India Assurance whose services were terminated for not meeting the target set by the public sector company got back his job on the order of the Supreme Court. The officer, K S Raveendran, apparently had personal problems in his marital life which resulted in underperformance. The company conducted an enquiry following which he was sent away.
He moved the labour court, which dismissed his petition rejecting his explanation. On appeal, the high court felt that stoppage of increment for three years was enough punishment, but no back wages. The officer appealed to the Supreme Court. It directed the insurance company to reinstate him with 50 per cent back wages. It stated that termination on the ground that he failed to achieve the target fixed for him was wrong.
Dispute over arbitration jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the arbitration appeal of NHPC Ltd in its dispute with Hindustan Construction Company over encashment of a bank guarantee. One of the arguments was that the agreement between them was signed at Faridabad, Haryana; the project was executed in West Bengal; the registered office of NHPCL is in Faridabad; the registered office of HCCL is in Mumbai; the bank guarantees were issued in Mumbai; and no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
It was contended that, as such, the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the high court observed that in the agreement, the venue for arbitration was mentioned as New Delhi/Faridabad. Though one part of the dispute was pending in a Haryana civil court, that factor alone would not take away the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the judgment said.