More issues for larger SC Benches

A weekly selection of key court orders

There are more than 750 cases in the Supreme Court that have been referred to constitution Benches of at least five judges. The issues involved are of high importance and benches of less than five judges have delivered conflicting judgments over the years. The number of such referred matters has recently gone up and resolution in such contrary decisions might take long. In the past few weeks alone, at least four issues have been referred to constitution benches because three-judge benches have doubted the correctness of the decisions made by other three-judge benches. Some of them are: quantum of penalty to be imposed on stock brokers for violations of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) regulations and the factors to be considered by the adjudicating officer under Section 15 of the Sebi Act (Siddhartha Chaturvedi vs Sebi); applicability of Sarfaesi Act to cooperative banks and societies (Pandurang Ganapati vs VPM Sahakari Bank); computation of the transaction value of goods supplied to customers in containers by manufacturers - whether the charge for providing containers should be taken into account for determination of duty (Commissioner of Central Excise vs Grasim). The problem of conflicting judgments arises because the 30 judges of the Supreme Court sit in 14 court rooms and each bench might have a view different from another. Legislation has also multiplied and amendments to economic laws and new trends in jurisprudence have changed the perception of the judges. Since some constitution bench cases have been waiting to be taken up for over a decade, the new cases will have to stand in queue far longer.

Jurisdiction in trademark cases

Read more from our special coverage on "BRIEF CASE"

• New issues in land acquisition in 1945
• SC orders demolition of Patna building
• Sebi Act lacks clarity, says Supreme Court

The Delhi high court last week stated that it would not hear a dispute over trademark and copyright of a Kanpur firm against a law firm in Bulandshehr in Uttar Pradesh though the Kanpur firm's corporate office is in Delhi. In this case, RSP Ltd vs Mukund Sharma, the former is a manufacturer of soaps and detergents. The opposite party is a law firm. Both use a common word, 'Ghari'. The detergent firm argued that the name was being used by the law firm engaged in advisory services in relation to intellectual property rights and was soliciting clients in Delhi. The high court cited the civil procedure code and rejected the petition of the soap firm stating that no cause of action arose in Delhi.

Hurdle in development project
The Bombay High Court has quashed the order of the Maharashtra revenue minister to maintain status quo regarding the eviction of a slum dweller, who was singularly holding up a project for redevelopment of an area in Greater Mumbai. The judgment declared that the minister had no power to pass such an order. He had nullified the orders of the competent municipal authorities, the appellate authority and the high court, the judgment declared in the judgment, Shreeji Construction vs State of Maharashtra. The slum dweller, claiming to be a tribal, took legal course but failed several times. His hutment was demolished, and his belongings, which he refused to remove, were kept at the site. He approached the government, and the minister ordered status quo. The judgment noted that the government had no role in this local authority affair and "the minister ought to have been alive to the fact that a slum redevelopment scheme is being implemented and …his order has the effect of directly impeding the implementation of the slum redevelopment scheme."

Debarring firm held illegal
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the debarring for five years of a company, which was given a project for establishing and creating complete infrastructure to manufacture and provide high security registration plate to vehicles in the state in conformity with the technical parameters contemplated in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The high court stated in its judgment, Agros Impex India Ltd vs Government of Jharkhand, that the severe punishment of debarring the firm for five years from getting any civil work was "completely in violation of the principles of natural justice having been effected without any opportunity of show cause to the firm." It stated that the government's argument could not be accepted "given the extreme nature of penalty entailing serious consequence of debarment imposed upon the firm". Though the firm was the successful bidder, its contract was terminated on the ground that it had failed to implement the scheme according to the terms of contract. The job was given to another firm, Rosamarta Technologies Ltd. This was challenged by Agros in a writ petition. The high court stated that it was not the right forum to decide the disputed questions of facts raised by both the parties; they should be taken to a civil court or for arbitration.

Full disclosure must in tender bids
The Rajasthan High Court last week dismissed the petition of a firm, which bid for a project without disclosing that it had been blacklisted. In this case, Geo Miller & Co vs State of Rajasthan, the engineering firm complained that its offer for constructing a water supply project was wrongly rejected. Rejecting its contentions, the judgment stated that "the categorical finding of this court is that the firm filed this petition without disclosing the fact that it stood blacklisted, did not give full particulars as required in the bid documents, and the decision taken that the bid documents is non-responsive is not borne out of mala fides nor there is any infirmity in the decision-making process for this court to interfere."

Goa land acquisition law upheld
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition challenging the amendment made by the Goa government to the Land Acquisition Act. A non-government organisation, Goa Foundation, had argued that the amendment was made to nullify the orders of the court passed in 2009 in the land acquisition for Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. The court upheld the amendment, which conferred power on the government to modify or amend its agreement with companies, which according to the government was the "the need of the day."