|
| 'Arbitrator cannot properly deal with malpractice allegations' |
| BS Reporter / New Delhi Nov 09, 2009, 00:38 IST |
|
The Supreme Court (SC) has stated when there are serious allegations of malpractices and manipulation of accounts of a firm, the dispute cannot be properly dealt with by an arbitrator. It would be appropriate to let the civil court decide. In this case, N Radhakrishnan vs M/s Maestro Engineers, partners in the firm split and one of them wanted his share to be paid after resignation. However, there were disputes on the amounts due. The partner wanted arbitration which was denied by the district court. He appealed to the SC which dismissed his plea. It said when there are allegations of manipulation of accounts, fraud, misrepresentation and similar charges, it would not be proper to refer all these to an arbitrator. Therefore, the case was remitted to the civil court in Coimbatore.
‘Signature not by mistake’
When a person signs a document, there is a presumption he has read it and understood it and only then he had affixed his signature, the SC stated in the judgement, Grasim Industries Ltd vs Agarwal Steel. The presumption is stronger in the case of businesspersons as money is involved. The SC stated this while setting aside the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh high court in an arbitration case. The arbitrator held in this case though both parties signed the joint statement of account, one of them signed by mistake and therefore it was not binding. He then re-examined the accounts and held Grasim Industries liable to pay with interest. The dispute reached the high court where again the validity of the signature was debated. The SC remitted the matter to the high court after observing the signature was not under a mistake.
Equal pay for equal work, but not always
The SC last week set aside the judgement of the Allahabad high court on the question of equal pay for equal work for workers in the UP Electricity Board. The trade union moved the labour commissioner alleging employees of one filtration plant of Anpara Thermal Project were paid higher than the contract workers in a similar plant. The commissioner ordered the board to pay equal wages to both groups as they were doing the same work. This was upheld by the high court. On appeal, the board argued the workers for the main plant were recruited on eligibility criteria through an advertisement, while the second plant was run by those recruited by a contractor.
Expedite road, state told
The SC last week directed the state to set up a committee headed by the chief minister to implement the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project which will submit its report to the court on November 22. Though assurances have been given to the court by the government earlier about implementation of the project, a contempt of court petition has been filed alleging inaction, especially in allotment and possession of lands involved in the project.
SC surprised by firms’ fight
The SC last week dismissed a batch of appeals moved by state-owned Mysore Sales International Ltd against the judgement of the Karnataka high court in its dispute with United India Insurance. The firm, as agent of Hindustan Aeronautics, imported certain packages and kept them in the customs godown. They were lost in a fire. In the dispute following the claim, the civil court asked Mysore Sales to pay. Its appeal to the high court was unsuccessful. While dismissing its appeal, the SC stated it was “surprised” the arms of the central and state governments were fighting instead of settling the issues among themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
