Even if the main agreement between two parties are void, the arbitration clause will survive, according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court has held while setting aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case, Today Homes & Infrastructure Ltd vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust. The firm was selected to build the city centre but disputes arose over payments. It moved the high court for appointment of an arbitrator. The trust opposed it arguing that the main contract was void and therefore, the arbitration clause cannot be enforced. The high court agreed with it. The construction firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It quashed the high court order and asked it to reconsider the request for arbitration. The high court cannot undertake a detailed scrutiny of the merits of the case while considering a request for arbitration. Moreover, an arbitration agreement stands independent of the main agreement. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act presumes that the agreement is valid so far as the arbitration clause is concerned, the judgment said.
Motorised bullock cart
What is a 'motor vehicle' fit to be run on the road? This was discussed by the Supreme Court and it ruled that a bullock cart adapted for agricultural purpose or commercial purposes cannot be allowed on the road by the state governments. In this case, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Smt Santosh, the question arose when the state bus hit a 'Jugad', an improvised vehicle carrying several persons. The high court ordered the corporation to compensate the accident victims. The corporation therefore appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the contraption used in several north Indian states was not a motor vehicle according to the Motor Vehicles Act. The court asked the central and state governments to give their views on the issue. Most states maintained that the vehicle in question was a motor vehicle and it should comply with the requirements of law, like insurance, qualified driver and fitness certificate. The authorities must ensure that Jugad can be plied only after meeting all the legal requirements. The judgment said: "It has become a menace to public safety as they are causing a very large number of accidents." However, the court stated that the governments can issue notifications to allow Jugad for agricultural purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CCI orders without reason
The Supreme Court has criticised the Competition Commission of India and its appellate tribunal for passing cryptic orders without giving reasons in a long-pending case. Therefore, the tribunal was asked to reconsider the case and give a reasoned judgment. The court stated in its judgment in the case, Rangi International Ltd vs Nova Scotia Bank: "The commission and the appellate tribunal are exercising very important quasi-judicial functions. The orders passed by them can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore the minimum that is required of them is that the orders are supported by reasons, even briefly. However, the impugned orders are bereft of any reasons in support of the conclusions. Therefore the orders cannot be sustained." The dispute is a spill-over from the now defunct Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It had ruled that the dispute was not a case of unfair trade practice but merely a contractual matter outside the purview of the commission. After the monopolies commission was disbanded, a review petition was moved before the competition commission which dismissed the petition without giving reasons. The Supreme Court stated that the issues raised in the case were "substantial questions of law" and should have been dealt with in detail.
Challenge to metro tender dismissed
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petitions of Consortium of Siemens Akltiengesellschaft and Alstom Transport India Ltd challenging rejection of their offers for the design, manufacture, supply and training of 486 standard gauge cars meant for 81 trains of Delhi Metro. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd called for global tenders last year and the offers of the two firms were not accepted. Therefore, they moved the high court arguing that they were entitled to the contract and the winners should not get it. It was argued that there was discrimination in the selection. Rejecting the argument, the high court stated that "there was no vagueness or uncertainty and the bidders were well aware of the tender conditions and had even accepted the same. The same parameters and evaluation conditions were applicable to all bidders and as such the concept of level playing field has not been violated."
Insurer blamed for delay
The National Consumer Commission has indicted United India Insurance Co for delaying the settlement of a fire insurance claim made by Assambrook Ltd for over a decade. The judgment said: "It must be borne in mind that the delay is a double edged sword which can cut both the sides. This is an undisputable fact that the insurer has inordinately delayed the settlement. Even after the elapse of 12 or 13 years the complainant has not got any amount. Normally we award 9 per cent interest but under the peculiar circumstances of this case we will award 12 per cent and compensation."
