SC allows appeal to Division Bench

LEGAL DIGEST

A five-judge Constitution Bench, by a majority of three to one, has ruled that an appeal can be filed against an order of execution of decree by the single-judge Bench of the high court to a Division Bench.

In the PS Sathappan vs Andhra Bank case, proceedings for the recovery of the amount by the bank was hanging fire since 1976. The petitioner had challenged the auction sale of his ginning factory to realise the amount owed to the bank.

But his petition was dismissed by the single-judge Bench of the Madras High Court. He moved the Division Bench of the same high court in terms of the Letters Patent provisions of the high court. But it was dismissed by the high court stating that Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code barred such an appeal.

Therefore an appeal was moved in the Supreme Court. It referred the question to the Constitution Bench in view of the conflicting views of the court on this issue in trade mark and arbitration cases. The Supreme Court has now allowed appeal to the Division Bench.

'Polluter pays' norm against mining firm

Mining without proper licence and damaging the ecology could prove costly as the recent orders of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court indicate. The miner who went about his activities may be asked to compensate the state and the people around the site, applying the principle of "polluter pays".

The people around the mining area moved a writ petition in the Madras High Court against the mining activities. The high court quashed the grant of licence in his favour and asked the authorities to assess the loss caused by mining to the government so that it could be recovered from him. He moved an appeal in the Supreme Court.

In its order, RK Ramasamy vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court asked the authorities to proceed with the estimate of loss and determine the amount of loss suffered by the state on account of illegal mining.

SC upholds dismissal of unruly workers

The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of workers of a tea estate in Assam who came armed with deadly weapons and gheraoed the manager for eight hours at night and damaged the property of the estate. The labour court had found them guilty and approved of the dismissal.

But the Gauhati High Court ruled that the labour court was wrong. It asked the management to reinstate workers and pay them compensation as laid down in the judgment.

The management moved the Supreme Court. In its judgment in the Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh case, the court went through the evidence and found that the workers did indulge in riotous behaviour. The charges were grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal, the judgment emphasised.

Car insurance policy does not cover owner

The Supreme Court has ruled that a comprehensive insurance policy for motor vehicles will not cover injury to the owner of the vehicle. An owner of a vehicle can claim compensation from the insurance company only if a personal accident insurance policy has been taken out, the court held in the Dhanraj vs New India Assurance Co Ltd case.

In this case, the owner of the jeep was travelling in his vehicle, which met with an accident. In the claim petition, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the driver and the insurance company to pay compensation to the owner.

The insurance company moved an appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It held that as the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle, the company was not liable to pay compensation.

On appeal, the Supreme Court said the question was whether a comprehensive policy as in this case would cover the risk of injury to the owner also. Analysing Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it concluded that it would not. It covered only third parties.