The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a batch of appeals by various companies claiming credit of duty paid on high speed diesel oil used in their captive electricity generating plants. The Rajasthan high court had earlier rejected their contention in the case, Sangam Spinners Ltd vs Union of India. Their argument was that they had acquired accrued and vested right and it could not be taken away retrospectively by an Act of Parliament, in this case, the Finance Act, 2000. Since the companies were unable to pass on the burden to the customers, they would have to bear the entire burden themselves, and that too retrospectively, and therefore such a provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality). The revenue authorities, on the other hand, contended that the 2000 Act was not a validating Act, but explanatory in nature in order to clarify and put in proper perspective the legal position as some tribunals had misinterpreted departmental notifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent changes made by Parliament were clarificatory and the companies were not entitled to the credit of duty.
Obstacles cleared in tendering process of Tehri Hydro Corp
The SC has cleared the obstacles in the tendering process and given the go-ahead for a project of the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd. It vacated the stay ordered by the Uttarakhand high court, following a dispute between two multi-national corporations of Europe. For three years, the second phase of the pump storage plant was caught in litigation over tender prices between Voith Hydro gmbh and Alstom Hydro, with the state corporation caught in between. The SC order allowed the state corporation to proceed with the project after following its directions in six weeks. It observed in the order passed last week: "This case is a classic example of the whole nation suffering on account of the fight between two multi-national companies in respect of each other's rights. There is no dispute that the project is of utmost importance to the state of Uttarakhand particularly, and to the nation generally. The issue of national interest is our prime concern, the importance of which cannot be undermined."
Problem of judgements without giving reasons continues
Though the SC has criticised some high courts for writing judgements without giving reasons, the problem seems to continue. In the case of Tikaula Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad high court was asked to pass a reasoned judgement in the dispute. The high court had set aside the order of the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, without giving reasons. “In our considered view, the judge should not have set aside the order without assigning any reasons,” the SC said, and asked the high court to dispose of the case within a month.
Larger bench to decide on Delhi high court jurisdiction
A full bench of the Delhi high court has referred to a still larger bench certain questions regarding its jurisdiction to take up cases where the dispute arose in other states. This is a problem particularly troublesome to the Delhi high court as several decision-making authorities are in the national capital. In one typical case, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd vs Union of India, the industry is situated in Madhya Pradesh, and the dispute regarding drawback facility arose in Bhind district and the appellate order was passed at Indore. The firm moved the Delhi high court with a writ petition on the ground that the revisional authority, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, is in Delhi and he is answerable to justify his order. This invocation of the discretionary power of the Delhi high court has been raised in several other petitions, where the cause of action arose in different parts of the country. One view is that merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the authority in the capital is not sufficient to confer power on the Delhi high court. But some judges have not agreed with this. Both viewpoints have been supported by earlier judgements. Therefore, the issue will now go before a larger bench.
Permanent injunction against firm for violating copyright
The Delhi high court last week passed permanent injunction against a firm which violated the copyright and trade mark of Castrol Ltd in the field of oils and lubricants. The court further asked the guilty firm to pay “punitive damages” of Rs 10 lakh. This, explained the judgment of the high court, was “with a view to discourage and dishearten the law-breakers to indulge in such like violations with impunity.”
Bs
Obstacles cleared in tendering process of Tehri Hydro Corp
The SC has cleared the obstacles in the tendering process and given the go-ahead for a project of the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd. It vacated the stay ordered by the Uttarakhand high court, following a dispute between two multi-national corporations of Europe. For three years, the second phase of the pump storage plant was caught in litigation over tender prices between Voith Hydro gmbh and Alstom Hydro, with the state corporation caught in between. The SC order allowed the state corporation to proceed with the project after following its directions in six weeks. It observed in the order passed last week: "This case is a classic example of the whole nation suffering on account of the fight between two multi-national companies in respect of each other's rights. There is no dispute that the project is of utmost importance to the state of Uttarakhand particularly, and to the nation generally. The issue of national interest is our prime concern, the importance of which cannot be undermined."
Problem of judgements without giving reasons continues
Though the SC has criticised some high courts for writing judgements without giving reasons, the problem seems to continue. In the case of Tikaula Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad high court was asked to pass a reasoned judgement in the dispute. The high court had set aside the order of the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, without giving reasons. “In our considered view, the judge should not have set aside the order without assigning any reasons,” the SC said, and asked the high court to dispose of the case within a month.
Larger bench to decide on Delhi high court jurisdiction
A full bench of the Delhi high court has referred to a still larger bench certain questions regarding its jurisdiction to take up cases where the dispute arose in other states. This is a problem particularly troublesome to the Delhi high court as several decision-making authorities are in the national capital. In one typical case, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd vs Union of India, the industry is situated in Madhya Pradesh, and the dispute regarding drawback facility arose in Bhind district and the appellate order was passed at Indore. The firm moved the Delhi high court with a writ petition on the ground that the revisional authority, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, is in Delhi and he is answerable to justify his order. This invocation of the discretionary power of the Delhi high court has been raised in several other petitions, where the cause of action arose in different parts of the country. One view is that merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the authority in the capital is not sufficient to confer power on the Delhi high court. But some judges have not agreed with this. Both viewpoints have been supported by earlier judgements. Therefore, the issue will now go before a larger bench.
Permanent injunction against firm for violating copyright
The Delhi high court last week passed permanent injunction against a firm which violated the copyright and trade mark of Castrol Ltd in the field of oils and lubricants. The court further asked the guilty firm to pay “punitive damages” of Rs 10 lakh. This, explained the judgment of the high court, was “with a view to discourage and dishearten the law-breakers to indulge in such like violations with impunity.”
Bs
No comments:
Post a Comment