The highest bidder in an auction of plots does not acquire any vested interest merely by depositing a percentage of the amount and earnest money. The bid must be accepted by the authorities otherwise there is no concluded contract. The Supreme Court held so in its judgment, UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs OP Sharma, while setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that while accepting or rejecting the highest bid, the authorities were exercising their executive power and the correctness of the decision cannot be subject to judicial review. In this case, auction was conducted for shops and cinema in Bareilly and the highest bidder deposited a percentage of the money. However, the housing commissioner rejected the bid and returned the money. This led to litigation in various courts since 1977. The high court held in favour of the bidder. But the Supreme Court ruled that the high court was wrong on law and facts.
Just and fair compensation
The Supreme Court has reiterated that compensation in road accidents must be "just and fair" and not meagre. It enhanced the damages awarded to a woman who had suffered serious injuries when a bike hit her. The motor accident compensation tribunal awarded her only Rs 1.94 lakh though she had asked for Rs 3.5 lakh. Future medical expenses were not taken into account, though she needed about Rs 1 lakh for a major operation. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court raised the damages to Rs 2.65 lakh. She went on to appeal again and the Supreme Court, in its judgment, Smt Sudha vs P Ganapathi, awarded her the full claim of Rs 3.5 lakh, as the high court did not consider the Rs 1 lakh expense for the surgery required to reduce the disability, which the doctor recommended. The court stated that the medical evidence should be taken into account while deciding the amount of compensation. National Insurance Company will bear the cost, as the bike was insured with it.
Israel arms firm loses case
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed a writ petition moved by Israel Military Industries, wholly owned by that government, against cancellation of a turnkey contract by the Ordinance Factory Board of India. It had also barred the foreign firm for bidding for 10 years. The Israeli firm, claiming to be one of the leading providers of military hardware, had entered into an MoU with the board having been successful in a global tender for setting up a plant to manufacture 'BM charge systems' in Nalanda. The high court ruled that the state was free to take the stand that it would not engage the firm. The role of arms dealers and middlemen and a pending CBI case in a Kolkata court against top defence officials also overshadowed this case, apart from parliamentary debate.
57-year-old suit settled
The Delhi High Court last week achieved a record of sorts by disposing of a company dispute 57 years after it was instituted. The company suit, Anand Finance (P) Ltd vs R P Anand, was filed in mid-1960's and only one of the main players has survived the long haul. The dispute started with the purchase of land in Versoa, Mumbai, and it led to a winding up petition. Disposing of all the suits and counters, the high court ordered R P Anand to pay Rs 65 lakh and with that the "curtain would be drawn on this beleaguered litigation that has persisted for well over four decades. Upon such payment being made, nothing would remain to be examined as there are no claims to be settled, no assets to be realised and none of the contributories other than Anand surviving." After defraying the liabilities, the official liquidator will transfer the balance to the Reserve bank of India.
Cheque bounce case quashed
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application against acquittal of a drawer of a cheque because it was issued by way of security and not to discharge a legal liability. In the case, Pee Kay Enterprises vs Techno Pack Industries, the high court stated that the cheque was signed by Techno Pack and therefore, a presumption arose that it had been issued to discharge a liability. However, the accused firm has proved that it was not against a liability. During the trial, the complaining firm could not produce any bill or record book to show that the cheque was issued to discharge any outstanding liability, though they had business dealings. Thus, the presumption against the accused person was rebutted. According to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused person can rebut the presumption. Moreover, the high court emphasised that it would not go into the facts of the case which had already been decided by the courts below. It stated that it would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction "in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order."
