Legal News & Views

Consumer fora can hear complaints against telecom companies, a district consumer forum here has said, dismissing Vodafone India Ltd's plea opposing the complaint made against it by one of its subscribers.  Vodafone in its application had relied on a Supreme Court ruling of 2009 and contended that section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 provides that a dispute between a telegraph authority and a service user can only be resolved through arbitration and consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to hear such matters.  The North East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rejected the contention saying there is nothing in the apex court's verdict stating that the "immunity" is available to private service providers.  The forum also relied on a 2010 judgement of the Delhi High Court which had said that private service providers or licencees do not fall under the category of telegraph authority.  "On an in-depth perusal of the M Krishnan ju...

The Supreme Court last week held that if a party to an arbitration agreement failed to appoint an arbitrator despite the demand of the opposite party, it forfeited the right to appoint one. After an application is made to the Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator the inactive party cannot come up with his nominee, the court stated in the judgment, Deep Trading Company vs Indian Oil Corporation. In this case, the corporation granted dealership of its oil products to the former firm. Later, the corporation suspended its supplies alleging violation of the terms. The firm wanted arbitration on the dispute. At first, the corporation did not respond. But when the dealer moved the Allahabad Chief Justice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the corporation named one of its executives as arbitrator. The Chief Justice, therefore, did not appoint an arbitrator. The dealer moved the Supreme Court. It stated that the corporation had failed to act as required under the procedure agr...

The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of an amended regulation under the Development Control Rules (DCR) which does not allow conversion of an industrial plot to a residential or commercial one after an industry closes down until the dues of workers are paid. The court said the rule would apply even if the plot has changed hands after the closure. The division bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, which was hearing a petition against the new rule, however, made it clear that the rule would not apply to an open land in the industrial zone where industry never existed. Petitioner Shubham Fabrics had contended that it was not a closed industry and no 'No Objection Certificate' from the Labour Commissioner (certifying that workers' dues had been settled) was needed for converting an industrial zone plot, which it had bought earlier, for residential or commercial purposes. The court said in Shubham's case the rule would still apply because the prev...

1) UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO (No. 2) (Bombay High Court) Stay of demand can be granted even if there is no financial hardship The AO raised a demand on the assessee on the same lines as had been done in the preceding AY. Though in the preceding AY, the assessee had obtained a stay from the High Court (see UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO 345 ITR 71 (Bom)), the AO refused to follow that for the present AY. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the refusal to grant stay. To oppose the grant of stay, the department relied on CIT vs. IBM India Pvt. Ltd where the Karnataka High Court had held that in matters involving large amounts due to the Revenue, an interim order of stay would be granted only in case of genuine financial hardship of the assessee and not otherwise. The Department argued that as the assessee did not have any financial hardship, the stay should be rejected. HELD by the High Court rejecting the department’s plea and granting stay of the demand: The order of t...

The Supreme Court in the recent judgment of T. P. Vishnu Kumar v. Canara Bank P.N. Road, Tiruppur and Ors. reiterated the principle that when specific remedy is made available to a party, invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible in matters of recovery of debts. Writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked to test the validity/correctness of every interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“Act”). Factual Matrix The present case arises from an appeal against the Madras High Court (“Mad HC”) Division Bench judgment wherein the appeals against Single Bench judgment were allowed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under Section 20 of the Act. Canara Bank (“Respondent Bank”) had filed application before the DRT for recovery of amounts of INR 29, 68,161.93/- with interest @ 17% per annum with...

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court on March 13th recognised a separate tort of unfair competition and unjust enrichment and barred the defendants (Cricbuzz, Idea Cellular and On Mobile Global) from sending short message service (SMS) alerts updating cricket scores on real time basis. The judgment was delivered by Justice M.L. Mehta in an appeal filed by Star India Pvt Ltd (plaintiff) against the decision of a single judge of the Delhi High Court who had dismissed Star India's claim. Star India had appealed to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had remanded the case to the single judge (M.L. Mehta), as reported by SpicyIP. Star India had moved the Court against the defendants opposing their SMS alert services which were based on the real time scores. Star India contended that it had obtained all rights with respect to cricket matches in India by virtue of an agreement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Star India’s...

The  Bombay High Court  has held that if a person withholds facts about his  conviction  in a criminal case from his prospective employer , he cannot as a matter of right claim the job even though he may have been pardoned or released on bond of good conduct for the offence. An employer, upon learning that the applicant for a job had suppressed information about his conviction in a criminal case involving  moral turpitude , can cancel the appointment of such person to the post, observed justices BP Dharmadhikari and PB Varale in a recent order. "Before issuing an appointment order, the employer has got more power and can control entry of any person in service. Use of that power by employer  Bank  in present facts is neither arbitrary nor perverse," the judges observed. The bench was hearing a petition filed by  Amit Mohod , a resident of Amravati, challenging the decision of Bank of India to cancel his candidature  for a clerk...