Media Scan

Legal Snippets

  • The Law says that a contract to do an act, which turns out to be impossible of performance after the agreement, becomes void and the person who suffers must be compensated. If environment restrictions not contemplated in the contract frustrate a project and it becomes impossible or impracticable to implement it, the contractor deserves compensation, according to the Supreme Court. The contractor who could not undertake a housing project because of environment curbs not contemplated by the government at the time of signing the agreement was compensated in the judgment, Delhi Development Authority v. Kenneth Builders. 
  • An industrial unit which was protected by the Sick Industries Act during revival plans could be asked to pay its tax dues when it is revised, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Director General of Income Tax v. GTC Industries. 
  • In a dispute over the sale of property of a liquidated company, the order of the company court is binding on the recovery officer under the Debt Recovery Act, the Supreme Court has held in its judgment, Anita International v. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh. 
  • If proper security is not provided by a bank for transiting huge cash and it is robbed on the way, the insurer would not be liable, the National Consumer Commission ruled, setting aside the order of the Gujarat State Commission ordering New India Assurance to recoup the loss to a cooperative bank in Ankhleswar.
  • If a consignee of a cargo shows no interest in clearing it or abandons it, or disappears from the scene, who will pay the expenses in storing and handling the goods? The port authorities cannot claim damages from the ship owner or the shipping agent, ruled the Calcutta High Court in its judgment, Kolkata Port Trust v. India Trident Maritime Ltd. 
  • The tariff fixed in a power purchase agreement (PPA) is not sacrosanct and it could be reviewed by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is the statutory authority for fixing tariff under the Electricity Act, the Supreme Court ruled in its judgment, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Tarini Infrasturcture Ltd. 
  • The Supreme Court has said that sanction to prosecute a public servant is not required if the alleged offence was committed when he was not discharging official duty.
  • The practice of naming a top executive of a public sector enterprise as arbitrator when a dispute arises between it and a contracting party received another blow in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case, Pragat Akshay Urja Ltd. v. State of MP. The Supreme Court has criticized contracts containing clauses which nominates its own officials as arbitrators.

Leave a Comment