The Supreme Court last week appointed former Kerala Chief Justice Justice Arvind Sawant (Retd) as the arbitrator in the dispute between the Chennai company Speech & Software Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd and Neos Interactive Ltd of London. Differences had arisen between the parties on the execution of the services agreement of 2006.
The Chennai firm was providing services on payment. Disputes arose when it alleged that payments were not made and the London company contended that the tripartite agreement had ceased to exist. The Supreme Court found that the agreement with the arbitration clause was active and there was an arbitrable dispute between the parties. Therefore, the plea of the Chennai firm was allowed and the arbitrator was appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
National Consumer Commission judgment in Punj Lloyd case set aside
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the National Consumer Commission in the dispute between Punj Lloyd Ltd and Corporate Risks India Ltd in which the commission stated that the case involved complicated and disputed questions and therefore they should be decided by a civil court. The commission did not even issue notice to the opposite parties.
Corporate Risks is a company registered with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and is an insurance and re-insurance broker which had approached Punj Lloyd explaining that it had the competence and expertise to arrange the specialised and high-priced insurance and re-insurance cover required for the Uran-Trombay Pipeline Project. Based on the assurance, it was appointed as its insurance broker for arranging the desired insurance for Rs 6.61 crore, with Oriental Insurance Co Ltd as lead insurer. When the dispute was taken to the commission, it dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the Supreme Court said that the commission was not justified in rejecting the complaint merely by stating that the complicated nature of facts and law did not warrant any decision on its part before even issuing notice to the opposite party.
Reinstated employees not necessarily entitled to back wages, says SC
Employees who get reinstated following an order of the industrial court do not necessarily become entitled to payment of full or partial back wages, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, Kanpur Electricity Supply Co Ltd vs Shamim Mirza. In this case, certain cashiers were employed at the sub-stations of the electricity company which were run by contractors. Their services were terminated after two years. So they moved the labour court and it ordered the company to reinstate them with full back wages. The company appealed to the Supreme Court. It upheld the order of reinstatement, but ruled that they were not entitled to back wages.
Retirement benefits of a guarantor cannot be attached: SC
A creditor bank cannot attach the fixed deposits of a guarantor who had received the money from his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits, the Supreme Court asserted in the judgment, Radhey Shyam vs Punjab National Bank. Radhey Shyam had stood guarantee for another person to buy a motor vehicle. The amount was not repaid. The vehicle was not traceable. Therefore, the bank proceeded against the guarantor who had invested his retiral benefits in fixed deposits with the bank. He objected to it as it was not permitted under the Civil Procedure Code. The district court asked the bank to first sell the vehicle before proceeding against the guarantor. On appeal, the high court reversed that order. However, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the district court.
