Single venue for arbitration

Courts in two countries cannot have concurrent jurisdiction in arbitration as it would create conflicting decisions, unnecessary complications and inconvenience. It would also go against the spirit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is to enable parties to resolve disputes speedily, economically and finally. The Supreme Court stated so while setting aside the view of the Bombay High court which had ruled that the courts in England and India have concurrent jurisdiction in the disputes between Enercon India Ltd and Enercon GMBH, incorporated under German laws. There might also be an "ugly rush" to get one forum decide before the other and it would be "a recipe for confusion and injustice". In this case, two Indians entered into a joint venture agreement with the German corporation and formed the Indian company to manufacture and sell wind turbine generators. However, the latter alleged that the German firm stopped shipments of the supplies. The reason urged was that the German firm wanted to pressurise it to sell the shareholding in a desired manner. The dispute travelled from courts in Daman, where the company is registered, the Bombay High Court and to England. The high court ruled against the Indian firm. It appealed to the Supreme Court. It appointed the chairman of the arbitration tribunal and declared that it would conduct proceedings in India.

Daily wage workers cannot be absorbed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the petitions of daily wage workers, who have been on the roll of the Bihar agricultural produce marketing board for nearly two decades and wanted regularisation in the state employment. The board was taken over by the state government. The daily wage workers pleaded for regularisation on the ground that they were working for decades, and they were paid salaries equal to those in the department. However, the Supreme Court denied their prayer in the case, Nand Kumar vs state of Bihar, stating that "it was within their knowledge all the consequences of appointment being temporary; they cannot have even a right to invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post".

Medical or judicial negligence?

The Supreme Court last week dealt with a case of alleged medical negligence, but wondered whether it "bordered on judicial negligence". The judge of the Punjab and Haryana went on the basis that the patient had died due to medical negligence. But there was no allegation that she had died. In fact, the medical council had found that the doctors were competent and followed accepted procedure. Despite that the high court repeatedly wrote in its judgment that the patient died and proceeded to decide the case on that basis. When the management of Inscol multi-speciality hospital in Chandigarh appealed to the Supreme Court, it frowned on the gross error committed by the high court. The high court made a belated attempt to change the word "died" to "on the brink of death", on the pretext that it was correcting "typographical" errors. The Supreme Court said the change altered the very foundation of the judgment. It asked the high court to rehear the case, Daljit Singh vs Jagjit Singh.

Growing money on trees
The Delhi High Court, last week, confirmed the sentence on Glitter Gold Plantations Ltd and two of its directors for violating the rules and order of Sebi and not refunding the dues of the investors. The company collected money from the public promising that it shall give teak trees to the unit holders after 20 years and the share per unit, which at the time of offer in 1997 was 2,500 was likely to be Rs 3 lakh per unit at the time the trees are given to the investors. The company was not registered with Sebi and it had not approved of the scheme. It ordered the company to return the money to the investors. It did not fully comply with the order. Some investors filed criminal cases leading to conviction of some directors along with the company. They appealed to the high court. It confirmed the conviction of two directors and the company. The directors will undergo imprisonment. The amount collected by the company will be deposited in the court.

Bar on use of trade name
The Delhi High Court has restrained Max Switchgears Ltd from selling and dealing in electrical goods, ie, switchgear, switches and other allied goods under the trade mark MAX as well as from using the same as dominant part of its corporate name. It was also restrained from using any deceptively similar trade mark which may amount to infringement of the registered trade mark of Mex Switchgears Ltd. The latter approached the court complaining that the use of expression MAX, which is deceptively similar to its registered trademark MEX, was bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the purchasing public and trade.

Credit societies lose claim
The Bombay High Court last week dismissed a large number of petitions moved by credit societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. They had challenged the interpretation of a provision in the Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation Act which provided that the corporation shall be liable to pay every depositor of the bank an amount equal to the amount due to him in respect of his deposit in that bank when an order of winding up or liquidation of that bank is made. It restricted the liability to the extent of Rs 1,00,000. The credit societies had deposited huge sums in certain co-op banks whose licences were cancelled by Reserve Bank of India. The credit societies wanted the entire deposit with interest. But the corporation was offering only Rs 1,00,000 to each of them by treating them as 'one unit each'.

It was argued that the correct interpretation would require the corporation to treat each of their small depositors s as 'one unit each'. The high court, however, upheld the provision based on earlier decisions.