Criminal case no bar to arbitration

The Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal case against one of the contracting parties cannot stall arbitration. "The balance of convenience is more in favour of permitting arbitration proceedings to continue rather than to bring it to a grinding halt," the court stated in its judgment, Swiss Timings Ltd vs Organising Committee, CWG. The court clarified that the award could be challenged later if there was conviction after trial of the accused persons.

In this case, the foreign company which provided the time, score and result systems for the Commonwealth Games 2010 invoked the arbitration clause when there were disputes over payment. The CWG committee resisted arbitration on the ground that the company had received undue favours and the matter was probed by the CBI and criminal proceedings are going on in the trial court. Its judgment and the arbitral award might be contradictory leading to confusion, which should be avoided by the apex court. These arguments were rejected and the Supreme Court appointed a three-member tribunal.

Multiple patent suits disallowed

The Supreme Court last week held that in a multiple suit between two companies claiming patent for a product, proceedings cannot go on in two forums. It is imperative to follow this principle "for a harmonious interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act," the court stated in its judgment, Dr Aloys Wobben vs Yogesh Mehra. There were a number of suits and cross suits between a German wind turbine manufacturer Enercon GmbH and its Indian partner Enercon India Ltd in the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The judgment said that the remedy availed of first will be valid.

No judicial review of contracts

Disputes over tender should be fought in a civil court and not high courts, the Supreme Court has stated while dismissing the appeal of a contractor, Sri Ram Builders, against the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. The builder had won a contract for a bus terminal in Indore and it was awarded the contract. But the corporation went bankrupt and was recommended for winding up. The project had to be shelved. The builder sued the corporation in the high court alleging breach of contract. Its petition was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court pointing out that the lease period of 30 years has already ended and the scope of judicial review is very limited in contractual matters, even if the government or its undertakings are involved.

Decades-old excise case revived

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court that had quashed show-cause notices to Mahindra & Mahindra in the excise assessment of agricultural tractors. The assessment covered the period from 1982 to 1985 and the law has changed since then. The apex court did not put an end to the dispute, but allowed the firm to approach the competent authority with its views on normal price, place of removal of the tractors, transportation charges which were not considered by the authorities or the high court. The show-cause notices alleged under assessment, concealment of invoice value, sales depots in different states were run by related persons and other charges. All these issues will be reconsidered by the authorities after three decades.

Trade mark row over toothpaste slogan

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal of Procter & Gamble against Anchor Health & Beauty Care in a dispute over the use of phrases "allround protection", "allrounder" and "allround" in the toothpaste market. It upheld the injunction against Procter & Gamble passed earlier by a single-judge bench against the use of the words claimed by Anchor company. The Indian company had argued that it was using the words 'allround' in its ads as slogan or tagline and it has been associated with its dental care products. It complained that the rival company was riding piggy back on its success by adopting the same phrase on similar products. Procter & Gamble contended that the words were descriptive and could not be registered as a trade mark. The high court accepted the arguments of Anchor and observed that the expression "allround protection" amounts to a trade mark due to repetitive use and was "capable of being represented graphically, distinguishing the goods of one from another." It added that "slogans/taglines often become so distinctive of a product that the trade mark affixed on the product may need no mention."

Rival claim on machine design

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a suit for infringement of a design can be filed even against a company which has a registered design. "A registered proprietor of a design can under Section 22 of the Trade Marks Act file a suit for infringement against a registered proprietor of a design," the court stated in its judgment, Whirlpool India vs Videocon Industries while holding the latter guilty of violation of two Whirlpool designs and of 'passing off' washing machines. Whirlpool alleged that "Videocon Pebble" washing machine had virtually the same design and features of its products. The colours were also imitated making the products of the two companies indistinguishable for the consumers. The design was registered by Whirlpool, it was argued. Videocon countered that its machine was registered under the law. Rejecting Videocon arguments, the judgment said that the products were "almost identical in shape and configuration pattern" and was likely to confuse the customer.

Absorption of daily wage workers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana government to regularise a large number of employees kept for years on daily-wager status in the judgment, Khajjan Singh vs State of Haryana. The labour court had ordered reinstatement of several such temporary hands. The state government had regularised some through a notification in 2003. However, the judgment, while setting aside the order declining representations of the employees, directed the state to issue fresh orders in each case. It observed that the deprivation of employment was in contravention of natural law of equality of citizens placed equally. The court has a duty to step in and protect workers against discrimination and unfair labour practices, it said.