[No.210]

Supreme Court

• Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board

The claimant prayed for re-instatement with full back wages along with all consequential benefits on the ground that his services were terminated without any charge sheet or holding any enquiry though he had worked for more than 240 days. The Respondent-Board took the stand that the services of the claimant were required as and when required and he had really not completed 240 days. Further, the claim was highly belated. The Labour Court took the view that the claim was highly belated. It was held that though no limitation is prescribed, but it would be unequitable to re-open the closed chapter after a long time. The Appellant was therefore, held not to be entitled to any relief. A writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay as the demand notice had been raised after six years. Whether reference of the Petitioner/workman could be rejected on the sole ground of delay when Government itself made reference for adjudication of the issue/dispute? Held, the Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the reference, particularly when it has found that the Order of termination violates Section 25F. Merely due to long passage of time, it would be inappropriate to set aside the award of the Labour Court and the High Court. Respondent Board was thus directed to pay compensation. Appeal is allowed.

• ICI India Ltd. and Anr v. State of Orissa and Ors

The raw material purchased for manufacture of "Bulk Premix", has not been used for any other purpose. But the manufactured product i.e. "Bulk Premix" has not been sold but has been transferred to other branches of the Appellant situated inside as well as outside the State of Orissa. Sales Tax Authorities held that the Appellant has contravened the declaration given in Form IV while purchasing the raw material. Hence, present appeal. Whether the Appellant who purchased raw materials for manufacture/processing of "Bulk Premix" for sale on the strength of declaration can be said to have violated the declaration when the "Bulk Premix" was transferred to its different branches for manufacture of "Bulk Explosive"? Held, transfer clearly falls within the expression "any other purpose" mentioned in the 5th proviso to Section 5(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. As the goods manufactured have not been sold but have been transferred, there is a violation of the terms of the declaration. Assessee has been rightly held to be liable for payment of the differential tax payable on the raw materials purchased at concessional rate of tax by 4 per cent paid by furnishing Form IV. High Court's impugned Judgment, therefore, does not warrant any interference. Appeal is dismissed.

High Courts

Delhi

• Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd

Plaintiff-respondent is a pharmaceutical company carrying on its trade under the mark and name "Dr. Reddy". Defendant-appellant company was previously the agent or supplier of drugs of the plaintiff-company. Thereafter, defendant forayed into the business of manufacture of drugs like plaintiff-company and used the name "Reddy" in respect of its products. Hence, plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement against defendants. Trial Court held that defendant by using the mark in question was trying to pass off its goods as that of plaintiff's and was trying to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. Therefore, it ruled in favour of plaintiff. Hence, present appeal. Held, it has been held, in Laxmikant V. Patel V/s Chetanbhai Shah and another, that a person who sell his goods or delivers services under a trading name or style over a period of time acquires a reputation or goodwill which becomes the property of the user entitled to protection by the courts. Initiating sale of goods or services in the same name or by imitating that name may cause injury to the business of one who has property in that name. When a person adopts or intends to adopt a name which already belongs to someone else, it results in confusion, has the propensity of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.

Gujarat

• Muslim Vidhyarthi Prakrati Mandal Trust v. State Of Gujarat and Anr.

Petitioner-institution made application to Respondent-Authority for grant of minority institution status to petitioner institution. However, Respondent-Authority failed to respond to said application within stipulated time period. Hence, present petition. Held, in a case where the Competent Authority either does not grant the No Objection Certificate or, where application has been rejected and such rejection is not communicated to the applicant, within a period of ninety days form the receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, Section 10(3) of the Act provides that it shall be deemed that the Competent Authority has granted No Objection Certificate to the applicant. Thus in a case where either the application is not processed and dealt with, or in a case where the application is rejected but rejection is not communicated, both within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the provisions create a deeming fiction whereunder the application is deemed to have been allowed and No Objection Certificate granted. Petition is allowed.

• Vikram Kantilal Parekh v.State of Gujarat

Petitioner applied to respondent authority for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, same was rejected by respondent authority on ground that petitioner did not possess necessary educational qualifications and also that the time limit for such appointment expired. Hence, present petition. Whether respondent authority was right in rejecting the appointment application by petitioner? Held, Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right which can be claimed by the Petitioner and appointment cannot be made de-hors the scheme and in the scheme, a time limit is prescribed which is considered to be a mandatory, otherwise, there is no purpose behind the compassionate appointment de-hors the scheme. Therefore, Respondents have not committed any error while deciding the case of Petitioner for compassionate appointment. Petition is dismissed.

Press Information Bureau

• Approval to Amendments in the Labour Laws providing Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers By Certain Establishments

PIB Dated 25.10.2007: The Union Cabinet gave its approval for making necessary amendments to the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Amendment and Miscellaneous provisions Bill, 2005 pending in Rajya Sabha. Accordingly, the newly amended Bill would be called, Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) (Amendment) Bill, 2007. The simplified forms to be introduced by these amendments is expected to give relief to employers of establishments employing up to 40 workers in maintaining registers and submitting returns under various labour laws.

• Approval to Specified Value Added Tax Amendment Regulation enabling refund of the net negative tax to the assessee

PIB Dated 25.10.2007: The Union Cabinet gave its approval to the promulgation of (i) the Daman and Diu Value added Tax (Amendment) Regulation, 2007; and (ii) the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulation, 2007 by the President under article 240 of the Constitution. The Amendment Regulation will enable to refund the net negative tax to the assessee faster and to simplify the procedure.

• Approval to Amendments to the Tyre Corporation of India Limited (Disinvestment of Ownership) Bill, 2007

PIB Dated 25.10.2007: It is notified that the Union Cabinet gave its approval for making necessary amendments in the Tyre Corporation of India Limited (Dis-investment of ownership) Bill, 2007 pending in Lok Sabha. The TCIL is a nationalized PSE and as per the advice of Ministry of Law and Justice, prior approval of Parliament is required for changing the nature of PSE from a government company to a non-government company. The Company can be revived on a sustainable manner only through joint venture for which change in nature of the PSE was required.

Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs

• Regulation regarding "Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award"

Notification No: OI-11014/1 2007-DS Dated 24.09.2007: The President has issued regulation for institution of the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award. Accordingly, the Award shall be conferred on a Non-Resident Indian, Person of Indian origin or an organization or institution established and run by the Non-Resident Indians or Persons of Indian Origin, who has made significant contribution towards better understanding abroad of India and support to India's causes and concerns in a tangible way; has made significant contribution for the welfare of diaspora; has made notable contribution in philanthropic and charitable work and for social and humanitarian causes in India and abroad; has done significant contribution in building closer links between India and its diaspora in the economic, cultural and scientific fields and/or is eminent in one's field for outstanding work which has enhanced India's prestige in the country of residence. With the institution of Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards, Non-Resident Indians and Persons of Indian Origin shall continue to be considered for Padma Awards and Padma Awardees shall be eligible for Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award. The maximum number of Awards each year shall be fifteen.

Cases

• Berry v. Epps

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, challenging the protocol for lethal injection in the State of Mississippi stating that the said method of execution inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering on the person to be executed. Held, as per the ruling in Harris v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 414, 416- 17 (5th Cir. 2004) death-sentenced inmates should not wait until execution is imminent before filing an action to enjoin a State's method of carrying it out. Such claims are dilatory and should be dismissed. Therefore, judgement of lower court is affirmed.

• US v. Barnes

In the present case, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island suppressed 34.79 grams of cocaine base seized from defendant pursuant to what the court deemed an illegal body cavity search. Hence, Government now appeals the suppression ruling. At issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the police officer conducting the cavity search had the requisite reasonable suspicion. Held, a visual body cavity search is not necessarily invalid because the knowledge held by the individual officer conducting the search is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion or even probable cause can be established by the "collective knowledge" or "pooled knowledge" principle. Accordingly, the focus is upon the collective knowledge possessed by, and the aggregate information available to, all the officers involved in the investigation. Specifically, reasonable suspicion can be imputed to the officer conducting a search if he acts in accordance with the direction of another officer who has reasonable suspicion. In the present case, the officer who did the search acted upon the information by another officer in investigation and therefore search cannot be said to be invalid. Therefore, order of lower court is vacated.

News

• Peru bringing maritime boundary dispute with Chile before ICJ

The government of Peru plans to file a complaint against Chile with the International Court of Justice seeking resolution of the countries' maritime boundary dispute. After the ICJ settled a similar dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras earlier this month, Peruvian officials deemed the ruling a "decisive precedent" which would bolster its own claim. Tensions between the two countries have escalated over a 10,000-mile strip of ocean which Peru claims was ceded to it under 1952 and 1954 treaties; Chile claims that the treaties involved fishing rights only. Chile is expected to reject the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the case.

• Supreme Court hears federal prison Koran seizure, futures cases

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prison to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception barring claims for detained property against "law enforcement officers" includes federal prison officials who seized a Muslim prisoner's Korans and prayer rug, or whether it only applies to officials working in a tax, excise, or customs capacity. The case was filed by Abdus-Shahid Ali, an inmate serving 20 years to life for first-degree murder, who says that prison officials working for both the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and the US Bureau of Prisons illegally confiscated his religious property and harassed him for expressing his Muslim faith while in custody. In his lawsuit, Ali alleged that the exception for "law enforcement officers," as defined under the Act, does not extend to prison officials. Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that he had no right to bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the exception applies to all law enforcement officers, and that he should only be permitted to file an administrative complaint for his claims. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit earlier this month affirmed a lower court dismissal of Ali's claims, ruling that the prison officials fit under the exception.

• ICTY lawyers urging UN to promote American to chief prosecutor

A group of senior lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon urging the promotion of the current ICTY deputy prosecutor, American David Tolbert, to ICTY chief prosecutor when Carla Del Ponte steps down from the position at the end of this year. Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general, has served two four-year terms as the ICTY chief prosecutor. The United Nations Security Council has extended her term until December 31. Tribunal observers have suggested that the ICTY would be best served by an internal promotion as it is currently scheduled to complete its work by 2010.

• Supreme Court to consider punitive damages in Exxon Mobil oil spill case

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in a dispute over the punitive damages to be paid by Exxon Mobil for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon Mobil and its shipping subsidiary have been ordered to pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages for the spill of 11 million gallons of crude oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Court declined to hear the claim that the verdict was excessive under the Constitution's Due Process Clause and a cross appeal to reinstate the initial $5 billion damages award, which was cut in half by a federal appeals court late last year. Also, the Court agreed to hear Allison Engine v. United States, where the Court will decide whether the Federal False Claims Act [31 USC 3729 is limited to claims of misspent funds submitted to a federal government agency, or whether it also applies to claims submitted to a federal contractor that will ultimately be paid with federal money. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the statute does not require presentment of a claim to the government.