The Supreme Court has ordered retrial of a suit which started in 1988 in the matter of purchase of five diesel vehicles from Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co Ltd. The apex court said the Bombay High Court applied wrong legal principles and, therefore, the purchaser, Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha, should be allowed to present his case. The Supreme Court also said Mutha was not given a hearing and his application was rejected by the high court without giving adequate reasons. Mutha had given eight bills of exchange through Mercantile Bank Ltd for purchase of the vehicles but the company disputed the interest element and moved the suit. Mutha did not file statement under the impression that the amounts due had been paid. For that reason, ex parte decree was passed against him. He moved appeals but the high court exercised its discretionary power under the Civil Procedure Code and rejected those on the ground that he had failed to file his statement. In the final appeal, the Supreme Court held the high court wrong and ordered retrial expeditiously, after providing Mutha opportunity to file his statement.
Gratuity does not bar pension
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Allahabad Bank and ruled that an officer, who opted for voluntary retirement from service and paid gratuity and provident fund, was also entitled to pension. In this case, Allahabad Bank vs A C Aggarwal, the officer retired and was paid gratuity. Then, he asked for pension. The bank rejected it, saying benefits under the pension scheme was subject to the condition of refund of the amount of gratuity already paid to him and submission of an irrevocable undertaking that he will be getting pension in lieu of gratuity. He challenged the bank's stand in the Allahabad high court, arguing that it was against the bank rules and constitutional provisions. He further argued that State Bank of India was paying gratuity to its employees in addition to other retiral benefits and, therefore, there was no justification to discriminate the employees of another public sector bank. The high court accepted the argument and asked the bank to pay pension. It moved the Supreme Court. The apex court rejected the appeal and said the law regarding payment of gratuity has overriding power over other rules and regulations. Moreover, the judgment noted the bank had earlier unsuccessfully tried to get exemption from the gratuity law, but the government had rejected its request.
Cotton seed firms lose case
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two writ petitions moved by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Ltd and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd relating to a new cotton seed called 'C-5193'. The first firm filed an application to register its novel variety of cotton, which was published by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers'Rights Authority in the Plant Variety Journal 2008. Another firm opposed the registration on several grounds. But the objection came after the time fixed by the rules. The time was extended by the registrar. This became the main bone of contention between the parties. The high court said "the legislation in question is in the nature of a beneficial legislation to provide for an effective system for protection of plant varieties and the rights of the farmers and plant breeders". Therefore, it should be given a liberal interpretation. The registrar can extend the time period for filing the application for opposition. The court also noted the intention of the government, represented by an additional solicitor general, that after a detailed discussion among the relevant ministries, it has been decided to amend Rules 32 (notice of opposition) to clear the confusion in this respect.
Bar on starting new venture
In a dispute between two firms, Jay Ushin Ltd and U-Shin Ltd, the Delhi High Court has restrained the latter from entering into any competing business or to undertake any activity prejudicial to the interest of the former company till such time the arbitrator passes his interim order. Jay Ushin said the opposite firm was in the process of starting competing business in India, despite a joint venture agreement of 1986 was still subsisting between the parties. The technology purchased from U-Shin still vested in the Indian firm. It was further argued that according to the conditions set up by the Government of India as also the Reserve Bank of India, the terms could not be varied. However, U-Shin has already announced to join hands with M/s. Minda Valeo Security System Ltd in Delhi. The new arrangement is similar to the one which is in existence between the contesting parties and, thereby, is a competing business arrangement. According to the foreign firm, the 1986 agreement has lapsed.
PSUs penny-wise, pound-foolish
The National Consumer Commission has imposed penalty on Oriental Insurance Company for moving five revision petitions three months after the limitation period. The payment will go to the 'Consumer Welfare Fund' set up under the Consumer Protection Act. It followed a Supreme Court judgment which said that "PSUs (public sector units) spend more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimant. In addition, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. PSUs are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound-foolish."
