IN an order sympathetic to public authorities who delay filing of appeals far beyond prescribed time limits, the Supreme Court has stated that their petitions should not be “thrown out on technicalities”. The court asserted that “in the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits, unless mala fides are writ large on the conduct of the party.” This statement in the judgment, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh, comes in the wake of criticism against government authorities like the revenue department which take years to file appeals in lost cases. In this case, the trust acquired land from four land owners in 1989 but did not pay the owners. They had to move the court for the amount. It ordered attachment of the trust land to pay the owners. A company bought the land in auction. It was only then the trust “woke up from its slumber” and filed objections. Even after that the trust did not take part in the proceedings, according to the auction purchaser, delaying it for a decade. When the trust moved the Supreme Court, the company objected to the late appeal. However, the court felt that the delay in this case was not due to mala fides and therefore the lapse could be condoned. Moreover, the delay had not been “so huge warranting its dismissal on such hypertechnical ground.” No straitjacket formula should be applied for condonation of delay, the Supreme Court said while remitting the matter to the executing court to deal with the claims of the auction purchaser.
Dismissal only punishment in corruption case: SC
The Supreme Court has stated that in a case of corruption or misappropriation by an employee, the only punishment is dismissal. The punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. It does not matter whether the amount involved was big or small. Any sympathy shown in such cases is opposed to public interest, the court asserted in the case, UP Transport Corporation vs Suresh Chand Sharma. The offence involved in this case was misappropriation of amounts received from passengers by a conductor. The Allahabad high court ordered reinstatement of the employee. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the high court order.
Unrecognised union cannot be kept out in labour dispute: Bombay HC
The Bombay high court last week ruled that a labour dispute can be referred to the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of an unrecognised workers’ union. In this dispute between Bharat Forge Ltd and Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, the recognised union had 800 workers at the Pune plant. The unrecognised Mahasangh represented contract labourers. They demanded regularisation of employment. The company rejected the request as Mahasangh was not a recognised union. The conciliation officer referred the dispute to the industrial tribunal which action was challenged by the company. The division bench of the high court noted that so far as Maharashtra was concerned Section 10(1) of the Act did not insist that in arriving at its opinion the state government was required to consider whether the dispute was raised by a union recognised or not. The government did not determine the rights of the parties by referring the dispute to an industrial adjudicator. Therefore the unrecognized union cannot be “shown the door” at the threshold itself, the high court said while rejecting the company’s petition.
Delhi HC dismisses foreign institutions’ petitions
The Delhi high court has dismissed the petitions of International Financial Corporation, Washington, and Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH, secured creditors who had given foreign currency loans to Bihar Sponge & Iron Ltd, which has since been declared sick under the Sick Industries Act. The foreign institutions had challenged the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) as unfair to them as the draft rehabilitation scheme for the unit reduced future interest rate below what they claimed. The high court rejected this argument and ruled that there was no illegality committed by both BIFR and AAIFR in granting interest @ LIBOR + 1% in view of the opinion of the operating agency that increase of 3% interest on the foreign currency as demanded by the creditors would affect the liability of the company and the Debt Servicing Ratio would go below 1.33. The high court also reiterated that it was not mandatory to seek consent of all the secured creditors for approval of a draft scheme and modifications can be made by BIFR for revival of the sick company.
National Consumer Court dismisses Bayer Crop appeal
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed the appeal of Bayer Crop Science Ltd against the judgment of the Haryana state commission ordering it to compensate farmers whose cotton crops were destroyed by contaminated pesticides supplied by the company and its dealer. The farmers in Chautala village sprayed the pesticides on their crops, but after a week leaves burnt and flowers withered leading to heavy loss. The state agricultural officer attributed the 70 per cent damage to defective pesticides. The damages for deficiency in goods and services was upheld by the national commission.
