IN view of conflicting judgments delivered by various high courts in the country on two questions involving cheques which bounce, the Supreme Court has referred the issues to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if a cheque is dishonoured, the payee may issue notice to the drawer to pay the amount within 15 days. If he does not receive the payment, a criminal complaint may be filed before a magistrate within one month. In some cases, the payee moves the magistrate’s court even before the expiry of 15 days and without waiting for the one-month period. The question whether cognizance can be taken by the magistrate in such cases was the main issue which arose before the Supreme Court in the case, Yogendra Pratap vs Savitri Pande. The court found that there were contrary stands on this issue in the courts below.
Enhanced compensation for land
The Supreme Court last week directed the Gujarat government to pay enhanced compensation to land owners whose lands were acquired without following the procedures. The collector had sent notices to the land owners without copies of the award which was essential to assert the rights vested in the owners. This was not done and therefore, the Supreme Court stated that the land owners were right in challenging the compensation awarded as inadequate. They may have come late to the court, but it was because the collector had not given them copies of the award. The Supreme Court tripled the compensation amount in the case, Premji Nathu vs State of Gujarat. The court further ordered that even those who have not approached it for various reasons will be granted the same benefit.
Award despite gap in evidence
The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Punjab and Haryana high court and granted compensation to a person who was permanently disabled in an accident. The victim could not give the correct registration number of the bus in which he was riding when another bus collided with it. He gave different numbers at different stages of the case, though all the numbers belonged to one fleet owner. Because of this technical fault in evidence, the motor accident tribunal and the high court rejected his claim. But the Supreme Court observed that it was difficult to get eye witness in a road accident and therefore such discrepancy should not stand in the way of the victim. He was the only breadwinner in the family and he had three children who were students. In this case, Gurdeep Singh vs Bhim Singh, the fact that there was an accident and the victim suffered serious injuries and lost his earning capacity was confirmed. Therefore, the court asked the owner of the bus fleet in which he was travelling to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation. The insurance company was held not liable for payment of the compensation in the circumstances.
Trade mark of spare parts
The Delhi high court last week allowed the appeal of Hawkins Cookers Ltd in a trade mark case against Murugan Enterprises over the mark ‘Hawkins’. The latter company produced gasket, named it Mayur, but sold it with the words which claimed that the gaskets were suitable for Hawkins pressure cookers. Though the name was Mayur, the company wrote Hawkins prominently, which was objected to by Hawkins company. It moved the high court and it granted an order in favour of it. The court ruled that Murugan may, if it so chooses, indicate on the packaging material of the gasket that the gasket is suitable for all pressure cookers, as is being done by other manufacturers of gaskets. It should not name Hawkins, the judgment clarified.
Conditions to interfere in arbitration
The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of Gail (India) Ltd against the award of the arbitrator in its dispute with Surya Roshni Ltd over laying of gas pipes to Faridabad in Haryana. The court held that it would interfere with an arbitral award made on the facts of a dispute only under specific conditions. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been interpreted so by the Supreme Court. The conditions for interfering in an award are: ) An award, which is (i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or (ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, or (iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or (iv) patently illegal; or (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties. Applying these principles to the present case, the high court upheld the award made by the arbitrator.