SC judges differ on arbitration law

Two judges of a Supreme Court bench last week differed on the application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in a dispute over the termination of a works-contract by the Madhya Pradesh government. Therefore, they have referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for setting up a larger bench to resolve the issue. The high court had ruled that the dispute should be resolved by the central act and not by the Madhya Pradesh State Arbitration Tribunal set up under a state law. In this appeal, MP Rural Development Board vs LG Chaudhary Engineers, one judge set aside the high court ruling and allowed arbitration to proceed under the MP Act of 1983 and not under the central law. The other judge held that the dispute over works-contract would not fall within the jurisdiction of the State Arbitration Tribunal.

SC upholds FCI’s incentive policy
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgement of the Jammu and Kashmir high court and upheld the policy of the Food Corporation of India granting incentives to employees who gain additional qualification while in service. The corporation gave monetary incentives to staff acquiring extra qualification though recruits with higher qualification did not get it. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh objected to this as discrimination. The high court asked the corporation to withdraw such incentives. The union wanted the incentives to be extended to other staff. Allowing the corporation’s appeal, the court asserted that it would not interfere in administrative decisions on pay fixation and pay parity unless they are grossly unfair.

Sympathy in bounced cheque case
In a case of bounced cheque of Rs 2 lakh, the Supreme Court last week showed sympathy to a poor widow, 51, who is eking out a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and selling them. She is the only earning member of her family with two children, and appeared to be suffering from depression. The criminal courts and the Karnataka high court had confirmed the sentence of one year and a compensation of Rs 2.2 lakh to be paid to the payee under the Negotiable Instruments Act. She had paid the compensation and undergone over two months in jail. The court clarified that this case, B Chandramati vs N Prakash, is special and will not be a precedent.

‘Hijacking of council management’
A division bench of the Delhi high court last week set aside its earlier judgement quashing the “regulations of membership” of the Apparel Export Promotion Council on a writ petition moved by the All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild. The single judge had held that the regulations were inconsistent with the Exim policy. The council had classified exporters into ”member exporters” and ”registered exporters”. Only the former had voting rights. Allowing the appeal of the council, the division bench ruled that the restriction of voting rights were valid. “We are of the opinion that if no such restrictions were to be placed, the possibility of a rival industry/ trade snatching away the management of the council to destroy the same also cannot be ruled out,” the judgement said. “It has been observed in the recent past that attempt is made to snatch the management and control of bodies having considerable sway over professions, industries, businesses, away from the serious practitioners and in the hands of those not really interested in the betterment of the persons for whose benefits such bodies have been created. The danger of some persons not really interested in developing export of garments hijacking the management and control of the council to get hold of its funds and properties is a real one and not imaginary. The modus operandi of such hijackers is well known.”

Colgate plea on trade mark rejected
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board last week dismissed the appeal of Colgate-Palmolive objecting to the registration of a trade mark by Cadila Pharmaceuticals which was allegedly similar to the one it owned. Colgate-Palmolive claimed that it has a registration for ‘Plax’. Cadila applied for registration of its product with the trade mark ‘Clax’. The objection of Colgate-Palmolive was rejected by the assistant registrar of trade marks against which the company moved the appellate board. The division bench of the board ruled that the marks are not similar. The goods for which the trade marks are used are different. Colgate’s goods are chewing gum and lozenges for medical purposes, dental cleaners and denture (additives). Cadila’s goods are antibiotics for curing dental infections and tooth extraction. “The issue of confusion and deception does not arise in this case in our considered opinion. Both the products are sold from the same counter no doubt. But the chemists will not be confused or mistake one for the other,” the judgment said.