Justice Kumar to decide plot dispute

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has appointed Justice Arun Kumar (retd) as chairman of the arbitral tribunal in the dispute between Rodeman India Ltd, a foreign company, and International Trade Expo Centre Ltd.

The Indian company had the lease of a plot on the outskirts of Delhi on which it wanted to develop an exhibition centre. The foreign company was given exclusive right to manage the plot for that purpose.

Later, disputes arose and the foreign company got a stay from the Delhi High Court against its removal and then invoked the arbitration clause. Both the companies appointed arbitrators, who could not agree on certain points.

Therefore, the Supreme Court was asked to appoint a chairman of the panel. The court chose, exercising its power under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Justice Arun Kumar.

Order against leather unit set aside

The Supreme Court, in the Nanya Imports & Exports Enterprises versus Commissioner of Customs case, set aside the order of the Customs tribunal and granted duty exemption to the firm, which deals in leather footwear materials and accessories.

The company imports PU-coated leather fabrics, extensively used in the leather footwear industry as "insoles and midsoles".

The imported sheets were rolled up for convenience in loading and transport. The authorities denied the benefit under Notification 20 maintaining that the goods were actually "films" or "running sheets" and therefore not entitled to the benefit.

The court held that the burden of proving that the goods were not sheets was on the authorities. A mere assertion would not do, the judgment said.

Bank suit not time-barred

The Supreme Court has held that the loan recovery suit filed by Syndicate Bank against the directors of Gadag Forge Fits (India) Ltd, a liquidated company, was well within time.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court which took a contrary view. When the company failed to clear its debts, the bank sued the directors. They argued that the suit was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by law.

The high court accepted this view. On the bank's appeal, the Supreme Court explained that the time bar would not operate from the time the operations of the company ceased, but when the demand was made by the bank against the directors. Thus, the suit against the directors could proceed, it said.

No payment for lost Vikas Patras

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the central government is not bound to replace Indira Vikas Patras which are lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition.

Some consumer forums, civil courts and high courts had held that since the loss of the patras was bona fide and no one else had claimed the amount, the original holder was entitled to the maturity amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the central government against those judgments.