From LPG cylinder blast to criminal case, here're the key court orders

A weekly selection of key court orders

Make-in-India cloud over shipping industry

Shipping companies have taken to court a notification and a circular issued under the Merchant Shipping Act implementing “Make in India” scheme. They have obtained a stay from the Delhi High Court against the implementation. In the lead petition, Great Eastern Shipping Co vs Union of India, they argued that the circular issued on March 21 brought in a completely alien concept of an "Indian built ship", which got commercial rights higher than an Indian flag vessel. It destroyed any statutory recognition and preference available to an Indian flag vessel over foreign flag vessels. The Merchant Shipping Act did not concern itself with the place where the ship was built. It dealt only with the ownership and registration of the ship. If the ownership is wholly Indian, it becomes an Indian ship, otherwise, it is a foreign ship. The new concept brought several anomalies. For instance, shipping companies pointed out that a ship that was originally built in India but may be owned by a foreigner will get the first preference in Indian business. A shipping company cannot change its entire fleet overnight and convert it into Indian built ships as shipbuilding is a time-consuming exercise. Further, Indian ships, which number 1,384 now, will lose the right of first refusal in the business. The government countered these arguments and asserted that the policy was in public interest.  The court passed an absolute stay against the notification and circular.

Time limit: Justice above strict rules

The Supreme Court has stated that a technical fault like delay in filing a counter affidavit should not lead to dismissal of a consumer complaint. “We have been repeatedly observing that marginal delays are not being condoned by the National Consumer Commission on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act stipulates a period within which a consumer complaint has to be disposed of. Though the Act stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources and infrastructure. In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in the judicial process. The consumer forums should bear this in mind so that the ends of justice are not defeated,” the judgment observed in the case, Vibha Bakshi vs Gruhashilp Constructions. In this case, the commission dismissed the complaint of a flat buyer as he failed to file his rejoinder for a month.

Burden of proof in regularisation

Daily wage workers who claim regularisation after 240 days of continuous work have to produce evidence to show that they had worked for that period. Only when that initial burden is discharged by the workers, the burden to disprove it can be shifted upon the employers. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Superintending Engineer vs M Natesan. In this case, daily wagers in the Rural Water Supply Board of Tamil Nadu were employed between 1986 and 1989 and they were terminated in 1990. They moved the labour court, which in 2000 ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages. In the appeal before the Madras High Court, the board could not produce any attendance record. The workers also did not have any piece of evidence to assert their claim. The high court, however, dismissed the board’s appeal.  On further appeal, the Supreme Court set down a compromise formula to benefit both parties, while holding that the high court orders were wrong.

Criminal case in trademark suit junked

 A design dispute over toothbrushes between Colgate-Palmolive (India) and Anchor Health and Beauty Care led to the latter filing criminal cases against Colgate India and Colgate USA but the Delhi High Court quashed the complaint as an abuse of process. Colgate had alleged in a suit that its "Colgate Zig Zag Flexible" and "Colgate Sensitive" toothbrushes were imitated by Anchor's design of "Anchor Advance Grip". Pending the suit, Anchor filed a criminal complaint in Delhi against 13 executives of Colgate including foreigners, alleging that they had hatched a conspiracy to forge certain documents relating to the Statement of Novelty in Design Registration. While quashing the complaint, the high court remarked that it was only to counter the civil suit filed by the Colgate executives. Calling it an abuse of power, the court set aside the order summoning the accused persons. 

IOC, dealer held liable for LPG cylinder blast

The National Consumer Commission has ruled that the case in a cooking gas cylinder blast that killed a homemaker and injured her mother-in-law, both Indian Oil Corporation, which is the manufacturer, and the dealer would be liable to pay compensation to the victim. The commission rejected various arguments of IOC, the dealer and Oriental Insurance Company -- all of whom blamed the women and passed the buck to each other. The manufacturer of the LPG cylinders, as well as the dealer, cannot shirk their responsibility as they had not followed the guidelines of safety. The Delhi Fire Service had confirmed the cause of the fire in the kitchen as the loose valve. The last-ditch argument of the dealer that the woman was killed in a conspiracy was also rejected. The National Commission upheld the calculation of damages by the Delhi state commission in this case, IOC vs Sanjiv Kumar. It had allowed Rs 10 lakh to the family, which included Rs 1.5 lakh for loss of the love of wife, hospital bills of Rs 3 lakh and funeral expenses.

Doctor at fault for team’s negligence

The National Consumer Commission has held that a doctor is liable for negligent acts of the members of his team, apart from the hospital. It stated so while dismissing the appeal of Mohan Dai Owal Cancer Research Foundation Hospital, Ludhiana, against the order of the state commission to pay compensation to the parents of a three-year-old girl who died while undergoing treatment for cancer. The commission stated that the death was caused by the wrong method of administering a drug. The doctor who led the team pleaded that he did not administer the medicine, but the commission rejected the argument, observing that the entire treatment was done under his care and, therefore, he was vicariously responsible for the commissions and omissions of those who assisted him. The doctor had insured himself with National Insurance Co for Rs 10 lakh and the hospital had a policy for Rs 10 crore from Oriental Insurance Co. The National Commission directed them to share the compensation which was fixed at Rs 17 lakh.