The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Odisha High Court ordering re-routing of power transmission lines at the instance of a property owner. It also imposed Rs 10 lakh as damages on the owner for "frustrating the implementation of the scheme due to unwarranted litigation." In this case, Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd versus Asian School of Business Management Trust, the company was implementing 50 transmission schemes. The trust bought a parcel of land over 14 years after the schemes were notified. It objected to the power lines as they crossed over the buildings erected by it. The high court considered alternative lines and ordered re-routing. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court which remarked that the high court's order was totally unwarranted and resulted in "miscarriage of justice". Fourteen years after the notification, the trust bought the land and it had no locus standi to seek re-routing of the transmission lines when 150 towers had already come up and the corporation had spent over Rs 14 crore.
Medicine or cosmetic?
The Supreme Court last week dismissed two appeals of Commissioner of Central Excise (West) challenging the ruling of the tribunal that the product 'Moisturex' is a medicament and not cosmetic or toilet preparation. It rejected the proposition of the excise authorities that even if cosmetic products, sold over the counter, contain certain subsidiary curative or prophylactic value, they are to be treated as cosmetics only. The pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, pointed out that in the product literature, the cream is indicated for any dryness of skin associated with winter, fissure feet, cracked nipples, in the treatment of pathological dry skin conditions and also for dryness associated with leprosy and clofazimine. The court accepted the stand of the pharma companies, Ciens Laboratories and Time Pharma, and stated that the "mere fact that a product is sold across the counters and not under a doctor's prescription, does not by itself lead to the conclusion that it is not a medicament." The manufacturers were aggrieved because at the time of the demand by the revenue authorities, if a product is held to be medicament, the rate of duty was 15 per cent and, if not, 70 per cent.
