The Supreme Court last week allowed the prosecution of a drug company, its managing director and some directors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In this case, Dinesh Patel vs State of Gujarat, the directors argued that they were not actively involved in the manufacture and sale of the adulterated drugs. The court stated that their role should be determined in the trial and therefore, the prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold itself.
Restaurant evicted from airport premises
Airport Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport Ltd have succeeded in evicting a deluxe restaurant from the terminal premises after 10 years of litigation. The Supreme Court last week allowed their appeal against the Bombay high court order in their case against ‘Golden Chariot’ which argued that it had been given a licence which was extended twice. According to it, the licence was irrevocable. The court asserted that licences are revocable by their very nature and the party had enjoyed the possession of the premises for 10 years even after the licence was cancelled. It asked the restaurant to pay Rs 5 lakh as costs of litigation, to be paid to the mediation centre in the Supreme Court.
Sales tax relief for imported goods
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Calcutta high court and granted central sales tax exemption to Indure Ltd, which had imported MS Pipes for the Farakka super power thermal project of NTPC. The firm claimed that the import was exempt from duty under Section 5(2) of the Act. But the authorities rejected it arguing that the imports were not necessary, nor was it mandatory under the contract. The court noted that the imported items were in fact used by NTPC in its ash handling plant without altering its originality. Therefore, the imports of pipes were an integral part of the contract and exempt from the levy.
Housing board told to refund deposits
Upholding the judgment of the National Consumer Commission, the Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Chandigarh Housing Board, which had refunded only part of the earnest money and other dues from 53 cooperative housing societies. The board could not distribute the promised land for building flats and therefore the members demanded refund of their deposits with 18 per cent interest. The board did not refund the full amount or the interest. The court asked the board to refund the amount within three months and also awarded costs of Rs 25,000 to each of those who complained to the consumer court.
Settlement commissioner’s powers defined
The Bombay high court has dismissed the appeal of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence which had challenged the power of the Settlement Commissioner to settle proceedings initiated by customs authorities for recovery of duty drawback. The authorities had issued show cause notices to seven importers. They moved the settlement commissioner. This was challenged by the authorities. When the issue was taken to the high court, it ruled that “the duty drawback or claim for duty drawback is nothing but a claim for refund of duty, may be as per the statutory scheme framed by the Government of India or in exercise of statutory powers under the provisions of the Act.” It agreed with the five-member special bench of the commission that it had jurisdiction to deal with such cases.
IRDA’s powers upheld
The Delhi high court last week upheld the powers of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India to direct a firm to stop issuing, marketing or selling insurance policies or collecting money towards insurance premium or carrying on any related activity. In this case, Radiant Overseas Ltd had a broker agreement with Ukranian firm, Ukrinmedstrakh, which dealt with medical insurance for foreigners. IRDA asked the Indian company to stop its business as agent of the foreign firm. This was challenged in the high court. It dismissed the petition stating IRDA has the power to regulate the business conducted in this country.
A mother won't disinherit only son, grandsons, says HC
A mother, in the ordinary course of events, is not likely to exclude her only son from her will, Bombay High Court has said in a case pertaining to the validity of the legal document. The will, made in favour of daughter, could not be proven as it was "unnatural" the High Court held in a recent ruling. At the same time, the court refused to validate another will, in son's favour, as he could not produce the witnesses who had attested it. Prithviraj Patel and Meena Patel's mother passed away in July 1990. Upon the death, two wills were found. First will was made on May 24, 1989, when UK-based Meena was visiting her mother. This will excluded the son, Prithviraj, from inheritance as “he had mismanaged” his father's properties. By this will, daughter got all the property. The second will was produced by the son, which gave him mother's flat in South Mumbai among other things. This will bore the date March 9, 1990. Both have challenged wills produced by the other.
