Vikram Cement employees asked to refund VRS amount

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the employees of Vikram Cement in Madhya Pradesh to refund the amount they had received under the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) if they wanted to challenge their termination. Out of 1,500 employees, 460 accepted the VRS in 2001 and received all benefits in full and final settlement.

Soon thereafter, some employees approached the labour court complaining that they had accepted the scheme under pressure and threats. They wanted to be reinstated. The division bench of the high court (HC) asked the employees to refund the benefit already received before proceeding with their claim. It also asked the company to pay the amount with interest if the employees won their claim before the labour court. Both parties appealed to the SC. It upheld the HC order and extended time to the employees to make their claim.

SC dismisses appeal against sale of defunct mill

The SC has dismissed an appeal moved by the employees of Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills of Mumbai challenging the sale of the defunct mill. The mills was declared sick in 1994 and it was closed after a lock-out in 1995. IDBI, the operating agency under the Sick Industries Act, held meetings with major creditors and a receiver was apppointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Later, the creditors and the representative union came to an agreement and the assets were sold to Trans Ais Global Company. This was challenged by some employees in the Bombay HC, but their petition was dismissed. The SC dismissed their appeal.

Negotiable Instruments Act should be liberally interpreted: SC

In a cheque bouncing case, once notice has been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due at the correct address, it must be presumed that the service has been made effective. The SC said so in the case, Indo Automobiles vs Jai Durga Enterprises, in which notice of dishonour of a cheque was sent by post.

The drawer denied receipt of the notice when criminal procedings were started before the magistrate. He moved the Allahabad HC, which quashed the proceedings, maintaining that notice was not served properly by the postal authorities. On appeal, the SC stated that the Negotiable Instruments Act should be liberally interpreted in cheque bouncing cases as otherwise tricksters who issue invalid cheques would benefit by claiming that they did not receive notice.

Calcutta HC order set aside

The SC last week set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court in the dispute between the Birla Group and the Bagla group over a hydro-electric project, involving the valuation of shares of Neora Hydro Ltd. The parties in the case, Premium Exchange & Finance Ltd vs SN Bagla & Co, had agreed that the decision of Ernst & Young on the valuation of shares shall be binding upon them.

However, disputes erupted again over the valuation. The executing court stated that the valuation lacked transparency and ordered it to do the exercise again. The high court found fault with the method adopted by Earnest & Young. The Supreme Court found the orders of the executing court and the high court wrong and allowed the Bagla group to take appropriate steps.