Land compensation rule unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a provision in the National Highways Act (NHA), which discriminated between those whose land was compulsorily acquired for building roads and the owners of land acquired for ‘public purposes’ under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA). While those who lost land under the LAA are entitled to solatium and interest, those whose land was taken over for road building were denied that benefit. The landowners moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court against the discrimination, arguing that solatium and interest are integral parts of compensation awardable to persons whose land have been compulsorily expropriated. The high court accepted their arguments. In the batch of appeals, Union of India vs Tarsem Singh, the government argued in the Supreme Court that the NHA is a complete code, which expressly excluded the application of the provisions of the LAA which granted the benefits. Rejecting the contention, the court ruled that “it is immaterial that the land is acquired under the NHA and not the LAA, as solatium cannot be denied on account of that fact alone.” Moreover, an ordinance of 2015 had applied the principle of equality not only to the NHA but also to 12 other Acts. Certain judgments which had taken a different view needed to be “re-looked”, the judgment added.
Helping units denied exporters’ IT sop
Manufacturers who support exporting industries and direct exporters cannot be treated on par for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court ruled in its judgment, CIT vs Carpet India. Therefore, the supporting units cannot claim a deduction of export incentives given to direct exporters in Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The court gave this ruling in a large batch of appeals against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which took a different view. Analysing the relevant provisions, the court observed that given the statutory scheme, “it is clear that the exporter stood on a completely different footing from the supporting manufacturer as the parameters and scheme for claiming deduction relatable to exporters under 80HHC(1) are completely different from that of supporting manufacturers under Section 80HHC(1A).”
Pan masala loses excise benefit
The government cannot be faulted for withdrawing exemption from payment of excise duty on pan masala, plastics, and other listed items, though an earlier notification might have granted such a benefit. The withdrawal can be justified on the ground that it is necessary for the public interest, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, Union of India vs Unicorn Industries. By a 2003 notification, the government had granted excise benefits to tobacco and related products. This exemption was available to units located in Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Infrastructure Development Centre or Export Promotion Industrial Park or Industrial Estate or Industrial Area or Commercial Estate or Scheme Area, as the case may be, in Sikkim. Later, the benefit was granted to units in Assam also. However, in 2007, the benefit was withdrawn, as a result of which tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes and plastic carry bags of less than 20 microns were included in the negative list. This led to the manufacturers moving the high courts of Sikkim and Guwahati. Both high courts ruled that the pan producers were entitled to the benefit as promised by the government earlier. Reversing those judgments, the Supreme Court asserted that “public interest is accepted as superior equity which can override individual equity.” It has been justified in the case of electricity discounts in hill areas and PVC resins.
Rules to ease congestion at port upheld
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the rates and conditions for warehousing imposed by the tariff manager at Kandla Port. The circular issued by him in 1998 explained the congestion in the port and non-availability of space. To overcome this problem, storage of cargoes would not be allowed for more than two months and the auction of such cargoes would be made under the Customs Act and the Port Trusts Act. Further, no renewal would be considered for the areas allotted on warehousing terms if the cargo had remained stored for more than 60 days. This rule was challenged by a clearing agent arguing that the traffic manager had no authority to issue such a circular. Moreover, there could be valid reasons for delays in clearing the cargo. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, Maheshwary Handling Agency vs Trustees of Kandla Port, that under the rules, the traffic manager had wide discretion to prohibit the discharge of goods which are likely to obstruct traffic, cause congestion or hinder movement at the port.
Winding route to IPR justice
A few weeks ago, the Delhi High Court had highlighted the plight of tribunals dealing with intellectual property rights because of vacancies. In that case, Mylan Laboratories vs Union of India, the company had complained that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board could not pass a valid order in its application because of vacancies. The court had made an ad hoc arrangement for proceeding with the application in the tribunal despite lack of quorum. The company now returned to the high court challenging the order of the deputy controller of Patents & Designs as the board is not fully constituted and is not functional. The ad hoc arrangement also did not work out as the board chairperson has demitted office since then. The high court declined to entertain the petition and disposed it of, leaving the company to other remedies.
Commissioners to seal fake drugs
In a rare instance, the Delhi High Court has appointed two commissioners who will ensure that a pharmaceutical company operating from Mumbai and Dehradun will comply with the court order in a trademark case. In this case, Psychotropics India vs Syncom Healthcare, the former had obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the opposite party. However, it was not obeyed. The trial court rejected the plea to appoint commissioners. On appeal, the high court observed that the present case involved medicines which required special attention. The use of infringing marks would affect the interests of the general public as patients may continue to buy medicines which are passed off as genuine. A stricter test must be applied in matters concerning pharmaceuticals. The court directed the commissioners to visit the two firms and seize the infringing products. The police have been asked to assist the commissioners during the operations. The infringing company has been directed to cooperate with the commissioners who will submit a report to the court in two weeks.
via Land compensation rule to pharma trademark case, here’re key court orders | Business Standard Column
aniltikotekar4sme.com 