• NATIONAL

Vodafone moves Supreme Court on tax issue

Telecom giant, Vodafone, filed appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court judgement which upheld the I-T department's showcause notice to Vodafone asking it to pay tax of about $2 billion over its acquisition of Hutchison as capital gains tax. Vodafone had moved the Bombay HC alleging that the tax department had no jurisdiction over a deal between two parties incorporated overseas. The High Court however, dismissed the petition and held that Vodafone's petition totally lacked "particulars as to the nature of agreement dated on February 11, 2007, and all other agreements preceding or following the same, entered into by HTIL and the petitioner (Vodafone International)".

Maharashtra private forest land in legal tangle

The State of Maharastra has been restrained from deleting any piece of land from the category of private forest till the hearing on the petition in the Supreme Court on this issue is decided by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The Bombay high court had declared 15,000 buildings in Mumbai's suburbs and neighbouring Thane district illegal in 2005.

IP Appellate Board to decide dispute over 'Field Marshal' trade mark

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the tripartite dispute over the trade mark 'Field Marshal' and asked the Intellectual Property Appellate Board to examine the issues once again. The disputed trade mark was claimed both by Thukral Mechanical Works, which makes centrifugal pumps and other products, Jain Industries which manufactures flour mills and pumps and PM Diesels (P) Ltd, which produces diesel engines.

Kerala Government to refund excess sales tax to bullion trader

The Supreme Court directed the Kerala government to refund the excess sales tax paid by a bullion dealer, M/s Saraswati Abharansala, who bought gold worth Rs 42 crore from Corporation Bank. The bank paid the tax on behalf of the purchaser. Later, the state government reduced the tax from one per cent to 0.05 per cent with retrospective effect. However, the state government refused to refund the excess tax paid to the bank. It maintained that once the tax was paid it was not bound to refund the amount. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed the government to refund the excess amount directly to the dealer, instead of the bank, with 10 per cent interest.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applicable only in case of existing debt or liability

The Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets held that a drawer of a cheque would be guilty of issuing it without sufficient funds in the bank only if he had to discharge a financial liability or debt, not otherwise. In this case, Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets, the former issued two cheques as advance payment for buying carpets. However, the goods were not produced or delivered. When the cheques bounced, the carpet firm prosecuted the export firm. The magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted the exporter and asked the magistrate to decide the sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that when the sale of carpets had not taken place, "there was no existing debt or liability in discharge of which the export firm was expected to issue cheques to the carpet firm." Therefore, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had no application.

• INTERNATIONAL

12 class action suits in the US

At least 12 class action lawsuits have been filed in the US Federal Courts on behalf of shareholders who purchased American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Satyam Computer Services between January 6, 2004 and January 6, 2009. The lawsuits have alleged violations of the US securities laws, including issuance of a series of material misrepresentations to the market that artificially inflated share prices. The US-based securities and anti-trust firm Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross is the latest to file class action suit.