The Supreme Court has asked the evaluation committee of the Railway Ministry to reconsider the bid of M/s Ganpati RV-Talleres Alegria Track Ltd, which was rejected earlier. The tender for thick web switches was rejected at the last moment, without giving reasons.
The company alleged that there was a cartel in the bid. The railways stated that the bid was wrongly approved in the beginning due to misrepresentation. The Delhi high court dismissed the writ petition of the company stating that it had not fulfiled the eligibility criteria set by the railways. However, on its appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the high court was wrong and asked for a reconsideration of the company’s offer.
State has no power to raise permit fee on alcohol, says SC
The Supreme Court ruled last week that the government of Himachal Pradesh could not increase the levy on the import/ transport of rectified spirit and/ or potable alcohol brought from neighbouring Uttar Pradesh.
In this case, Mohan Meakin Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh, the distillery in Kasauli (HP) imported “malt spirit of over proof strength” from its units in Mohan Nagar and Una in UP. It had earlier obtained import permit from the Collector Excise, Himachal Pradesh.
The authorities imposed a higher permit fee in 1996. This was challenged in the high court, arguing that the state government had no constitutional power to do so. The company’s writ petition was, however, dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court decision and asked it to reconsider the case.
SC dismisses Tamil Nadu Electricity Board appeal in theft case
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against the judgment of the Madras High Court which had absolved the managing director and another director of Rasipuram Textiles Ltd for theft of electricity.
The trial court had convicted both of them. But on appeal the high court acquitted them on the ground that it was for the board to prove that the directors were directly responsible for the theft. This was not done by the board.
In the absence of proof that they were in charge of and were responsible for the offence, they could not be convicted, the Supreme Court said.
Customs duty relief for hospital equipment
The government grants exemption from customs duty on medical equipment if the concerned hospital reserves 10 per cent of the beds to patients from families having income of less than Rs 500 per month and it gives free treatment to at least 40 per cent in outpatient departments.
The customs department has been trying to enforce this rule since 1988, leading to a number of suits. Last week, the Supreme Court asked the customs appellate tribunal to reconsider the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital which was imposed redemption fine and penalty for importing medical equipment without paying customs duty claiming that it was giving free treatment to poor patients.
Along with Singhania Hospital, some others like Miraj Medical Centre and Balabhai Nanavati Hospital were also arrayed before the tribunal.
Cheque-bounce cases need to tried in appropriate court: SC
The Supreme Court has held that only a court in whose jurisdiction an offence of cheque bounce was committed could try the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court set the guideline as it found that there were numerous instances where complaints were being filed at more than one place to harass the drawer of the cheque.
“We cannot, as things stand today, be oblivious of the fact that a banking institution holding several cheques signed by the same borrower can not only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four different places.This only causes grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of an accused,” the judgment said in the dispute between Harman Electronics and National Panasonic India.
