Page 3 - Brief Case
Testing unjust enrichment for refunds
Manufacturers had claimed refunds on taxes paid, invoking discounts such as those on excise and turnover tax
Litigation that brings bad name to country
The Supreme Court has commented that one of the reasons India is extremely low in the World Bank rating in enforcing contracts and ease of doing business is the failure of the parties to adhere to the terms in documents
LIC to pay only half of wage arrears
The Life Insurance Corporation of India has persuaded the Supreme Court to reduce by half its financial burden for absorbing temporary workers. About 25 years ago, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Courts had directed LIC to regularise temporary workers with full pending wages. Its appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed last year, and it was ordered to pay the dues. LIC has now moved a review petition. The court refused to change the judgment but was merciful towards LIC, which said implementation of the order would impose a "heavy financial burden", entailing an expense of Rs 7,087 crore and Rs 728 crore annually. LIC's source of funds is public and the government does not contribute to it, it is not sitting on huge surplus, attorney general argued. Moved by the pleas, the court wrote: "Ordinarily, financial hardship would not be a sufficient ground to warrant our interference...but in this case, keeping in view the fact that LIC is a statutory corporation
Disputes over trusts outside arbitration: SC
The deed had an arbitration clause. When differences cropped up among the beneficiaries, one group moved the Bombay High Court for arbitration
Return all assets on revival of firm: SC
If an order to wind up a company is recalled and the company is revived, it is entitled to get back from the official liquidator its entire assets. Tenants who occupied the premises during the proceedings shall go out. The company court can evict them, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment in A Talukdar & Co vs Official Liquidator. In this case, the company was directed to be wound up at the instance of a creditor. The Calcutta High Court appointed a liquidator. During the proceedings, five firms occupied the premises claiming to be tenants. Later, the company in debt repaid the dues. But, the occupants did not move out and some of them set conditions for vacating. The high court accepted the claims of three occupants. The company appealed to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the high court judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the company court was in charge of the assets during the winding-up proceedings and it had not authorised these firms to occupy the premises. So, they ha
Plot owner in MoU can move consumer forum
The owner of a plot who signs a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with a builder for raising multi-storeyed apartments is a 'consumer' and, therefore, can sue the builder for deficiency in service, the Supreme Court ruled, overruling the National Consumer Commission and the Andhra Pradesh consumer commission. According to the Consumer Protection Act, a person who obtains goods or avails of any services for "resale or for any commercial purpose" is not a consumer and he cannot move the consumer forums. In this case, Bunga Babu versus Sri Vasudeva Constructions, the owner of two plots, signed MoUs and divided the number of apartments between them. The project was delayed and there were several other complaints against the construction firm. The owner moved the Vizag consumer forum, which ordered compensation be paid to him. Appeals were moved before the state commission and the National Commission. Both took the view that the landowner was not a consumer entitled to move consumer courts.
Contract hits impossible hurdle
The law says that a contract to do an act, which turns out to be impossible of performance after the agreement, becomes void and the person who suffers must be compensated. If environment restrictions not contemplated in the contract frustrate a project and it becomes impossible or impracticable to implement it, the contractor deserves compensation, according to the Supreme Court. The contractor who could not undertake a housing project because of environment curbs not contemplated by the government at the time of signing the agreement was compensated in the judgment, Delhi Development Authority vs Kenneth Builders. The development authority (DDA) gave to a contractor a housing project in the ridge area of the capital, which is an ecologically sensitive area. At the time of the contract, this fact was not taken into consideration by either party. Later it was found that the project could not be undertaken because of various regulations to protect the area. Any development activity a
Regulator can review power tariff in PPA
Tarini, a hydro-power producer signed a PPA with the state distribution licencee at a particular rate
SICA prevails over Companies Act
A weekly selection of key court orders
Abuse of state power in land acquisition
A weekly selection of key court orders
Deviation from tender conditions allowed
The authorities can deviate from the conditions for sale by tender if the terms are not essential parts of the offer
Public purpose invoked for profiteering
In an instance of glaring abuse of the powers under the old Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court has castigated the Haryana government for acquiring land from farmers in the name of public purpose and giving it to a builder to advance his business interests. "The present case is a gross abuse of law on account of the unholy nexus of the concerned authorities and the builder, enable the builder to profiteer. The land could either be taken by the state for a compelling public purpose or returned to the land owners and not to the builder," the court stressed in the judgment, Uddar Gagan Properties vs Sant Singh. The government acquired the land for a housing colony and while compensation was being determined, the builder "suddenly surfaced" with a licence to build a colony of his own with power of attorney from some land owners and other documents. Other land owners moved the high court, which quashed the acquisition. The government files "deceptively projected" that the land was relea
Govt must fulfil promises, says SC
It is in the nature of governments to make promises to attract industries to their region, like offering cheap land, electricity and tax exemptions
Wages for no work at Bajaj Auto unit
Some employees of Bajaj Auto Ltd in Pune have been reporting for duty since 2003 but the management has not been giving work to them.
Return of pre-deposit in Sarfaesi suits
A borrower can file an appeal against the DRT before the appellate tribunal only if he deposits 50% of the due amount or 50% ordered by the DRT, whichever is less
Auction must fetch fair market value
Circle rates are not a true measure to determine the actual market value of a property, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal case, E-City Entertainment vs State of Uttar Pradesh
More issues for larger SC Benches
A weekly selection of key court orders
New issues in land acquisition in 1945
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
SC orders demolition of Patna building
The Supreme Court has ordered demolition of a multi-storyed residential building in Patna for gross violations of the sanctioned plan
Sebi Act lacks clarity, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court last week stated that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Act and its regulations referring to imposition of penalty for manipulative or fraudulent practices are "somewhat unclear if not a confused picture that emanates from parallel provisions." The procedural regulations including those that prescribe the procedural course, namely, Sebi (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations 2002 and the successor Regulation i.e. Sebi (Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 contain identical and parallel provisions with regard to imposition of penalty resulting in myriad provisions dealing with the same situation. A comprehensive legislation can bring about more clarity and certainty on the norms governing the security/capital market and, therefore, would best serve the interest of strengthening and securing the capital market. The court continued in its judgment, Sebi vs Kishore Ajmera, that "a c
