The Supreme Court last week raised the compensation in motor vehicle accidents in two appeals, finding fault with the high courts and motor vehicle accident tribunals for wrong computation. In Kavita vs Deepak, a 30-year-old woman was rendered paraplegic in an accident. The tribunal awarded Rs 4 lakh. On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court raised it to Rs 12.76 lakh. On further appeal, the Supreme Court directed the insurance company to pay Rs 34.38 to the woman. In another case, Rebeka Minz vs United Insurance Company, the tribunal awarded Rs 10 lakh for death on the road which was reduced by the Orissa High Court to Rs 5 lakh. On appeal, the Supreme Court raised the damages to Rs 13.5 lakh.
Govt free to set criteria in tenders
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court challenging the change in the pre-qualification criteria set by the state road transport corporation for supply of tyres and tubes. Reiterating the law on judicial review, the Supreme Court remarked that “the government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.”
Bus owners’ petition dismissed
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the writ petition of Maharashtra Tour & Travel Bus Owners Association challenging a new rule under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act. The contract carriage owners argued that there should be no tax while the vehicle is not being actually put to use, though ‘kept for use’, because they do not have the opportunity to do business. When they do not have business or is for any reason unable to do the business, there should be no tax. The government pointed out that there are 19 million vehicles and it was impossible to monitor them. Many of them are operating without permits. The high court rejected the petition and asserted that there was no arbitrariness in imposing the new tax. It was not double taxation and did not affect their freedom to pursue trade.
MNC plea on trade mark rejected
The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition by Lebanese multinational, Consolidated Contractors International Company, seeking injunction against the Indian company, Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, which is allegedly using a name and logo similar to that of the former company. The foreign company claimed to be using the logo since 1952 when it conceived and adopted its unique trading name and distinctive logo. It alleged that the logo and name of the Indian company were similar and amounted to infringement of copyright. However, the high court rejected the prayer on the ground that the foreign company approached it after an “abnormal delay” of four years which it could not explain satisfactorily.
Arbitrator’s conflict of interest
The Delhi High Court has set aside the arbitral award in a dispute between Shakti Bhog Food Ltd and Kola Shipping Ltd as the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was held to be invalid. One of the main grounds for quashing the award was that the arbitrator failed to disclose the fact concerning his having been an arbitrator on behalf of Kola Shipping in the arbitration on a related issue involving it. It gave rise to “justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality.” The high court further stated that the award was also opposed to public policy on a collective reading of Sections 12 (3), 13 (5) and 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Post-dated cheque cannot bounce
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition of Everest Engineering House Ltd seeking to quash prosecution and civil suit against it for issuing a cheque in favour of Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd which was dishonoured by the bank for insufficient fund. Everest company argued that the complaint was pre-mature since it was filed approximately five days prior to the expiry of the time period mentioned in the notice, issued in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, it was contended that the cheque was a post-dated one and had been issued as a security. Another contention was that the complaint was of a civil nature. The high court rejected all these arguments. It ruled that premature complaint cannot be dismissed if it was presented at an early date. The law only prescribes that no cognizance can be taken in such cases. Regarding post-dated cheque, the court stated that such cheques are merely bills of exchange till they become due for maturity. Therefore, issuing a post-dated cheque is not a ground for quashing the complaint.
