"It is unfortunate that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, the executive authorities entrusted with the task of acquiring private land for any public purposes have time and again exhibited total lack of seriousness in the performance of their duties under the Land Acquisition Act," the Supreme Court stated in the case, Women's Education Trust vs State of Haryana. All the principles laid down by the court were broken. The court therefore reiterated the cardinal principles to be followed: The landowners should be given a chance to raise objections, to prove that there was no public purpose involved, alternative land was available, the collector should give reasons for the acquisition and why it is imperative despite the objections, and his report shall be examined by the state government for its objectivity.
Refund order set aside
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had directed Engineering Export Promotion Council to refund the money deposited by one of the merchant exporters who was accused of economic offences. His brothers, partners in the firm, also deposited amounts but as they were acquitted, their money was refunded by the council. But this person was not acquitted. He requested the high court to order refund of the deposit money like other partners, and the high court allowed it. The council appealed to the Supreme Court, which said that the situation was different in the case of the accused person who was not acquitted. His plea that others were refunded the deposit would not apply to an accused person and the high court confused the cases of the two sets of persons. There was no principle of parity here. It could not have used its discretionary power to order refund, what the council, which is a channelising agency under the Ministry of Commerce, did was an "absolutely administrative action."
25-year-old labour dispute ends
SSIs lose to Bharat Petroleum
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions invoking the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to terminate the mandate of an arbitrator and refer disputes between the parties to the Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the provisions of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (MSME Act). The disputes were between several small scale units in Haryana, which make LPG cylinders and supply to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Their disputes were referred to an arbitrator in 2003 which dragged on with adjournments and change of arbitrators. Later, the MSME Act was passed. The firms, which continued to participate in the arbitration proceedings, wanted the council to decide their disputes. Rejecting the plea, the high court stated that the provisions of the Act would not apply with retrospective effect to past transactions and the new provisions can have no applicability to the facts of this case.
Bank not bound to pay premium
The National Consumer Commission has ruled that a bank which provides loan for a motor vehicle is not legally bound to pay insurance premium though it might do so as a matter of practice. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle. In this case, some farmers in Haryana took loans for buying tractors. Canara Bank granted the loan and also undertook to insure the vehicle and debit the premium from the account of the insured persons. The insurance policy of New India Assurance Co Ltd was thus renewed from time to time. But on the year the public sector bank delayed the payment, for no apparent reason, an accident took place. Therefore, under a settlement the tractor owners had to pay the accident claim as the insurance was not valid at the time of the accident. Then they moved the consumer forum alleging deficiency on the part of the bank. The district forum as well as the Haryana state consumer commission ordered the bank to pay compensation. On appeal to the national commission, it reversed the orders and stated that according to the hypothecation document, it was the duty of the borrower to take insurance cover.
Refund order set aside
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had directed Engineering Export Promotion Council to refund the money deposited by one of the merchant exporters who was accused of economic offences. His brothers, partners in the firm, also deposited amounts but as they were acquitted, their money was refunded by the council. But this person was not acquitted. He requested the high court to order refund of the deposit money like other partners, and the high court allowed it. The council appealed to the Supreme Court, which said that the situation was different in the case of the accused person who was not acquitted. His plea that others were refunded the deposit would not apply to an accused person and the high court confused the cases of the two sets of persons. There was no principle of parity here. It could not have used its discretionary power to order refund, what the council, which is a channelising agency under the Ministry of Commerce, did was an "absolutely administrative action."
25-year-old labour dispute ends
More From This Section
The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and the industrial tribunal which had directed the state road transport corporation to reinstate an employee who had indulged in corruption, came in drunken state for work and used abusive language, in the three months he was in employment. The employee had raised technical objections invoking the industrial law and the tribunal ruled that he was illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court stated that "there was no question of his being in service even for one continuous year, since he had obviously not completed 240 days of service. During this short span of service there were various allegations against him. The corporation could have discontinued him from service as it is, since he was a daily wager." Thus 25 years of litigation ended with the upholding of the dismissal.
SSIs lose to Bharat Petroleum
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions invoking the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to terminate the mandate of an arbitrator and refer disputes between the parties to the Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the provisions of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (MSME Act). The disputes were between several small scale units in Haryana, which make LPG cylinders and supply to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Their disputes were referred to an arbitrator in 2003 which dragged on with adjournments and change of arbitrators. Later, the MSME Act was passed. The firms, which continued to participate in the arbitration proceedings, wanted the council to decide their disputes. Rejecting the plea, the high court stated that the provisions of the Act would not apply with retrospective effect to past transactions and the new provisions can have no applicability to the facts of this case.
Bank not bound to pay premium
The National Consumer Commission has ruled that a bank which provides loan for a motor vehicle is not legally bound to pay insurance premium though it might do so as a matter of practice. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle. In this case, some farmers in Haryana took loans for buying tractors. Canara Bank granted the loan and also undertook to insure the vehicle and debit the premium from the account of the insured persons. The insurance policy of New India Assurance Co Ltd was thus renewed from time to time. But on the year the public sector bank delayed the payment, for no apparent reason, an accident took place. Therefore, under a settlement the tractor owners had to pay the accident claim as the insurance was not valid at the time of the accident. Then they moved the consumer forum alleging deficiency on the part of the bank. The district forum as well as the Haryana state consumer commission ordered the bank to pay compensation. On appeal to the national commission, it reversed the orders and stated that according to the hypothecation document, it was the duty of the borrower to take insurance cover.