A public authority can cancel a tender process and call for fresh bid in larger public interest to receive higher revenue. "When competing claims are private interest versus public interest, in the case of disposal of public property, the question would be whether the right of the person who has the right to the property in a public auction is to be preferred over the right of the public in ensuring that valuable public assets are not disposed of except for a fair price and in a transparent manner," the Supreme Court has stated in the judgment, Rishi Kiran Logistics Ltd vs Kandla Port Trust.
In this case, the firm was given a letter of intent in 2005 for a few plots for construction of liquid storage tanks. But it was subject to clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) regulations. It was not obtained till 2010. By then the price of the property had taken a quantum jump, Rs 612 per sq mtr to more than Rs 8,000. The port trust went in for a fresh tender. This was challenged by the allottees. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitions. One firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It held that "in matters of disposal of valuable assets by the state, it can seek to explore the possibility of getting a higher price." It also ruled that issuing a letter of intent did not always mean that the contract had been concluded.
Open offer cannot be withdrawn
ONGC claim for dues rejected
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) claiming preferential right to recover dues from the official liquidator of Ambica Mills Ltd. The company was wound up in 1997 by the Gujarat High Court. When a plot of land belonging to the company was sold, public sector ONGC claimed its dues for supplying natural gas to the mills. The high court rejected the claim.
The court ruled that ONGC was entitled to recover dues only on par with other secured creditors and workers under the Companies Act. There was no security created specially in its favour. The Supreme Court upheld that view.
Damages denied for short delivery
The Supreme Court has dismissed the claim of a firm, which sought compensation on account of short delivery of 264 tonnes of charcoal, sent by it from Madurai in Tamil Nadu to Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd at Therubali in Odisha by rail. The consignor firm, Shri Ramji Enterprises, moved the Tamil Nadu consumer commission more than a year after the delivery, following a dispute with the consignee. The commission allowed the complaint but the railway appealed to the national consumer commission, which dismissed it on the ground that consumer courts had no jurisdiction to deal with such complaint. Then the firm moved the railway claims tribunal. It dismissed the complaint stating that the complaint was filed too late and the consignee did not file any complaint about short delivery. The firm moved the Madras High Court without success. Its appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, citing the above reasons.
Hospital to pay for gross negligence
In a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the finding of facts arrived at by the Delhi High Court and upheld the compensation of Rs 11 lakh to a bank employee who lost his job prospects. He was admitted to the hospital for fever and when he had a delirium, he jumped out of bed from the third floor and got severely injured. He sued the hospital for gross negligence in leaving him without precautions. The hospital argued that his sister was with him. However, the high court examined the facts of the case and found that "the facts speak for itself" (res ipsa loquitur principle). According to this doctrine, it is the burden of the hospital to prove that it was not negligent. It could not do it. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court against the award of damages - the injured person for higher damages and the hospital for rejecting the claim. In the judgment, Ashish Mazumdar vs Aish Ram Batra Hospital, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the award given by the high court. The litigation took 23 years.
Restraint on three medicine trademarks
The Delhi High Court has passed injunctions in three medicinal trade mark cases. In the case, Glaxo Group Ltd vs United Biotech Ltd, the court restrained the latter from using the name 'Heprotec' for treatment of hepatitis as Glaxo had registered 'Hepitec' in 1998, and used it since 2000. In contrast, United Biotech's similar sounding name was used only in 2000. In another order, the high court allowed the application of Abbott Healthcare Ltd for restraint on the use of the name Amaforten by an Indian company while Abbot's product was named Anafortan. The name and packing were similar and tended to mislead the customer. On similar grounds, the high court restrained Remed Healthcare Ltd from using the name Mericobal for its product because it was deceptively similar to that of a medicine manufactured and marketed by Wockhardt Ltd. The latter claimed that it was the first user of the name and under an agreement later with a foreign partner, Swiss Garnier Life Sciences, it added a suffix which in full read as 'Mericobal Viva'.
In this case, the firm was given a letter of intent in 2005 for a few plots for construction of liquid storage tanks. But it was subject to clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) regulations. It was not obtained till 2010. By then the price of the property had taken a quantum jump, Rs 612 per sq mtr to more than Rs 8,000. The port trust went in for a fresh tender. This was challenged by the allottees. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitions. One firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It held that "in matters of disposal of valuable assets by the state, it can seek to explore the possibility of getting a higher price." It also ruled that issuing a letter of intent did not always mean that the contract had been concluded.
Open offer cannot be withdrawn
Also Read
The Supreme Court has ruled that an open offer voluntarily made through a public announcement for purchase of shares of the target company cannot be withdrawn when the offer becomes uneconomical to be performed. Allowing the appeal of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) against the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in the case of Akshya Infrastructure Ltd, the court said permitting such withdrawal "would give a field day to unscrupulous elements in the securities market to make public announcements for acquiring shares in the target company, knowing perfectly well that they can pull out when the prices of shares have been inflated due to the public offer". It added that such speculative practices have been sought to be prevented by Regulation 27 of the Take-over Regulations. The court further stated that SAT had gone wrong in invoking the Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirement Regulations 2009 in this context.
ONGC claim for dues rejected
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) claiming preferential right to recover dues from the official liquidator of Ambica Mills Ltd. The company was wound up in 1997 by the Gujarat High Court. When a plot of land belonging to the company was sold, public sector ONGC claimed its dues for supplying natural gas to the mills. The high court rejected the claim.
The court ruled that ONGC was entitled to recover dues only on par with other secured creditors and workers under the Companies Act. There was no security created specially in its favour. The Supreme Court upheld that view.
Damages denied for short delivery
The Supreme Court has dismissed the claim of a firm, which sought compensation on account of short delivery of 264 tonnes of charcoal, sent by it from Madurai in Tamil Nadu to Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd at Therubali in Odisha by rail. The consignor firm, Shri Ramji Enterprises, moved the Tamil Nadu consumer commission more than a year after the delivery, following a dispute with the consignee. The commission allowed the complaint but the railway appealed to the national consumer commission, which dismissed it on the ground that consumer courts had no jurisdiction to deal with such complaint. Then the firm moved the railway claims tribunal. It dismissed the complaint stating that the complaint was filed too late and the consignee did not file any complaint about short delivery. The firm moved the Madras High Court without success. Its appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, citing the above reasons.
Hospital to pay for gross negligence
In a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the finding of facts arrived at by the Delhi High Court and upheld the compensation of Rs 11 lakh to a bank employee who lost his job prospects. He was admitted to the hospital for fever and when he had a delirium, he jumped out of bed from the third floor and got severely injured. He sued the hospital for gross negligence in leaving him without precautions. The hospital argued that his sister was with him. However, the high court examined the facts of the case and found that "the facts speak for itself" (res ipsa loquitur principle). According to this doctrine, it is the burden of the hospital to prove that it was not negligent. It could not do it. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court against the award of damages - the injured person for higher damages and the hospital for rejecting the claim. In the judgment, Ashish Mazumdar vs Aish Ram Batra Hospital, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the award given by the high court. The litigation took 23 years.
Restraint on three medicine trademarks
The Delhi High Court has passed injunctions in three medicinal trade mark cases. In the case, Glaxo Group Ltd vs United Biotech Ltd, the court restrained the latter from using the name 'Heprotec' for treatment of hepatitis as Glaxo had registered 'Hepitec' in 1998, and used it since 2000. In contrast, United Biotech's similar sounding name was used only in 2000. In another order, the high court allowed the application of Abbott Healthcare Ltd for restraint on the use of the name Amaforten by an Indian company while Abbot's product was named Anafortan. The name and packing were similar and tended to mislead the customer. On similar grounds, the high court restrained Remed Healthcare Ltd from using the name Mericobal for its product because it was deceptively similar to that of a medicine manufactured and marketed by Wockhardt Ltd. The latter claimed that it was the first user of the name and under an agreement later with a foreign partner, Swiss Garnier Life Sciences, it added a suffix which in full read as 'Mericobal Viva'.