Plan disclosure under RERA to cheque bounce case, here are key court orders

Plan disclosure must under RERA, RTI
 
The details of a development plan must be disclosed if a person demands it from an information officer of a sanctioning authority. It cannot be resisted on the grounds of commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property rights. Even if the demand comes from a rival business firm, public interest overrides business considerations, especially in view of the provisions of the Real Estate Regulation Act, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment in the case, Ferani Hotels Ltd vs State Information Officer. In this case, a hotel had drawn up a plan to develop three plots belonging to a person. However, the parties fell out with each other and the property holder sought details of the development plan of the hotel from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Information Act. Though the request was earlier rejected on the ground that there was no public interest, the Bombay High Court found that there was indeed public interest as flat buyers might be interested in the information.  The hotel’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It said that the documents were with the corporation which was a public authority and there was public interest. The court emphasised that the information regarding the development must be displayed prominently in view of “the ground reality of rampant violations”. The whole case was a “legal misadventure”, said the court, while imposing Rs 250,000 on the hotel.

 
Attorney holder can pursue cheque case
 

The Supreme Court last week reiterated that a power of attorney holder can continue prosecution in a cheque bounce case. Setting aside the Bombay High Court order in the case, S K Tamisuddin vs Joy Joseph, the Supreme Court emphasised that legal heir of a person aggrieved is entitled to continue a criminal complaint. In this case, the woman who initiated the prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act died while the trial was in progress. Her son as the legal heir and power of attorney holder wanted to continue the prosecution. The High Court disallowed it and quashed the prosecution. Overruling it, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to continue with the case from the stage where the High Court had interdicted it.

 
Public interest not to override rules
 
“When the State wants to acquire the property of a citizen, which is a constitutional right under Article 300A of a citizen, it must strictly follow the procedure prescribed by law. It cannot urge that because the acquisition is in public interest, a more liberal view is to be taken. There is no question of taking a liberal or conservative view. The only view which has to be taken is the legal view,” the Supreme Court stated while quashing the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case, E A Aboobacker vs State. The High Court had upheld the acquisition of 178 acres for an infopark in Ernakulam district, though the special tahsildar had acted as the collector, which was not legal. The Kerala government justified the tahsildar’s action on the ground that he had done so under a 1989 notification. The High Court took the view that since public interest was involved, a liberal view has to be taken and the acquisition cannot be stopped on “cryptic hyper-technical ground”.  The Supreme Court stated that when the law prescribes a procedure to be followed it has to be followed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the landowners holding that the 1989 notification was not applicable to the infopark acquisition.

 
Invocation of guarantee upheld
 
The Delhi High Court has rejected the request of China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau India for an injunction against Indian Oil Corporation from encashing a bank guarantee in its dispute over laying new crude oil pipeline from Chennai Port to the refinery. The Chinese firm later blamed IOC for not providing the necessary ‘right of way’ and the Indian public sector firm terminated the contract.  It also sought the encashment of the bank guarantee issued by Axis Bank. The Chinese firm alleged that the invocation of the guarantee was iniquitous, unreasonable and fraudulent narrating the facts of the case. The High Court rejected the argument stating that if a party alleges fraud, it is required to demonstrate that it is a case of established fraud which is known to the bank. It was not done in this case. It was an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee and it should not normally be interfered with.

 
Exxon gets injunction on trademark
 
The Calcutta High Court has passed an injunction order against Exon Engineering Corporation and barred the use of the word 'Exon' by the company as it would cause “confusion and deception” with the trademark of a well-known US energy corporation Exxon Mobil Corporation. The trademark dispute was earlier considered by the Delhi High Court and in appeal by the Supreme Court. Then the issue was the question of jurisdiction. Since the Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction, the latest order was passed by it. The corporation claimed that in India alone there are over 39 registrations for the word "Exxon" for a wide variety of goods and the Indian firm was using its name to confuse the market. The Indian firm argued that it was selling fire extinguishers which were different from the goods sold by Exxon. Rejecting the contention, the High Court stated that irrespective of the nature of the product, it was likely to cause confusion and proof of intention to deceive was not essential. Mere likelihood of confusion is sufficient. The court observed that the Indian firm was seeking to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the business of the US company by using a deceptive business name.

 
Tippler is the master of his choice
 
The Chhattisgarh High Court has asked the state government to frame guidelines within a month on the procurement of liquor without discrimination and adopting a fair and transparent policy. The order was passed in writ petitions moved by Pernod Ricard and United Spirits, alleging unguided powers in the hands of the excise department and state beverages corporations.  The High Court concluded that the two firms had placed sufficient data to show that they are being discriminated against in procurement of liquor and the state policy was not transparent. The judgment stressed that “there should be a-la-carte system and the consumer, who is the master of his choice, should be allowed to purchase according to his wishes and all brands should be made available in the shops across the counter.”