|
| HC's judgement in supply of transmitters set aside |
| BS Reporter / New Delhi Nov 02, 2009, 00:13 IST |
|
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgement of the Delhi high court in the bid for the supply of two transmitters invited by Prasar Bharti. Arraycom India Ltd and M/s BECIL were found to be technically qualified. In the financial bid, the offer of Arraycom was for Rs 51.57 crore and that of BECIL was for Rs 47.35. Prasar Bharti found that BECIL’s bid was the lowest. The rival bidder moved the high court, which allowed the petition. It held that the bid of Rs 51.57 crore was inclusive of the central sales tax. On the appeal of BECIL, the Supreme Court stated that the high court had gone wrong on the question of sales tax. The offer of Arraycom was conditional on getting concessions from the government and ambiguous. The Supreme Court said that Prasar Bharti was right in choosing BECIL’s bid which was definite on the matter of tax.
Insurance payout over fire
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal, Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company and upheld the order of the National Consumer Commission. A fire occurred in the company’s godown in Ambala, in Haryana. The company moved the consumer commission of the Union territory of Chandigarh. The commission allowed the petition for compensation under the insurance policy. The insurer moved the national commission which held that the Chandigarh commission had no jurisdiction to pass the order. It stressed that the insurance policy was taken at Ambala, the fire broke out in the same town and the claim for compensation was also made in the same place. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting the claim of the company that the insurer had an office in Chandigarh. The court stated that if this argument was accepted, insurance claims could be filed anywhere in the country where the insurance company has a branch. It would lead to absurd results.
HC judgement quashed
The Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the Kerala high court in the case, Ravindra & Associates vs Union of India, and reiterated that courts should not interfere in the findings of facts made by the arbitrator. In this case, the high court went into matters like the proportion of cement mixture, overtime paid to the labour and the use of hardwood in place of teak wood. All these have been decided by the arbitrator and the high court should not have gone into as if it was a court of appeal, the judgment emphasised.
Conflict of views between benches resolved
A three-judge bench of the Bombay high court has resolved conflict of views between two division benches in an income tax case, Plastiblends India Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax. The question was whether for the purposes of availing allowable special deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, the gross total income is required to be computed by deducting allowable depreciation even though the assessee had disclaimed the same for the purposes of regular assessment. The final answer of the high court is in the affirmative, that is, for the purposes of deduction under Chapter VI-A, the gross total income has to be computed by deducting the deductions allowable under Sections 30 to 43D of the Act, including depreciation allowable under Section 32.
Hill Properties vs Union of India
Another larger bench of the Bombay high court, resolving a conflict of views in its earlier judgements, clarified that in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act read with Rules 11(1) and 11(6) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, a person against whom an order is passed is entitled to institute a suit in a civil court. It is not essential to file an appeal.
Compensation deemed unfair
The Delhi high court has ordered Jaipur Golden transport company to pay compensation to the victims of a chemical fire in its unauthorised godown in April 2004 in which four persons died and many others fell sick. The company had paid a pittance to settle the complaints, which the court called unfair and unconscionable. It ordered compensation for the deaths ranging from Rs 6 lakh to Rs 8 lakh. Those who were injured will get damages in the range of Rs 50,000. The company will pay 85 per cent of the amount, while the Municipal Corporation of Delhi will pay the rest, according to the decision in Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association vs Union of India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
