The Kerala government and the three-star hotels there won one point each in their long-drawn litigation. The Supreme Court has struck down a government rule that no new liquor bar should be opened within three km of an existing bar in a panchayat area or within one km in a municipal area. The rule was challenged by three-star hotels, as arbitrary and discriminatory. They had also challenged another rule that no new licence shall be issued to them to serve Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL). The Supreme Court upheld that rule. Earlier, the Kerala High Court had struck down both rules, against which the state government moved the Supreme Court. The Abkari policy was tightened in 2011 in view of the rising trend of alcoholism and the consequential social issues arising in the society. The judgment in the appeal, state of Kerala vs B Surendra Das, stated that the rules would help hygiene and discourage drinking habits of youth, which is a serious menace to the state. It quoted a report of the CAG which stated that the bar licences were being issued to hotels with poor hygiene standards, which did not abide by the working hours prescribed for hotels and sold liquor even on dry days.
Tenancy disputes not for arbitration
The Supreme Court ruled last week that a landlord-tenant dispute in West Bengal cannot be sent for arbitration even if there is a clause in the agreement recommending it. The tenancy in this case, Ranjit Kumar vs Anannya Chowdhury, was terminated upon which the tenant invoked the arbitration clause before the civil judge. He dismissed the plea to set up an arbitral tribunal, but on appeal the Calcutta High Court approved of arbitration. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the high court order. It said that when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act mandates that the civil judge shall deal with eviction and related tenancy matters, the arbitration route is closed to the tenant.
Failed firm has no claim on plot
An industrial development board can take back the land allotted to a firm if it is ordered to be wound up and a liquidator is appointed by the company court. The board cannot be asked to release the industrial plot if the condition to establish a factory was not complied with and it had violated the terms of the lease. The Supreme Court stated so last week while dismissing an appeal case, Phatu Rochiram vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The court noted that there was no scheme to rehabilitate the firm. Though there are some "obscure proposals," they cannot be made a "sheet anchor to come in the way of the rights of the board which still remains the owners of the plot," the judgment emphasised.
Mercy for a harassed firm
The Supreme Court "felt concerned about the hard luck" of International Conveyors Ltd, manufacturer of PVC coal conveyor belting made from imported nylon yarn, which was dragged into litigation over its imports in 1987. In 1991, the customs tribunal in Delhi had directed the revenue authorities to refund the amount demanded from and paid under protest by the company. Since it did not receive the refund of Rs 17 lakh, it moved the Bombay High Court, which passed an order to the revenue authorities to return the amount with interest. The revenue authorities instead of repaying, alleged unjust enrichment by the firm by recovering the tax from Coal India and Singarani Collieries. In the convoluted history of the case, the authorities continued to issue show cause notices. Ultimately, the Supreme Court saved the firm from further litigation by awarding costs, "looking at the hardship suffered by it."
Legal brawl over liquor label
The Delhi High Court has allowed a Goa firm, Real House Distillery Ltd, to use a modified trade mark for its whisky labelled 'Real', despite the objection of the European company, Pernod Ricard SA, which sells its liquour brands in 110 countries. The foreign company had objected to the colour and design of Real, arguing that it was likely to confuse the consumers. Earlier, the high court had asked the Goa firm to change the design and avoid navy blue on the label. It was done. However, Pernod contended that the navy blue colour was distinctly theirs and the Indian firm must use some other colour. However, in the latest judgment of a division bench, the court did not insist on changing the colour as the new label would not confuse the consumers. Ricardo aperitif was priced at Rs 2,000 whereas the Goa product was available at Rs 60. Keeping both products side by side, the court stated that they were neither identical nor likely to deceive those who are likely to buy the alcoholic products.
Helping hand to revive sick firm
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition of the Union government challenging the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) which had asked the Railways to provide certain concessions to Cimmco Birla Ltd, in terms of the sanctioned scheme for rehabilitation of the firm. The company was declared sick by the BIFR and a revival scheme was proposed. Under the scheme, the company was entitled to get certain concession in the tenders floated by the Railways for supply of wagons, the business in which the company was engaged. The Railways did not adhere to it for various reasons. The high court stated that the concessions should be mandatorily followed.
Foreign order not always enforceable
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the petition of Marine Geotechnics LLC of Houston, US, against the Mumbai-based Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd stating that an ex-parte summary judgment obtained in a foreign country against an Indian company could not be termed a 'debt' due and payable by it in a winding up petition under the Companies Act. The Indian company was not represented before the Houston court when the US firm obtained a decree against it. It was not made order of the court in India. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the debt became payable, the high court said.
