From pump allotments to status for casual staff, here're key court orders

A weekly selection of key court orders

Courts’ role limited in pump allotments

The Supreme Court last week reiterated that courts should refrain from interfering in allotments of petrol pumps and other state resources unless there was flagrant error committed by a state entity. “Courts might rectify, in exercise of its power of judicial review, an error of law or even an error of fact, for sufficient reasons, if the error breaches fundamental or basic principles of justice or fair play or if the error is patent and/or flagrant, but not otherwise,” the court stated in its judgment in the case, Sanjay Kumar vs Prakash Chandra. However, even in cases where the court finds an apparent factual error, which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to give an opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error.   It is only in the rarest of cases, where the factual error is so obvious that it is rectifiable by the court itself, that the court might, to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error, the judgment explained while allowing the appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court.  In this case, two candidates were disputing the selection made by Indian Oil Corporation for a retail outlet. The dispute was over the distance of the plot from the road. The High Court erred in counting the distance, too.

More compensation than asked for

A motor accident claims tribunal can grant compensation more than what is demanded by the victim or his successors, the Supreme Court stated while awarding Rs 300,000 more than what was asked for by the widow. In this case, a young man who used to work in Doha died in an accident in Kerala. His widow moved the tribunal for Rs 2.5 million as compensation, but she was given only Rs 1.183 million. Both she and the insurance company appealed to the high court against the order. The high court enhanced the damages by Rs 970,000. The widow with two children and an aged father appealed to the Supreme Court. It raised the compensation to Rs 2.8 million, though they had asked for only Rs 2.5 million. The judgment justified the higher amount in the case, Ramla vs National Insurance Co as the Motor Vehicles Act was a social and beneficial legislation. The court observed: “There is no restriction that the court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount since the function of the tribunal or the court under Section 168 of the Act is to award ‘just compensation’. A just compensation is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.

SC frowns at verbose orders

The Supreme Court has often criticised the courts below for disposing of cases in short paragraphs without giving reasons for their conclusions. Now it has found some high courts writing long judgments when a short order would do. In its judgment, Surjeet Singh vs Sadhu Singh, the court stressed that brevity, being a virtue, must be observed as far as possible. The occasion to make this remark was that the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while remanding a case to the original court, wrote 60 pages justifying its action, elaborating case law. In another case involving evicting a tenant, the Kerala High Court explained the lease in 43 pages, which the Supreme Court felt unnecessary. Moreover, the high court also dealt in detail with a civil dispute between the owner and the tenant, Roshina vs Abdul Aziz, in a writ petition which it had no power to entertain.

Tenants have a say in debt recovery

Though tenants in a property mortgaged as collateral for obtaining a loan are entitled to a hearing before they are evicted under the Securitisation (“Sarfaesi”) Act, the borrowers do not have the same right, according to the Karnataka High Court. In the case, Hdb Financial Services Ltd vs M/S Remo Software Ltd, notices were issued by the creditor-financial institution to all tenants, asking them to vacate the premises within seven days. They moved the high court against the notices. The single judge of the high court ruled that the tenants have a right to be heard before the debt recovery tribunal. He also extended the right to the borrowers. Appeals went to the division bench. It allowed a hearing to the tenants before the tribunal but denied it to the borrowers. The judgment stated that Section 14 of the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court did not grant such a right to the borrowers.

Temporary status for casual staff 

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has directed Radio Kashmir of All India Radio to grant temporary workers’ status to its casual employees according to the mandate of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993. The scheme covers all government employees. The industrial tribunal in Chandigarh had directed the Director General of AIR to grant causal labourers temporary status. AIR moved the high court against that order, arguing that it would lead to granting them regularisation. The high court dismissed the appeal in a long judgment parts of which read: “In the context of the unequal bargaining power of the workers, who had been desperate for sustaining their respective families, particularly during turmoil and hard days, conditions sketched in job contract through unequal bargaining power, is nothing but an unconscionable covenant, forced on persons who hardly had any strength to resist its might. In fact, the workers had practically no choice in the matter and had to relinquish their claim for making both ends meet. This type of covenant cannot be said to be right or reasonable and amounts to unconscionable contract.”

Damages for jewellery lost in New York

Two Delhi jewellers took a transit insurance policy for Rs 15.62 million and carried precious articles to a New York buyer. Since a tyre of their car was found deflated, they took the vehicle to a gas station. They and a helper stood near the car while the wheel was being repaired. Soon they found their goods missing. The insurer refused to reimburse them alleging that they were negligent. The state commission awarded Rs 4 million to them -- half the loss assessed by the surveyor. On appeal, the National Consumer Commission asked New India Assurance to pay the full Rs 8 million with interest, stating that there was no negligence as the owners of Benhur Jewel Ltd were standing near the car.