The Supreme Court today issued notices to the central and West Bengal governments and the CBI on two public interest petitions relating to the Saradha chit fund scam

Saradha scam: SC issues notices to WB, Centre

Business Standard

Courts should order demolitions before calamities strike

When nature plays arbiter

The Supreme Court has held that consumer courts cannot entertain complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act or take action against power corporations. The ruling was given in an appeal moved by the UP Power Corporation Ltd against a number of consumers of electricity, who were accused by the corporation of theft of power or diversion of power to commercial use. The National Consumer Commission had ruled that they were consumers and, therefore, entitled to move consumer forums for deficiency in service. Setting aside that decision, the Supreme Court stated that indulging in "unauthorised use of electricity" does not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer forums. A complaint against the assessment made by the corporation is not maintainable before a consumer forum.Sentence in cheque bounce casesIn a cheque bouncing case, the sentence shall normally run concurrently for the same set of offences, and not consecutively, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case

Dispute over power bills out of consumer courts' purview

The Supreme Court held last week that after the death of a mining lessee all his rights came to an end and his legal heirs are not entitled to continue the lease or renew it

Death ends mining lease

The Supreme Court today declared that the government has the power to fix the ceiling price of asthma drug doxofylline formulation under the Drug Prices Control Order and overruled the Delhi high court judgment which had held that the government did not have the power

Govt 'can' fix ceiling price of asthma drug: SC

The summer vacations end, highlighting huge backlog of cases

30 million and counting

"It is unfortunate that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, the executive authorities entrusted with the task of acquiring private land for any public purposes have time and again exhibited total lack of seriousness in the performance of their duties under the Land Acquisition Act," the Supreme Court stated in the case, Women's Education Trust vs State of Haryana. All the principles laid down by the court were broken. The court therefore reiterated the cardinal principles to be followed: The landowners should be given a chance to raise objections, to prove that there was no public purpose involved, alternative land was available, the collector should give reasons for the acquisition and why it is imperative despite the objections, and his report shall be examined by the state government for its objectivity.Refund order set asideThe Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had directed Engineering Export Promotion Council to refund the money deposited

Landowners' rights flouted

Even if a litigant gets a decree in his favour, it is a long time before he will be able to enjoy the result, as the trouble for him starts when he tries to execute it, the Supreme Court said in its recent judgment, Satyawati vs Rajinder Singh. This was the problem pointed out by the Privy Council in a 1872 case and the situation has not changed after centuries, the judgment pointed out. In this case, Satyawati won a property case in 1996, but she has not been able to get the property in Faridabad, near Delhi, till today due to the expensive and tiresome execution proceedings. She has been shunted from the executing court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and now the Supreme Court. According to the courts below, the decree was not 'executable'. The Supreme Court has now asked the executing court to pass its order without unreasonable delay. It said, "if the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success his entire effort would be in vain. The delay benefits unscrupulous

Winning a suit is half the battle

Governments must give companies a hearing before blacklisting them

A question of black and white

The Supreme Court has issued seven "general directions" to be followed when a state government supersedes elected managing committees of cooperative banks and other financial bodies. This has become necessary, stated the court, "in view of the mushrooming cases in various courts challenging orders of supersession of elected committees." The order was passed while dismissing the appeal of the Madhya Pradesh government against the high court judgment in the case of supersession of the board of directors of District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Panna. The joint registrar of cooperative societies superseded the board after issuing a show cause notice containing 19 charges.  The directors challenged the supersession as it was done without consulting Reserve Bank of India.  The court directed reinstatement of the board of directors for the full term. Among the general directions are supersession should be ordered only in rare circumstances, the committees should not be penalised for short-comings a

Supersession of elected committees

The Supreme Court has ruled that prior permission of the criminal court is not necessary for compounding an offence under the Companies Act when power of compounding is exercised by the Company Law Board (CLB)

CLB can compound offence

A look at the dirty tricks they don't teach you at law schools...

Suits wrapped in vengeance

The highest bidder in an auction of plots does not acquire any vested interest merely by depositing a percentage of the amount and earnest money. The bid must be accepted by the authorities otherwise there is no concluded contract. The Supreme Court held so in its judgment, UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs OP Sharma, while setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that while accepting or rejecting the highest bid, the authorities were exercising their executive power and the correctness of the decision cannot be subject to judicial review. In this case, auction was conducted for shops and cinema in Bareilly and the highest bidder deposited a percentage of the money. However, the housing commissioner rejected the bid and returned the money. This led to litigation in various courts since 1977. The high court held in favour of the bidder. But the Supreme Court ruled that the high court was wrong on law and facts.Just and fair compensationThe Supreme C

Highest bid can be rejected

Even if the main agreement between two parties are void, the arbitration clause will survive, according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court has held while setting aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case, Today Homes & Infrastructure Ltd vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust. The firm was selected to build the city centre but disputes arose over payments. It moved the high court for appointment of an arbitrator. The trust opposed it arguing that the main contract was void and therefore, the arbitration clause cannot be enforced. The high court agreed with it. The construction firm appealed to the Supreme Court. It quashed the high court order and asked it to reconsider the request for arbitration. The high court cannot undertake a detailed scrutiny of the merits of the case while considering a request for arbitration. Moreover, an arbitration agreement stands independent of the main agreement. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act presumes that the agre

Arbitration clause has long life

Workers wait long enough to get dues after liquidation proceedings

The last rites of sick units

In an arbitration dispute, the Supreme Court will not normally decide whether the claims are long dead and barred by the law of limitation. It will be determined by the arbitration tribunal, the court stated in the judgment, Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd vs ONGC. In this case, the Hong Kong company which supplied drilling equipment and services to the Indian public sector company complained that it had not received payment for the work it had undertaken. Though it had sent notices several times, ONGC did not respond. It therefore invoked the arbitration clause. ONGC stated that it was a dead claim because of the long delay. It also argued that the notices did not reach its correct department. When the foreign company moved the Supreme Court Chief Justice of India for appointment of an arbitration tribunal, it stated that it would not decide the question of delay. It should be left to the tribunal. It appointed three of its former judges as a tribunal to decide the merits of the case,

Arbitrator will test 'dead' disputes

The Supreme Court ruled last week that the claims of workers who contend that they are entitled to payment from a company in liquidation have to be considered and adjudicated by the liquidator of the debtor company and not by the debt recovery tribunal. Laying down 12 rules in the judgment, Bank of Maharashtra vs Pandurang, the court stated that if the debtor company is not in liquidation nor any provisional liquidator has been appointed and merely winding up proceedings are pending, there is no question of distribution of sale proceeds among secured creditors. Where a company is in liquidation, a statutory charge is created in favour of workmen in respect of their dues over the security of every secured creditor and this charge is pari passu with that of the secured creditor. Such statutory charge is to the extent of workmen's portion in relation to the security held by the secured creditor of the debtor company. Earlier, there were differences among judges on the priority for payment

Twelve rules on workers' claims

The Court now limits review petitions to only grave errors in judgments

'Revolving door' in lawsuits

Insurance companies will have to pay out more to road accident victims as the Supreme Court has added new criteria in computing compensation for death and injury

SC tweaks compensation package

The Supreme Court today dismissed a writ petition challenging the notifications and regulations permitting foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail sector

SC dismisses petition against FDI in multi-brand retail

The Supreme Court last week ruled that Tata Communications, the successor of VSNL, was providing commercial service for profit considerations and it is not performing public functions

M J Antony