Reward for persistent litigation

A weekly selection of key court orders

The strong element of judicial discretion - or sheer luck for litigants - in the valuation of land for payment of compensation to owners after acquisition by the government could be seen in two sets of judgments the Supreme Court delivered in recent days. In one case, Nirmal Singh vs State of Haryana, agricultural land was acquired for developing roads and commercial complexes. The collector assessed the compensation at Rs 6 lakh per acre. The farmers moved the reference court which raised the rate to Rs 6.6 lakh. Still dissatisfied, they moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It hiked the rate to Rs 9 lakh. The farmers were amply rewarded for their persistence when the Supreme Court awarded Rs 12 lakh per acre with interest at the rate of 15 per cent for the land taken over in 2002. In another set of cases, Union of India vs Raj Kumar, the assessment of compensation by the collector, the reference court and the high court varied immensely. In one instance, when the central government acquired land for developing a military cantonment in Patiala, the collector awarded Rs 2 lakh per acre, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs 9 lakh. The high court reduced it to Rs 105 per square yard.

In all these cases, the central government challenged the valuation, but the Supreme Court upheld the high court's computation.

Award must disclose reasons
The Supreme Court has emphasised that an arbitration award shall contain the reason for the conclusion. In this new judgment, Anand Brothers vs Union of India, the Delhi High Court had set aside the award in arbitration proceedings on the ground that the arbitrator had not explained the reasons for his conclusions on various issues. The firm, which received the award in its favour, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that a finding, howsoever cryptic, must be accepted according to the old Arbitration Act ,1940. It contended the agreement in this case did not stipulate that the award should contain the reasoning adopted by the arbitrator. The government, on the contrary, submitted that a finding that is unsupported by any reason was no finding in the eye of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the high court order and dismissed the appeal of the firm.

Distribution of state largesse
"The state and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person at their sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers of the state. The decisions and action of the state must be founded on a sound, transparent and well-defined policy which shall be made known to the public," the Supreme Court stated once again while reversing a judgment of the Bombay high court. "The disposal of government land by adopting a discriminatory and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be done in a fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favouritism or nepotism influences the exercises of discretion," said the Supreme Court in the case, City Industrial Development Corporation vs Platinum Entertainment. The corporation had cancelled the allotments following an inquiry report. The allottees moved the high court which ruled in their favour. On appeal, the Supreme Court said that "no procedure was adopted by the corporation for allotment of the plots either by tender or by competitive bidding. No application was either invited or received from interested persons. Obviously, when the tender was not advertised or any notice inviting applications were made, there was no occasion for any person to apply for allotment of these plots." This caused huge loss to the corporation, the court underlined.

Compensation hiked for road death
The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation for the road death of a brilliant medical student aged 19 years, stating that the courts below had assessed the future loss wrongly at Rs 18,000 per month. "It is too less for a medical graduate these days," the court observed. "Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise." It fixed the monthly loss of income at Rs 25,000. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 19 lakh to his parents which was reduced by the Gujarat High Court to Rs 11 lakh. The Supreme Court, in the appeal case, Ashvinbhai Modi vs Ramkaran Sharma, held that the courts below had wrongly calculated the compensation and asked the insurance company to pay Rs 27.25 lakh with 9 per cent interest from the date of application. The apex court also criticised the courts below for granting Rs 5,000 only as funeral expenses and raised it to Rs 25,000.

Long ride to justice
A 1978 flood and lock-out in Hindustan Motors factory, once the giant car manufacturer in West Bengal, led to insurance claims against National Insurance Co and have just now been settled by the Calcutta high court. The suit has taken 36 years in the high court itself and if the parties decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, it might take another decade. Both parties could have enough grievances to appeal because the two dozens of issues dealt with by the high court have been decided partly in favour of the car manufacturer and partly in favour of the insurers . The amounts involved are around Rs 7 crore, which is not much for both sides in view of the inflation over these decades.

No takers for this verdict
Sometimes a judgment already written and ready for delivery could be forgotten in judges' chambers for more than a year. Though this does not happen very often, one such instance was mentioned last week in the Delhi High Court judgment, Tech Plus Media Ltd vs Jyoti Janda.

The case was about the alleged infringement of copyright of an industry publication house in the sphere of information technology by two of its former employees. They were accused of starting a website on a parallel business model.

While dismissing the suit, the judge noted that though the judgment was argued and dictated on April 11 last year, it remained to be corrected and "went on the back burner". Surprisingly, lawyers for neither contesting party mentioned the matter before the judge in the last one and a half years and sought delivery of the judgment.