In a case of bounced cheque, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled a person convicted for issuing the instrument cannot be prosecuted again on the charge of cheating about the same cheque. The cheque issued without sufficient balance in the account is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The offence of cheating is under Section 420 of the IPC. In this case, Kolla Veera vs Gorantla Rao, the convict submitted he was found guilty in the cheque case; so he could not be punished a second time for issuing the cheque as a case of cheating.
Damages should compute future service prospects
The SC last week stated that in a case of compensation for the accidental death of a person who is yet to retire from his job, the future salary increments and pension benefits should be computed to arrive at the final award. It quashed the order of the Karnataka HC as “perverse” for not considering the future prospects of the deceased person and reducing the damages. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 14 lakh to the dependents of the person, aged 53, who died in a road accident. The high court reduced it to Rs 11 lakh.The SC raised the compensation to Rs 18 lakh in the case, K R Madhusudhan vs Administrative Officer.
Debt recovery tribunal pulled up
The Delhi high court last week severely criticised the debt recovery tribunal III of the capital and the appellate tribunal for the manner in which it conducted proceedings in the case, IFCI Ltd vs Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. “It is bound to leave an impression in one's mind, if not graver, at least that neither DRT-III nor the Appellate Tribunal are discharging their functions with the concern and commitment expected from high powered tribunals.” The division bench stated “one is left with a bitter feeling that for reasons unknown, the matter is being allowed to unnecessary linger on. Colossal judicial time has been wasted by the shadow boxing rounds,” the judgment remarked. In this case, Punjab National Bank had extended various credit facilities to Bharat Steel Tubes and according to IFCI the debt stood assigned to it. Before the debt of Rs 328 crore was assigned, the bank had initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT, presided over by D C Thakur. Since then the litigation travelled to different courts, once to the SC, and was not moving further.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the order of the National Consumer Commission and held that a dealer of Maruti vehicle was not guilty of deficiency of service. The complaint in the case, Ravinder Raj vs Competent Motors Ltd, was that there was a delay in the delivery of the vehicle by the dealer, by which time the excise duty had gone up. The dealer asked the consumer to deposit the increased levy. This led to a consumer dispute. The court held that the price prevailing on the date of the billing would apply. Moreover, under Section 46A of the Sale of Goods Act, it is the liability of the buyer to pay extra price when the excise duty has been enhanced before the delivery of the vehicle. The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Customs against the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the question of ‘proper officer’ who had the power to issue show cause notice. In this batch of appeals, one M/s Handloom Carpet, engaged in the business of carpet manufacture/export, was charged with misusing the Export Pass Book scheme by selling goods cleared duty free in the open market or selling the pass book on premium in violation of rules restricting such sale. Investigations in the matter were conducted by the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, issued show cause notice to the firm. This was challenged before the tribunal. It held that that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) did not have jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not declared to be the ‘proper officer’ as defined under the law.
