Managers of schools, hostels and other institutions which distribute food for their inmates will be absolved from the rigours of the Food Adulteration Act, if food items they store are adulterated, according to a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered last week. The court ruled the law would punish them only if the food items were stored for sale, not otherwise. In this case, Rupak Kumar vs State of Bihar, the jail superintendent was booked for storing adulterated haldi and rice in the jail. The chief judicial magistrate issued process. The high court did not quash the prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution, stating that storage and distribution of adulterated food items are not offences under the Act. Only manufacture and storage for sale are prohibited.
Old power tariff agreements invalid
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Anand Agro Chem Ltd, seeking to restrain the arrest of its directors and its occupiers for not paying sugarcane farmers their dues of 2007-2008, leading to prolonged litigation. Though the directors have made promises to the Cane Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh that they would pay the growers Rs 16 crore, they were not kept "on one pretext or the other." Dismissing their pleas, the court said: "We regret to say that the amounts due to the farmers towards price of the sugarcane and incidentals remain to be paid for several years, thereby, accumulating huge liability against the company. That is not a happy situation nor can repeated invocation of the process of law be a remedy for it."
Nomination of arbitrator set aside
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court by which it appointed an arbitrator in the dispute between Larsen & Toubro and its sub-contractor, M/s Mohan Lal. L& T had undertaken to build a twin tower in Delhi for Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE).Disputes arose between L&T and the sub-contractor. Though the original contract between them had an arbitration clause, in three supplementary agreements, the terms were amended. According to the new provision, the parties would not go for arbitration but would settle disputes through negotiations. In case of disputes over billing with the principal, SCOPE, both of them would act in unison and after receiving the dues, they would divide the sum in certain proportion. When disputes persisted over billing, the sub-contractor moved the high court, seeking an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The high court nominated one under the original clause and directed the appointment of an umpire also. L&T moved the Supreme Court, arguing that arbitration was not possible after the original clause was amended under the supplementary agreements and "the entire edifice of arbitration stood altered". The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed a set of directions to solve the imbroglio within two months.
