An order of the consumer commission can be executed by a civil court and hyper-technicalities should not stand in the way, the Supreme Court stated last week in the judgment, HKK Bail vs Cyma Exports (P) Ltd. In this case, a person filed a complaint before the Karnataka consumer commission about not delivering a flat promised by the building company. The commission asked the builder to complete the work and hand over possession with interest on the payments. The order was final. But when the consumer moved the civil court to execute the decree, the company challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court. The latter rejected the objection but asked the consumer to move a Mumbai court as the company was registered there. The consumer then appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing his petition, the Supreme Court remarked: “It is because of these hyper-technicalities that the judiciary is getting a bad name. All sorts of objections are raised to linger on the matter as much as possible. There is the first inning in which the dispute often comes up to this court to secure a final order. Then the second inning starts to execute the order in which again all kinds of objections are raised to linger on the matter to avoid execution of the decree. Now the time has come when people of India are fed up and are not going to tolerate such delay tactics to subvert the operation of judicial orders.”
High courts can hear complaints about compensation amounts
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd against the ruling of the Bombay high court which had rejected its writ petition seeking higher interest for delay in paying compensation for land taken over by the Maharashtra government. The high court declared that the writ petition was for higher amount and such petitions should be filed in a civil court and there was no fundamental right involved to move the high court. While setting aside the high court judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the writ petition was not merely for higher interest rate on compensation, but it also raised questions of arbitrariness and discrimination by the government. Godavari mills was given a lower rate while in other cases, the land owners were given higher interest rate. Therefore, it was not merely a money claim to be decided by a civil court. The judgment said: “Primarily, therefore, the writ petition was of a public law character as it related to the public law functions on the part of the state government and its officers, and therefore maintainable.”
Garment exporters’ classification is struck down
The Delhi high court has struck down the classification of garment exporters into member exporters and registered exporters, granting them different rights and privileges. The All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild had challenged the distinction maintained by the Apparel Exports Promotion Council (APEC) and granting certain important rights only on the member exporters, like voting in the council. It sought the quashing of the relevant Articles of Associations (AOA) and rules and regulations of AEPC that bring about such classification. Allowing the petition, the high court stated that AEPC which owes its very existence to the Exim Policy has to abide by the conditionalities of the Exim Policy and cannot incorporate into its AOA restrictions as to the eligibility for membership of the AEPC in a manner inconsistent with the policy.
Petition seeks injunction in trademark case
The Delhi high court has dismissed a petition of Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries seeking an injunction against Champion Ceramics in a trade mark case. The dispute was over the trade mark of Hindustan Sanitaryware, which has a giant share in the market of bathroom and ceramic goods. It used the trademark H-Vitreous Hindware. The other company, which came later, adopted the trade mark Himware. This was objected to the other company and it sought a permanent injunction against Champion Ceramics. Rejecting the application, the court stated that though there was some phonetic similarity between Hind ware and Him ware, when the trade marks are compared there was no similarity. Even from the ocular comparison of the trade mark it is apparent that the two marks are distinct inasmuch as Him Ware is encircled in oval shaped lines circumscribing it and there is nothing which may come near to H- Vitreous Hind ware. “When the trademarks are put to the test of being considered from point of view of a man with average intelligence and imperfect re-collection, it does not get proved that the trade mark of Champion is deceptively similar to the trade mark of Hindustan Sanitaryware,” the judgment said.
