A land acquisition row of 1945 vintage from West Bengal reached the Supreme Court last month and there remains just one legal question, which has to be decided finally. Since there are conflicting decisions of the court, the problem has been referred to a larger bench to be set up by the Chief Justice. The curtain will fall only after the legal question is settled and the principle is applied to the case.
The issue is whether compensation to the land owners is determined in different ways when the land is taken over in the ordinary course under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and when it is acquired under the Defence of India Rules. In a 1973 judgment, a seven-judge bench had taken the view that there should not be any different criterion for defence take-over. But in a 2003 judgment, the court ruled that the determination in the two cases are different.
Read more from our special coverage on "BRIEF CASE"
This case, HV Low & Co vs State of West Bengal, started when the land and buildings were acquired for defence purposes in 1945. The compensation award was made in 1947, and it was referred to arbitration in 1949. The arbitration award was challenged and the judgment in that was delivered by the high court in 2011. The appeal before the Supreme Court will now go before a larger bench on the method of computation of compensation, with specific reference to solatium.
Tax benefit for windmills
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Enercon (India) Ltd, which manufactures, sells, installs and commissions windmills, challenging the order of the Karnataka high court against it upholding the demand of sales tax against the activities of the company. It had entered into a contract with Jindal Aluminium Ltd, Bengaluru, for installation of wind energy converters.
Enercon sought exemption from payment of sales tax on the ground that as per the provisions contained in Entry 57 of Fifth Schedule to the Act, windmills were exempted from payment of tax. The state revenue authorities conceded exemption for the windmills, but maintained that the goods used for installation and execution did not get exemption. This was upheld by the high court. Reversing the order, the Supreme Court stated that the work was indivisible. It said that "the work like foundation work, electrical work, commissioning etc. was a series of activities and it was indivisible".
Tenants' interest in Sarfaesi action
The Supreme Court has reiterated its stand in favour of tenants in a case where Securitisation (Sarfaesi) Act has been invoked against the owner of the building. In this case, Indian Bank vs Nippon Enterprises South, the bank had been successful in the Sarfaesi proceedings against the owner of the building, which was mortgaged as secured assets. When the proceedings were invoked against the tenants, they resisted as they were third party.
The Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in this dispute and stated that the proceedings cannot automatically include the tenants in the premises. It said that a tenant can be evicted only after following the due process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted using the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act.
Acquittal in cheque bounce case
If a person, who complains about a cheque that was dishonoured by the bank for insufficiency of funds, fails to appear before the magistrate to pursue his cause, the complaint could be dismissed and it would amount to acquittal of the accused person, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, V K Bhat vs G Ravi Kishore. They were business partners and Bhat issued a cheque to the other which bounced.
The payee filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the magistrate in Hyderabad but failed to appear in the court. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Later, revision petitions were moved and ultimately the Andhra Pradesh high court revived the proceedings.
This was appealed against stating that revision of the order of the magistrate was not permissible. The Supreme Court agreed and stated that "dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal as contemplated in Section 256 of the CrPC."
State tender for supply of drugs
The SC has set aside the judgment of the Odisha high court and asked it to reconsider the plea of the Utkal Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association which had challenged the tender conditions set by the state government for supply of drugs. One condition was that the manufacturing firm participating in the tender should have an annual turnover of Rs 10 crore for the three previous years.
The high court held the condition as unconstitutional and contrary to the state policy of granting benefits to SSIs. In the government's appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the high court did not examine the empirical data based on which the condition was imposed. The high court also did not examine the plea of the SSIs that reservation of 269 drugs for the large sector while leaving only 20 to them, would kill the latter.
Scheme for smart card for drivers
The Uttarakhand government scheme for introducing smart card-based driving licence and vehicle registration was caught in litigation for nearly a decade and the Supreme Court has asked it to consider afresh the launch of the scheme. The government had entered into a memorandum of understanding with public sector firm Hiltron for providing information technology solutions in the state.
Hiltron and the transport commissioner entered into an MoU with respect to the smart card scheme. Hiltron nominated Score Information Technologies Ltd for execution of the project. That agreement was challenged by Sriyash Technologies Ltd. The high court set aside the agreement between the transport commissioner and Hiltron for want of transparency. In the appeal, the Supreme Court did not go into the contentious issues but urged the state proceed with the project expeditiously in view of the lost time.
