More SC rules on bouncing cheques

While disposing of a batch of cheque bounce appeals with a 14-year history, the Supreme Court last week set forth six more guidelines to speed up trials in such cases. In the past few months, the court had issued some twenty other rules to be followed by the trial courts and high courts, since thousands of criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act are clogging the judicial system. The new batch of cases was led by an appeal from Gujarat, titled Giriraj Proteins Ltd vs D M Finance. In one case, the trial court took about six years to acquit the person accused of issuing a cheque without adequate balance in the bank account. The appeal took more than that period in the high court, which only remitted the matter to the trial court due to technical faults. The third appeal reached the Supreme Court two years ago. Litigation took more than a decade because the high court ordered fresh trial after several years on procedural technicalities. The Supreme Court remarked: To replay the whole laborious exercise after erasing the bulky records relating to earlier proceedings by bringing down all persons to the court once again would be sheer waste of time, energy and costs unless there is miscarriage of justice otherwiseCourts cannot overlook the realities and the serious impact on the pending cases in trial courts which are crammed with dockets, and how much that order would inflict hardship on many innocent persons.. The re-enactment of the whole labour might give the impression to the common man that law is more pedantic than pragmatic. Law is not an instrument to be used for inflicting sufferings on the people .

Reprieve for General Motors

The Supreme Court has stated that a consumer court cannot impose penal compensation when the aggrieved person did not ask for it. In this case, General Motors vs Ashok Ramnik, the National Consumer Commission imposed compensation on the car manufacturer for selling its vehicles as SUV to 260 customers though the model did not qualify for that description. Ashok had a dream to drive in a sports model vehicle to the high hills. The brochure of General Motors promised exactly that. So he bought a Chevrolet Forester model for Rs 14 lakh in 2004. But he was disappointed on several fronts and sued the firm for unfair trade practices like promising facilities which were not available. The district consumer forum asked the firm to return the money with costs of litigation and Rs 5,000 for mental agony. The firm appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which found that it was not a SUV as was described in the brochures. So it asked the manufacturer to correct its claims in future ads. When the appeal was taken to the National Commission, it imposed Rs 25 lakh compensation on the firm in the nature of punishment for unfair trade practice. Rs 20 lakh would go to the consumer welfare fund of the government, the commission ordered. General Motors appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the National Commission had gone beyond its powers by imposing punitive damages, when the affected party did not ask for it.

High courts not to hear trade disputes

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of M/s IVT (IB Valley Transport), coal carriers, against the Orissa High Court judgment which stated that it would not entertain commercial contract matters in a writ petition. A writ petition is meant mainly to remedy violations of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the view of the high court stating that in such disputes, the aggrieved party should file a suit or take other legal measures. In this case, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd floated tender and the coal carrier emerged as the lowest tenderer. After three years of executing the contract, disputes arose between the parties about the rate of minimum wages to be paid to the contract workers in the mines. The carrier insisted on the wage of Rs 101 per day instead of Rs 279 as suggested by the coal company. It filed a writ petition in the high court, which rejected it as not maintainable. The General Terms and Conditions provided for a mechanism for dispute resolution, according to which differences shall be resolved at the company level before resorting to legal remedies. Therefore, the carrier was asked to exhaust those remedies instead of rushing to the high court.

Caveat on equal pay for equal work

The constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied without verifying the nature of the work done by two classes of workers in an establishment, the Supreme Court has emphasised in the judgment, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tilak Raj. The high court there had directed the government to pay higher scales to lab attendants as was given to lab assistants as they were purportedly doing similar work and there should be no discrimination. On states appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court judgment. It said that without looking into the qualification of the employees, their nature of the work, working conditions and other relevant factors, the high court should not have passed the order asking the government to pay equal wages for both classes of workers.

Legal heat over ice cream name

The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the appeal of M/s South India Beverages in a trade mark dispute over an ice cream brand. General Mills Marketing Inc, a US company, claimed the name Haagen-Dazs for its ice cream, dessert, sherbet, sorbet and frozen confections, stating that it had registered the mark in 1993, and the products were sold here since 2007. The name has no dictionary meaning. The Indian company used the mark D'Daazs for its similar products. According to it, this name indicated the founder, who was Dwarka Das. The foreign company had moved the single judge of the high court last July to get an injunction against the Indian firm. It had been allowed. Now South Indian Beverages appealed to a division bench to vacate the injunction. The court rejected the prayer. The names were phonetically similar. So the consumer is likely to be confused. A layman is not expected to have the same 'hair-splitting' skills as an expert. A punctilious analysis is not necessary, the judgment said while giving 30 days to the Indian firm to exhaust the existing packaging materials.