Consumers can change power supplier

A weekly selection of key court orders

Electricity consumers in Mumbai can change their supplier if they want and Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) cannot prevent it, the Supreme Court has held in the case, BEST vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. Some consumers in the BEST supply area wanted to change to Tata Power Co for power requirement. When they approached BEST, it rejected their request. They moved the Mumbai Electricity Regulatory Commission. Reliance Industries, another supplier, was also made a party to the case. The commission allowed the petitions and held that Tata Power was bound to supply electricity either through BEST wires or its own wires. Dismissing the BEST appeal, the Supreme Court said: "It is difficult to accept the extreme position taken by BEST that if local authority is a distribution licencee in a particular area, there cannot be any other distribution licencee in that area without the permission of such local authority."

HPCL's about-turn 'arbitrary'
The Supreme Court has stated that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) had acted unfairly in cancelling the dealership of a woman who had fulfilled the conditions set by the government company. Earlier, she was selected on the recommendation of a team which found that she had land in the location selected for retail outlet. Later the appointment was cancelled assuming wrongly that she had no land to set up the outlet. On her appeal, namely, Sunita Gupta vs Union of India, the Supreme Court restored the earlier order of her appointment, observing that the about-turn of the government corporation was "on a flimsy technicality and it has acted in an arbitrary and unfair manner".

Consumer court regulation upheld

The Supreme Court has upheld the Consumer Protection Regulation under which the National Commission can deal with a review petition without hearing oral arguments of the parties. It also ruled that a 'proxy counsel' cannot argue a case. The law does not recognise the concept of proxy counsel, though it is a normal practice among lawyers to appoint proxy to be present in court when they are otherwise busy. The Supreme Court stated in the case, Surendra Mohan vs HDFC, that "any 'Arzi', 'Farzi' half-baked lawyer under the label of proxy counsel cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process of the court."

Foreign award enforceable
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the foreign award passed in London in the dispute between Perma Container (UK) Line Ltd and Perma Container (India) Ltd, Mumbai, is enforceable and binding according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The two firms had an agency agreement for handling cargo at Indian ports. Disputes over payment arose and the agency was terminated, leading to arbitration. The agreement had provided that disputes will be governed by English law and arbitration shall be in London. The award was in favour of the English firm, which was sought to be enforced here. This was resisted by the Mumbai firm. However, the high court rejected its arguments and allowed the English firm to execute the award.

Injunction against trade mark
In a trade mark dispute over 'Zara' between Spanish firm Industria de Diseno Textil SA and Oriental Cuisine Ltd, the Delhi High Court has allowed the latter to use the composite mark 'Zara Tapas Bar' instead of Zara till further orders. The Spanish firm selling garments and other consumer products had obtained an ex parte injunction last year against the Indian firm, opposing the use of the mark Zara. The order was modified and the composite name was allowed. The foreign firm is stated to have an agreement with Trent Ltd, a Tata enterprise, to develop its Zara stores in India.

FCI disciplinary action quashed
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Food Corporation of India against the Gauhati high court judgment setting aside the punishment on a manager, Sarat Chandra, for causing losses to the corporation. Rs 5 lakh was recovered from him apart from censure. The apex court, however, stated that the managing director did not commit anything in writing before taking disciplinary action, did not follow the rules and acted on his own discretion which was "capricious, fanciful and without application of mind."