The Supreme Court (SC) last week set aside the judgement of the Orissa high court which had quashed the revision of electricity charges on different categories of consumers. Several industries had challenged the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, especially the provision that enabled the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd to increase tariff up to 17 per cent. The high court quashed the tariff notification of 1996 by which certain categories of consumers had to pay more than 17 per cent while some others paid less. The SC justified the difference as certain consumers like farmers were charged only 8.3 per cent, the railway 10 per cent and domestic consumers 17.47 per cent. The SC agreed with the Grid Corporation which argued that the ceiling of 17 per cent tariff raise was not for each category. The corporation was entitled to hike rates in respect of some categories of consumers beyond 17 per cent.
Promoters can’t sell garages, ‘parking’ areas
The SC last week rejected the claim of promoters / builders, they were entitled to sell garages and stilt parking areas in a co-operative housing society. In this case, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd vs Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the promoter argued, under the agreement for sale it sold flats in the building and each purchaser has a right only for the flat sold to him. Rejecting the argument, the court ruled the contract was against the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
State trading corp’s appeal on appointment dismissed
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of State Trading Corporation of India challenging the judgment of the Delhi HC on appointment of Director (Marketing). The HC asked the corporation to reconsider appointment of Bhaskarendu Datta. The Public Enterprises Selection Board had shortlisted him but the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) had dropped his name. He moved the high court which noted, ACC had not given a reason for its decision. On appeal, the government argued there was no rule which required ACC to record reasons for differing with the board.
‘Awarding compensation should not be niggardly’
While awarding compensation to victims of road accidents the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must liberally consider the ‘loss of future earning’, the Supreme Court stated while raising the damages from Rs 52,000 to Rs 2 lakh in the case of a painter who suffered serious injuries. In this case, Yadava Kumar vs National Insurance Company, the tribunal and the Karnataka HC did not consider the loss of capacity to earn. “In a free country like ours, the law must value life and limb on a generous scale,” and awards should not be ‘niggardly’, the SC stated.
Firms told to be good neighbours
In a case involving the tort of ‘nuisance’, the Bombay HC dismissed the suit of GMM Pfaudler Ltd against Tata AIG Life Insurance Ltd, who occupy offices one above the other in a Mumbai area. Pfaudler alleged, the Tata company installed three chillers for its ACs on the terrace just above its office, sending vibrations and noise. The directors could not read figures on the projector screen in the conference room. The walls developed cracks. Both companies produced evidence to justify their stands. The court visited the premises, with counsel in tow, to verify the charges. They found when the chillers were switched on, the water in glasses did not spill; when they placed their palms on the table they did not feel much vibration and the data projector made more noise than the humming of the chillers.
Following this, the court declined to give any relief to Pfaulder, hoping that “the parties, who are decent businessmen, accept, tolerate and accommodate one another, as neighbours should, to put an end to this entire unfortunate case.”
