The Supreme Court held last week that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation for road accident death even if the owner had sold the vehicle so long as his name is the official register. The previous owner might have handed over possession of the vehicle to the buyer, but he and his insurer continued to be liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy is in his name. In this case, Pushpa vs Shakuntala, the owner sold the truck to another person. But the vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company in the previous owner's name. There was an accident killing three persons. Their dependents moved the motor accident claims tribunal against Oriental and the previous owner. The tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh high court held that the previous owner had no liability as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle. They ruled that the new owner alone was liable to pay. The dependents appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurance company argued in the Supreme Court that the liability should entirely be that of the new owner as the old owner had lost control of the vehicle after the sale. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court made the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount.
Service providers under licence from AAI are liable to pay service tax
Service providers under licence from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) have to pay service tax and the liability is not that of AAI, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Sparkway Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise. AAI had entered into a licence agreement with the firm for collecting airport admission charges on behalf of AAI at Calicut airport. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified in 2004 that services provided at airports have to pay service tax. When the authorities demanded service tax from the firm, it refused to pay arguing that it was not permitted to collect service tax from the public and the duty was on AAI. The latter was the principal service provider and the assessee firm was only a collecting agent. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court stated that according to the licence agreement, the firm was obliged to pay all rates and taxes.
Appeal against levy of central excise dismissed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Usha Rectifier Corporation challenging the levy of central excise on products which were used for research and development. The company manufactures electronic equipment. It bought components and assembled them for R & D. The company argued that there was no manufacture of any product which was marketable and therefore it was not liable to pay excise duty. It further contended that the equipment were used within the factory and it was not taken out of factory gates. The item was dismantled within the factory itself. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court ruled that “even if the equipment were used for captive consumption and within factory premises, considering that they were saleable and marketable, duty was payable on the goods.” Apart from capitalisation of the manufacturing process in the balance sheet, the company’s assertion that the equipment was meant to save foreign exchange by developing indigenous products, was an admission that the goods were marketable. Such products would be “deemed to have been removed from the factory premises for consumption,” the judgment said.
Compensation for land acquired to be based on fair market value
The compensation for land acquired should be based on the fair market value received for similar land in the neighbourhood, but not sold in auction, the Supreme Court has asserted in the case, Karnataka Housing Board vs Land Acquisition Officer. This, said the court, was because auction sales stood on a different footing. In auction, there is an element of competition, triggered by “human ego, and desire to do better than other competitors.” This leads to high prices. On the other hand, when the auction is by banks, financial institutions or courts, “there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation.” These factors depress the price. Therefore, auction price should not be the criterion for calculating compensation for acquired land, the court said.
Foreign arbitration award enforceable in India
The Delhi high court has held that the foreign arbitration award in the dispute between US firm Penn Racquet Sports and Indian company Mayor International Ltd was enforceable in this country according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The award made by International Chamber of Commerce in Paris was, therefore, made decree of the high court, dismissing the objection of the Indian firm which objected to the award. The companies entered into a Trade Mark Licence Agreement (TLA), under which the US firm had granted the Indian firm licence to use the trademark “Penn” for use in certain territories for certain products like golf balls, accessories and inflatable balls. The Indian firm agreed to pay annual royalty. Disputes arose over breach of conditions, which were referred to arbitration. The award went in favour of the US firm. The Indian company objected to its enforcement arguing, among other things, that it was against public policy of India. The high court rejected its objections.
