The Supreme Court held last week that after the death of a mining lessee all his rights came to an end and his legal heirs are not entitled to continue the lease or renew it. The Madhya Pradesh government had granted 20-year mining lease to Rajendra Bhaskar. Certain breaches of conditions were found during the inspection, which was challenged in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Six years before the lease was to end, he died and his heir applied for continuation of the lease. Meanwhile the state government granted the lease in the area to the MP State Mining Corporation. The heir moved the Delhi High Court against it. The high court held that the grant could not have been made in favour of the corporation and the heir was entitled to the unexpired period. Setting aside the Delhi High Court judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the heir ought to have moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court and not the Delhi High Court.
Recalculating compensation
The Supreme Court last week asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to recalculate the compensation to be paid to the land-owners whose land was acquired in 1994 by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. The high court had enhanced the rate from Rs 28 lakh per acre to Rs 37.40 lakh per acre in Manesar and other fast developing areas of Gurgaon district. Maruti Suzuki and others have objected to the rate which they argue as excessive. Maruti, which has a manufacturing plant in Manesar, argued that it got the land at Rs 19 lakh per acre and if it is enhanced, its financial health will be affected and the Manesar unit will have to be closed down. The state will lose Rs 8,000 crore in revenue and 20,000 workers will be rendered jobless. The Supreme Court stated that the high court has not taken into account the rate paid to Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Ltd which was Rs 60.69 lakh per acre. Even after deductions for development, the market value would be higher than Rs 37.40 lakh. Therefore the Supreme Court quashed the high court order directing fresh consideration of the issues.
The Supreme Court last week ordered the demolition of a hotel/restaurant on the banks of the Periyar river accusing the Kerala Department of Tourism and the District Promotion Council of employing "subterfuge" and "conveniently avoiding scrutiny of the project in the light of the parameters required for protection of environment of the area and the river." In this case, Association for Environment Protection vs state of Kerala, the Aluva municipal and tourism authorities tried to justify sanction for the construction, but the Supreme Court pointed out that all development schemes costing Rs 10 lakh or more should be cleared by the environment authorities according to state rules. The Kerala High Court also gave "cryptic reasons" for dismissing the petition of the environmentalists, the Supreme Court said.
Prosecution for bounced cheque
Only the drawer of a cheque which bounced can be prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The person who signed the cheque is liable and not all those whose names appear on the cheque, the Supreme Court stated last week in the case, Aparna Shah vs Sheth Developers Ltd. In this case, the wife was partner in a joint venture, but the concerned cheque was signed only by her husband. She was prosecuted and the Bombay High Court allowed it to go on. Her appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act alone was barred in such cases. Other remedies against her will not be affected by this order.
In another ruling on bouncing cheques last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint can be filed either at the place where the drawer resides or the place where the payee resides. In this case, Nishant Aggarwal vs Kailash Kumar, there were business dealings between them residing at Guwahati in Assam and Bhiwani in Haryana. "The amplitude of the Act is very wide and expansive," the judgment said and added that filing a complaint in Bhiwani was proper, though it was objected to by the Guwahati business partner who argued that it was the court there which had jurisdiction.
Insurance liability enhanced
The Supreme Court ruled last week that an insurance company cannot disown its liability in a motor vehicle accident claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle. The court further stated in its judgment, S Iyyappan vs United India Insurance Co, that the right to claim compensation is statutory and that right cannot be denied just because the driver did not get authorisation in his licence for commercial vehicles also.
Recalculating compensation
The Supreme Court last week asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to recalculate the compensation to be paid to the land-owners whose land was acquired in 1994 by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. The high court had enhanced the rate from Rs 28 lakh per acre to Rs 37.40 lakh per acre in Manesar and other fast developing areas of Gurgaon district. Maruti Suzuki and others have objected to the rate which they argue as excessive. Maruti, which has a manufacturing plant in Manesar, argued that it got the land at Rs 19 lakh per acre and if it is enhanced, its financial health will be affected and the Manesar unit will have to be closed down. The state will lose Rs 8,000 crore in revenue and 20,000 workers will be rendered jobless. The Supreme Court stated that the high court has not taken into account the rate paid to Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Ltd which was Rs 60.69 lakh per acre. Even after deductions for development, the market value would be higher than Rs 37.40 lakh. Therefore the Supreme Court quashed the high court order directing fresh consideration of the issues.
More From This Section
Tourism joint to be razed
The Supreme Court last week ordered the demolition of a hotel/restaurant on the banks of the Periyar river accusing the Kerala Department of Tourism and the District Promotion Council of employing "subterfuge" and "conveniently avoiding scrutiny of the project in the light of the parameters required for protection of environment of the area and the river." In this case, Association for Environment Protection vs state of Kerala, the Aluva municipal and tourism authorities tried to justify sanction for the construction, but the Supreme Court pointed out that all development schemes costing Rs 10 lakh or more should be cleared by the environment authorities according to state rules. The Kerala High Court also gave "cryptic reasons" for dismissing the petition of the environmentalists, the Supreme Court said.
Prosecution for bounced cheque
Only the drawer of a cheque which bounced can be prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The person who signed the cheque is liable and not all those whose names appear on the cheque, the Supreme Court stated last week in the case, Aparna Shah vs Sheth Developers Ltd. In this case, the wife was partner in a joint venture, but the concerned cheque was signed only by her husband. She was prosecuted and the Bombay High Court allowed it to go on. Her appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act alone was barred in such cases. Other remedies against her will not be affected by this order.
In another ruling on bouncing cheques last week, the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint can be filed either at the place where the drawer resides or the place where the payee resides. In this case, Nishant Aggarwal vs Kailash Kumar, there were business dealings between them residing at Guwahati in Assam and Bhiwani in Haryana. "The amplitude of the Act is very wide and expansive," the judgment said and added that filing a complaint in Bhiwani was proper, though it was objected to by the Guwahati business partner who argued that it was the court there which had jurisdiction.
Insurance liability enhanced
The Supreme Court ruled last week that an insurance company cannot disown its liability in a motor vehicle accident claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle. The court further stated in its judgment, S Iyyappan vs United India Insurance Co, that the right to claim compensation is statutory and that right cannot be denied just because the driver did not get authorisation in his licence for commercial vehicles also.