The Supreme Court held last week that even if lender institutions condone the fraud committed against them and settle their complaints against the offenders, the prosecution should normally go on. Courts should not quash the prosecution of non-compoundable offences unless the facts justify it, the judgment in the case, Ashok Sadarangani vs Union of India, said. In this case, Bank of Maharashtra and Union Bank of India had filed cases against two persons for submitting forged property documents as collaterals and utilised the facilities for opening letters of credit in respect of foreign supplies of goods. While the CBI court proceedings were pending, the lenders offered a one-time settlement and following the compromise, the dues were paid. The accused persons then moved the court for quashing the prosecution as the complaints have been settled. The Supreme Court did not agree. Though the court has discretionary power to quash the proceedings in exceptional circumstances, this was not such a case, the judgment said while dismissing the pleas of the accused persons.
Deposit in court is ‘payment’
The deposit of the amount awarded by an arbitrator in the court can be considered as payment to the party to whom it was due, the Supreme Court stated in the case, HP Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Ranjit Singh. As a result, there should not be further interest chargeable on the amount till the amount reaches the payee. In this case, there were disputes between the housing development authority and a contractor who had undertaken to build a residential complex in Shimla. The arbitrator’s award was in favour of the contractor. The authority appealed to the high court against it. It was asked to deposit the award amount in the court. Then the question arose about the interest of 18 per cent on the amount till the actual payment to the contractor. The high court ruled that interest should be paid till the actual payment. The authority appealed to the Supreme Court. It modified the high court ruling and stated that “the deposit of the award amount into the court is nothing but payment to the credit of the decree holder.” Therefore, the contractor was not entitled to further interest till he got the money.
Curb on CESTAT practice
The Supreme Court last week dismissed a batch of writ petitions by upholding the bar on members of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) from practising before the forum after demitting office. In this case, N K Bajpai vs Union of India, some ex-members of the tribunal challenged the restriction imposed by Section 129(6) of the Customs Act as unconstitutional. The rule was introduced by the Finance Act 2003. The court stated that the restriction was not an absolute bar, but only in the range of reasonable restrictions. “In modern times, there are so many courts and tribunals in the country and in every state, so that this restriction would hardly jeopardize the interests of any hardworking and upright advocate,” the judgment said, and added: “Such a restriction is intended to serve a larger public interest and to uplift the professional values and standards of advocacy in the country. In fact, it would add further to public confidence in the administration of justice by the tribunal.”
Ad firm gets insurance money
The National Consumer Commission has asked United India Insurance Company to compensate Haabia Advertising (India) Ltd for the loss of 120 hoardings put up in Vishakapatnam. The hoardings were removed by the municipal authorities. The firm moved the Andhra Pradesh high court against it and it ruled that the removal of the hoardings was illegal. Then the firm sought damages from the insurer. It took the stand that the hoardings were removed by the civic authorities and it had not indemnified such eventuality. The state consumer commission accepted the defence. But on appeal, the national commission ruled that the insurer was liable to compensate the advertising firm. The judgment said: “The high court had held that removal of the hoardings was illegal and the officials concerned had no authority to do so. In view of these explicit findings of the high court, it was not open to the insurance company to contend that removal of these hoardings was in accordance with law.”
IPAB order to remove logo
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the logo ‘Wealthadvisors’ from the register on a petition moved by Citibank of New York. The logo was claimed by Wealth Advisors (India) Ltd. Citibank argued that it was the proprietor of the trade mark ‘Citi Wealth Advisors/Citigroup Wealth Advisors. According to it, ‘Wealthadvsiors’ is descriptive and it would be against public interest to grant monopoly to a single trader to that word. The Indian firm contended that Citibank was not the registered proprietor of the service mark ‘Citi Wealth Advisors’ and ‘Wealthadvisors’ is a coined word eligible for registration. The board stated that the mark should be rectified because the trade mark consisted of words which were purely descriptive.
