Infrastructure projects to TV commercial, here're the key court orders

A selection of key court orders

Price revision in input cannot be challenged

If a work contract mentions a fixed price for raw material, the price revision by the government cannot be called force majeure or act of god frustrating the agreement. The Supreme Court ruled thus in its judgment in Seamec vs Oil India. There was a contract to drill oil wells in Assam in1995 which was extended until 2000. Meanwhile, the government raised the price of high-speed diesel. Seamec demanded reimbursement of the increased price from Oil India. The demand was rejected, leading to arbitration. The award was in favour of the contractor but it was quashed by the Gauhati High Court, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed it, stating that if the contract had specified the price, it should be adhered to. The arbitration tribunal cannot give a liberal interpretation to the terms of the contract when the words are clear. A prudent contractor would have taken into account the chance of price fluctuation.

Relief for infrastructure projects

The Supreme Court has stated that civil courts must refuse to grant an injunction against infrastructure projects “if it would impede or delay the progress of completion of any infrastructure project". This is the impact of a 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act. The court explained the law in its judgment in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad vs Gangaram Ambekar, while setting aside the judgment of the district judge and the Bombay High Court. In this case, a group of villagers in the Ratnagiri district objected to a solid waste disposal project 10 km outside the city in 2005. They alleged the project would pollute the river nearby and was a health hazard on various counts. The trial court dismissed their complaint, but the high court ruled in their favour in 2016, taking into account the evidence produced by the villagers. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the municipal authorities observing that the high court order was based on “assumptions and conjectures, much less unsubstantiated claim of the villagers”. However, the Supreme Court stated that the villagers may still make representation to the appropriate authority, and if its decision is not acceptable, may appeal to the National Green Tribunal, which was not in existence when they raised the objection.the buyer or seller.”

‘Disparaging’ TV commercial stopped 

The old-time rivalry between energy drinks Horlicks and Complan erupted again in the Delhi High Court and it has passed an order against Zydus Wellness Products from showing a six-second TV commercial in various languages allegedly disparaging Horlicks. The court remarked that “frivolous litigation” between the two firms was going on in 2004 and 2017 on print ads, but TV ads have a greater impact on viewers. One of the lines which offended Horlicks is: “One cup of Complan has the same amount of protein as two cups of Horlicks.” It also objected to the tricky size of the cup in the ad. Zydus argued that ads are commercial speech allowing wide creative latitude. The court rejected these arguments stating that the ad was “clearly disparaging” as the cup size and the fleeting disclaimer in small size would mislead consumers and the ad was continuing on a daily basis.