The Supreme Court (SC) has allowed the appeal of Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and set aside the ruling of the Gujarat high court which had permitted two proceedings against the insurer in a motor accident compensation case. The legal heirs of the victim, who died while riding a two-wheeler which was hit by a taxi, had sought "just compensation” under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They also moved the accident claims tribunal for “no-fault liability” under Section 163A of the Act. The tribunal awarded Rs 2.65 under the no-fault liability provision.
The heirs pursued the petition for fair compensation under Section 166 of the Act stating that the amounts granted on both counts will be adjusted against each other. The insurance company objected to this. The high court rejected its protest. Therefore the insurer appealed to the SC. Accepting the arguments of Oriental, the court stated that “The remedy for payment of compensation under both provisions being final and independent of each other, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies simultaneously. He must choose to go under either of the provisions but not under both. The claimants in this case, having obtained compensation under Section 163A are precluded from proceeding under Section 166 of the Act.”
If efficient, you can be denied VRS
The management of a bank can deny the request for voluntary retirement if it considers the officer very efficient and wants to keep him. In this case decided by the SC last week, Indian Overseas Bank vs Tribhuvan Nath, the officer joined as a clerk but due to exceptional merit and dedication to the bank, he was promoted fast and posted abroad in managerial posts. However, he applied for voluntary retirement. The bank rejected his application. He challenged the action in the Allahabad high court.
It held the bank’s decision arbitrary and even mala fide. The bank appealed to the SC. It upheld the discretion of the bank in accepting or rejecting the application according to the scheme. The bank can shed staff with inferior abilities, while it can retain officers of superior merit. No organisation would like to lose its best people, the SC said while quashing the high court decision. This officer retired before the judgment.
Special court‘s order dismissed
The SC has set aside the order of the special court on securities (1992) which had rejected the application of an investor for certification of tainted shares by the custodian on the ground that it was received after the cut-off date. The investor was denied dividends on that ground. He pleaded before the SC that he was working abroad, the sharebroker had not replied to his queries regarding the status of the shares and the delay was only of two months.
The SC, allowing his appeal in the case, Varghese Joseph vs Custodian, stated that there was no statutory rule regarding the cut-off date. It criticised the special court, pointing out that it was “duty-bound to guard the interests of the investors through the custodian at least in the case of those investors who had bona fide purchased shares of a notified company, which for reasons beyond the control of the investors, was held to be tainted.” It asked the custodian to entertain the application of this investor for verification and ensure payment of dividend, if necessary after coordinating with the concerned stock exchange.
Blacklisting of firm termed illegal
The Delhi high court last week ruled that the 2008 order of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) blacklisting Birla GTM-Entrepose Limited (BGEL) and barring it from bidding for projects for five years was illegal. BGEL is a JV company (JV) incorporated under the Companies Act pursuant to a JV agreement between National Engineering Industries Ltd and GTM Entrepose, France. It was given a contract for widening the Delhi-Jaipur highway. Later the NHAI found that certain declarations made by the JV were not correct.
This started a series of disputes between the parties. Ultimately, they came to compromise and the JV paid damages. However, the JV was blacklisted for further projects. The company challenged this action in the high court. Allowing its petition, the high court stated that “no satisfactory explanation has been given by NHAI for initiating blacklisting proceedings six years after a full and final settlement had been arrived at. This is further compounded by the fact that after the said settlement, three contracts were awarded to BGEL by the NHAI which BGEL had completed to the satisfaction of NHAI.”
Firms infringing trademark can be stopped from importing, selling
Foreign firms infringing trademarks registered in India can be restrained from importing and selling their products here according to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 the Delhi high court has stated in the case, Larsen & Toubro vs Leuci Communications. In this case, L&T complained that some eight foreign companies were infringing its copyright on mobile chargers by using its logo on identical products allegedly made in China. The high court passed injunction against the import and sale of the chargers.
As the foreign manufacturers have no presence in India, the court pointed out that the company can give notice to any customs officer requesting him to suspend the clearance of such goods. The holder of copyright can also examine suspected goods and take samples. The court order will further strengthen the power of the copyright owner, the judgment said.
