| HC cannot quash bank's notice to debtors | |
| BS Reporter / New Delhi July 6, 2009, 0:59 IST | |
The Supreme Court (SC) has set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana high court which quashed the notice of debt recovery by Punjab National Bank against M/s Imperial Gift House. The bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The firm moved a writ petition in the high court against the notice. The high court quashed the notice. The bank appealed to the apex court that the high court could not quash the notice issued under the Act, which was meant to help recover difficult debts. The SC held the high court action wrong.
Motor insurance: Tribunal can award more than asked for
The SC has dismissed the appeal of the National Insurance Company against the award of compensation in a road accident death, and ruled that the accident claims tribunal can award damages more than asked for by the dependants of the victim. In this case, a technician of Maruti Udyog Ltd died in a road accident because of the negligence of the driver of a truck insured by National Insurance. The widow and her two children sought Rs 20 lakh as compensation from the truck owner. The tribunal awarded Rs 22 lakh, to be paid by the insurer. It appealed to the Punjab and Haryana high court, without success. Its appeal to the SC also was rejected. The judgement emphasised that the tribunal has powers to give more than asked for.
Casual labourer must prove his service record
The SC has reiterated that the burden of proving that a casual labourer who had worked for 240 days in a year to get the benefit of retrenchment compensation was on him, and not the employer. It set aside the ruling to the contrary by the Karnataka high court in the case, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs Mohammed Rafi. The worker, along with several others employed in the Upper Krishna Project, was terminated from service, leading to a labour dispute under the Industries Disputes Act. He argued that as he had been working for more than 240 days the previous year, the corporation should have complied with Section 25-F of the Act. The labour court accepted his argument and ordered his reinstatement. The corporation appealed to the high court. A single judge bench set aside the award of the labour court stating that there was no evidence to show that the worker was ever employed by the corporation.
It further held that the burden of proving that he was employed was on the worker. He then appealed to the division bench of the same high court. It accepted his contention and restored the labour court verdict. The corporation appealed to the SC. The judgement emphasised that the burden to prove the employment was on the casual worker. He can call for the muster rolls in the custody of the employer/contractor as there is usually no appointment letter or wage register.
Transport tax
The SC has granted relief to bus operators in Uttar Pradesh in payment of tax on passengers' luggage in the case, Prahlad Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh. The transport commissioner demanded an additional tax of Rs 45 for every tonne on the gross vehicles weight or part thereof in terms of Article II of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997. The bus operators challenged this in the Allahabad high court. Their writ petitions were dismissed and told them to pay the tax. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that that Article II operated when the vehicles carry goods and not when the passengers carry their luggage during journey.
Penalty for misdeclaration upheld
The SC has dismissed the appeal of M/s Radhy Shyam Ratanlal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, imposing penalty on goods imported by the firm. The firm had imported bulk quanties of cloves after entering into a contract with M/s. Ketan Trading Company, Singapore. The customs house initiated an investigation into the declared price of the goods. It found that the prevailing international price of cloves during the relevant period was different from what was declared. Applying Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, the SC dismissed the importer's appeal.
|
Content Guide
