Daily Judgments of 13 June
Bombay High Court
WP/849/2018
Parties: VITTHALROA SHINDE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the issue of whether the petitioner, a co-operative sugar factory, should be allowed to deduct the Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) on its loans while calculating the Revenue Sharing Price (RSP) for the year 2016-2017 needs to be reconsidered by the Board constituted under the Maharashtra Regulation of the Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013. The court noted that for the year 2021-2022, the respondents had issued a direction allowing such deduction, and therefore the Board should examine the issue for 2016-2017 in light of the subsequent developments. The court quashed the order denying the deduction of EMI for 2016-2017 and remanded the matter to the Board for a fresh determination within six months.
COMMP/650/2022
Parties: YAMAHA HATSUDOKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA Vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS,
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANISH PITALE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the Registrar of Trade Marks had erred in refusing Yamaha's application to register the "WR" trademark, citing Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that the Registrar had not adequately considered the extensive global use and registrations of the "WR" mark by Yamaha since 1990, as well as the possibility of advertising the mark before acceptance under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. The court set aside the Registrar's order and directed the Registrar to advertise Yamaha's "WR" trademark before acceptance, in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act.
WP/2491/2018
Parties: KOTHARI METALS LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the provisions of an international treaty, such as the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA), cannot be directly enforced in Indian courts unless they are incorporated or transformed into municipal laws. The Court noted that the Customs Tariff (DOGPTA) Rules 2009, enacted to implement the AIFTA, do not refer to Article 24 of the AIFTA, which provides a specialized dispute resolution mechanism.
The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notices without first resorting to the dispute resolution mechanism under Article 24 of AIFTA. The Court held that the customs authorities had ample powers under the Customs Act to investigate and adjudicate issues of misrepresentation, suppression, or fraud, regardless of the treaty provisions. The Court also relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Trafigura India Private Limited v. Union of India, which had reached a similar conclusion.
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The Court held that attempts to stall or prevent the adjudication proceedings initiated by the customs authorities through the impugned show-cause notices could not be encouraged.
EPAP/35/2024
Parties: SMT. SHOBHA DINESH BACCHAV Vs DR. SHRI SUBHASH RAMRAO BHAMRE AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Area of Law: Election Law
The High Court held that the election petition filed by the original petitioner, Dr. Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamre, against the election of Smt. Shobha Dinesh Bacchav (respondent no. 3) to the Dhule Parliamentary Constituency is liable to be dismissed.
The court found that the election petition does not contain sufficient material particulars to substantiate the allegations of illegal voting in the name of dead persons and multiple voting by the same persons. The court held that mere inclusion of names of dead persons in the voter list is not enough to presume that votes were cast in their names, without affidavits from the polling agents present at the booths.
Additionally, the court ruled that the election petition was incorrectly filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, as the High Court Rules for presentation of election petitions do not include Dhule district under the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench. The court noted that as per the Rules, the election petition should have been filed before the Principal Seat of the High Court in Bombay.
Therefore, the application filed by respondent no. 3 for dismissal of the election petition was allowed, and the election petition was dismissed.
Calcutta High Court
WPO/420/2020
Parties: BASUDEV TIWARY vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a superannuated employee of the West Bengal Transport Corporation, who sought to be allowed to exercise the option for pension even after the expiry of the stipulated time period.
The court relied on precedents that have held that if an employee does not exercise the pension option within the specified time period, they cannot claim pension as a matter of right. The court found that the petitioner's claims of being prevented from exercising the option due to the corporation's actions were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that he had not raised this issue in his previous writ petitions.
Consequently, the court upheld the managing director's decision to reject the petitioner's request to be allowed to exercise the pension option at this belated stage, after the validity period for the same had already expired.
CS-COM/10/2023
Parties: PRABHAT MARKETING CO. LTD. vs TIRRIHANNAH CO. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court allowed the defendant's application to amend its written statement to incorporate a counter-claim, after considering the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding filing of counter-claims.
The court held that the defendant had already pleaded the facts and disclosed the relevant documents regarding its counter-claim in the original written statement, and the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit or prejudice the plaintiff. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors., which held that the court has discretion to entertain a counter-claim even after the written statement is filed, considering various factors.
Accordingly, the court directed the defendant to carry out the proposed amendments within two weeks, and granted the plaintiff liberty to file a written statement to the counter-claim within 30 days of receiving the amended written statement.
AP-COM/296/2024
Parties: THE BOARD OF MAJOR PORT AUTHORITY FOR THE SYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE PORT, KOLKATA vs MARINECRAFT ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the arbitral award passed by the West Bengal Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in favor of the respondent, Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited. The key points are:
1. The court held that the timeline under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply to arbitral proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The 90-day timeline under the 2006 Act is directory and not mandatory.
2. The court found that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to argue the case on merits at various stages. The petitioner's conduct of seeking multiple adjournments was also noted.
3. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding non-submission of the GC-3 form and the council's alleged sub-delegation of interest calculation.
4. The court held that works contracts are within the ambit of the 2006 Act, provided the claimant is an MSME unit.
The court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award and the council's order on jurisdiction, granting a stay of the judgment for 4 weeks to allow the petitioner to file an appeal.