From Indian Bank's negligence to patent case, here are the key court orders

In motor accident claims, even employed sons and married daughters can apply for compensation for the death of their working mother, the Supreme Court ruled in its judgment last week in the case National Insurance Company vs Birender. Though they are not strictly “dependents” of their employed mother who died in a road accident, they are “legal representatives” according to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The woman, in this case, died when a dumper hit the motorbike while riding pillion on way to her government office. The two sons filed a claim petition. The insurance company resisted it on several grounds but the main ground was that the sons were earning wages and were not dependent upon the income of their mother. The case traveled from the tribunal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Supreme Court. Finally, the apex court declared that even though the sons were earning wages, and married, they were entitled to compensation as legal representatives of their mother. The court asserted that the liability of the insurance company does not cease because of the absence of dependency of the concerned legal representatives. The compensation constitutes part of the “estate” of the deceased. As a result, the legal representatives of the deceased would inherit the estate.

Indian Bank indicted for negligence

The Supreme Court has directed Indian Bank to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation to a DAV Public School in West Bengal for negligence leading to heavy loss to the school. The school’s bank accounts were without net banking facility. But when the principal opened a savings net banking account for transferring funds to the three school accounts, it was found that Rs 25 lakh was unauthorisedly transferred from the school accounts. The matter was reported to the bank which took one day to check the transactions. By then more money disappeared. Moreover, it was found that a duplicate SIM card was used to transfer money. The state consumer commission and the National Commission found loopholes in the story and granted only Rs 1 lakh as compensation. On appeal, the Supreme Court pointed out that the bank linked the school accounts to that of the principal without any request from the school. Therefore, neither the school nor the principal was responsible for the loss and the bank should compensate the school. 

Liquor vendor allowed to shift 650 km

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court and allowed a wholesaler in Indian Made Foreign Liquor to shift his business from Mahe on the western coast to Karaikal on the eastern coast 650 km away. The shifting was caught in litigation with some residents in Karaikal objecting to the permission granted by the authorities under the Puducherry excise law. They argued that shifting of the shop was contrary to the public interest of the residents of Karaikal. For about 35 houses in Nedunkadu circle, Karaikal, there were 35 liquor shops already operational. Moreover, they argued that the Supreme Court had banned shops 500 m from highways. They moved the Madras High Court. The court allowed the petition in its judgment, M/s CEE CEE & CEE vs K. Devamani. The dealer moved the Supreme Court. It ruled that the excise rules of the Union Territory spread over four unconnected places in south India allowed shifting business, wholesale or retail. The judgment listed a number of shops that had shifted to Karaikal from other regions for better revenue. The court allowed the relocation subject to the conditions set by the excise authorities. The court added two of its own -- there should be a common entrance and exit; the boundary should be properly protected.

Late-coming landowners lose benefit

Those whose land was acquired for a project cannot slumber over their right to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and then claim interest on the awarded amount. In this case, Executive Engineer vs State of Maharashtra, while one group of land-losers had received enhanced compensation granted by the Bombay High court, the other group came forward five-and-a-half year later. The high court condoned the delay and then asked the authorities to pay interest on the delayed compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the authorities in part. While asking them to pay the enhanced amount it quashed the high court order to pay interest on it. The judgment emphasised: “The project executive, who is a public autho­rity, cannot be saddled with the liability to pay interest for the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to it.” 

Award cannot wait until IBC decision

The Calcutta High Court has stated that an application to set aside an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act could not be kept in abeyance by reason of the provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) being invoked by operational creditors against the debtor. In the judgment, Sirpur Paper Mills vs I K Merchants, the mills prayed for setting aside the award and pointed out that corporate insolvency proceedings under the IBC have been initiated against it as a corporate debtor. The mill has been taken over by JK Paper, which was the Resolution Applicant before the NCLT. The high court ruled that there was no basis for relegating the appeal under the Arbitration Act to the backburner. “In this case, the mills being the corporate debtor/award debtor it cannot be permitted to take refuge under the provisions of the IBC for relegating the claim of the award-holder to limbo for an indefinite period of time,” the judgment said.

Injunction denied in patent case

The Delhi High Court last week rejected two applications moved by Astrazeneca AB against Emcure Pharmaceuticals in a patent suit involving a medicine for antiplatelet treatment for Acute Coronary Syndrome. The name of the compound is Ticagrelor. Astrazeneca uses the names Brilinta and Axcer for its compound and the Indian company uses the brand names Ticaplat and Tiare for its product. The former claimed enhan­ced efficiency for its compound, while the latter maintained that there was little innovation in it. The high court observed that though Astrazeneca has presented prima facie case in its favour, the patent had expired last month and Emcure has already launched its rival product. Therefore, pending the final decision, the court did not pass an injunction.