The Supreme Court has stated that in the modern commercial world, executives are engaged on account of their expertise in a particular field and those who are so employed are free to leave or be asked to leave by the employer. Setting aside the judgment of the Orissa high court in the case, GRIDCO Ltd vs Sri Sadananda, the court observed: “Contractual appointments work only if the same are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties.” It stated so while upholding the termination of a manager in the state-owned company. He was employed for three years. Later it was extended several times. Though he pressed for further extension, his contract was terminated. He moved the high court which quashed the termination by the company. The company appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that it was a contractual matter and courts cannot exercise their power of judicial review in contracts which are of a private nature. “The court cannot sit in the armchair of the administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision could have been taken in the circumstances,” the judgment said.
Housing firms’ committed price
The Supreme Court has ruled that once a housing board committed itself on a price for houses, it cannot be revised on the ground that the land cost has gone up. In the case, Ishwar Dass Nassa Vs. State of Haryana, there was a bar under the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement against revision of price after seven years. However, after ten years, the board demanded higher price from the allottees. This was resisted by the allottees who moved the high court. It dismissed their petitions. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the high court decision. “Once the allottee pays the total price, he may not be subject to the burden of additional cost after a number of years,” the judgment explained, and added: “There is no reason why the board should not be asked to honour the commitment made to the allottees that they will not live under the fear of being asked to pay additional price after an indefinite period.”
Injunction in trade mark dispute
A division bench of the Delhi high court last week set aside the interim injunction earlier passed by a single judge in the trade mark dispute between Carlesberg India Ltd and Radico Khaitan Ltd. In the suit filed by Radico against Carlsberg, it sought permanent injunction restraining Carlsberg from using the numeral “8” as a part of its trade mark, alleging infringement of trade mark and passing off. Radico argued that it is the registered proprietor of various trade marks and “8 PM” is an essential feature of its various trade marks, like “8 PM Bermuda XXX Rum” and “8 PM Excellence Brandy”. Grievance was also against Carlsberg selling beer by launching the product in February 2011 under the trade mark “Palone 8” with the numeral “8” being used in the same font and colour as is used by Radico. Carlsberg contended that that the products beer and whisky are different and the consumer of alcohol is an informed consumer and would not be misled, as claimed by Radico. The division bench stated that Radico has a registration for “8 PM as a composite mark. But it cannot claim exclusivity over the single numeral “8”.
Cancellation of change in land use
A division bench of the Bombay high court last week quashed the order of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) of Navi Mumbai cancelling the permission earlier granted to a developer for change of use from commercial to commercial cum residential use after the developer acted on it. The corporation cancelled the permission as it found that the permission was illegal. Allowing the petition of the developer in the case, Shree Ambica Developers vs State of Maharashtra, the court stated that the stand of CIDCO that its earlier action was illegal is not tenable, since there was a provision for permitting change of user and CIDCO is not entitled to invoke public interest, particularly after the developer had invested large sums in the project.
Power corporation gets damages
The National Consumer Commission has granted compensation to Punjab State Power Corporation which had alleged losses due to deficiency in service and breach of contract on the part of Shree Polyphase (India) Ltd. The corporation wanted repair of electrical equipment supplied by the latter, namely Phantom Testing Machine and Watt Hour Testing Machine. Though the supplier had assured the corporation that the machines were of very high quality and were also warranted by their manufacturer in Switzerland, problems started cropping up in their functioning within a few months. They were not rectified leading to the complaint. It was alleged that the equipment were neither repaired nor returned for being repaired by the corporation at their cost and risk for ten years. The commission calculated compensation under various heads and asked the firm to pay damages to the corporation. It observed that the suppliers have been “grossly deficient in rendering service and have resorted to totally false and untenable grounds to escape the liability. In our view, they deserve to be sternly dealt with.”
