The Supreme Court (SC) last week asked the Haryana Financial Corporation to refund the amount received from a buyer of a defaulting unit as it had not disclosed certain vital facts to the buyer. The corporation had forfeited the amount when the buyer withdrew from the contract of sale. The SC stated in the case, Haryana Financial Corporation vs Rajesh Gupta, that a “mere perusal of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act will show that it was incumbent upon the corporation to disclose to the buyer about the non-existence of an independent passage to the unit. It was also the duty of the corporation to inform the buyer that the passage mentioned in the revenue record was not fit for movement of vehicles. The corporation also failed to show the buyer the entire documentation as required by law.”
No interest holiday on excess royalty collection contracts
The SC has set aside the judgement of the Rajasthan high court and upheld the state government’s contention that those who had ‘excess royalty collection contracts’ for minerals were not entitled to “interest holiday” as claimed by the contractors. Allowing the appeal, Rajasthan vs Dev Ganga Enterprises, the SC stated the royalty collection contracts are different from excess royalty collection contracts. In the case of the latter, the contractors cannot be granted grace period under the state Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
Order to release confiscated cash
The SC has stated it was wrong on the part of the Delhi high court to order unconditional release of confiscated cash which represented sale proceeds of allegedly mis-declared goods which was liable to be confiscated. Customs suspected hawala transactions and seized Rs 23.90 lakh from the houses of the promoters of a company (Commissioner of Customs vs Euroasia Global). When they moved the high court it ordered release of the cash seized pending adjudication.
I-T relief for textbook corp
The SC has set aside the Gauhati high court judgement which had ruled that textbooks sold by the Assam State Textbook Production and Publication Corporation Ltd attracted income tax. The text book committee of the state was converted into a corporation for research, printing and publication of books. The department denied exemption from tax under Section 10(22). The corporation moved the tribunal which ruled in its favour. However, on appeal, the high court stated that the corporation was not entitled to exemption as it was engaged in a “profit earning activity”.
The Supreme Court now reversed this finding and remitted the matter to the assessing department. A full bench of the Bombay high court has ruled in the case, Central Warehousing Corporation vs Fortpoint Automative Ltd, that small causes courts in Mumbai has jurisdiction in the case of arbitration between a licensor and a licencee. This was so under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In another judgment on arbitration, the full bench of the same high court ruled that the court has discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award partly or wholly depending on the facts and circumstances of the given case. The Legislature has vested wide discretion in the court to set aside an award wholly or partly, the judgment said in the case, R S Jiwani vs Ircon International.
The Delhi high court has dismissed the petition, Jindal Exports Ltd vs Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd, and upheld the foreign award made in England. The high court stated that it was not necessary in law for the foreign award made in England to have been confirmed by an English court prior to its enforcement in India. The Indian company had contracted to supply menthol crystals to the foreign firm, but could not supply it on time. Following disputes, the foreign company nominated its arbitrator under the International General Produce Association Rules, but the Indian company did not nominate anyone. The awards were made nevertheless against Jindal and this was challenged in the high court on various grounds. After long-winding litigation up to the Supreme Court, now the high court has directed the enforcement of the award.
