Guwahati airport
The Supreme Court has upheld an arbitrator?s award in a case related to delay in the construction of the extension of the Guwahati airport terminal. The apex court while setting aside the Guwahati High Court?s decision in the case of JG Engineers Ltd vs Union of India held that the contractor was entitled to extension of the time for completion of the work as the delay was caused by the government. The Centre, in March 1993, had awarded the work of extension of the terminal building at the airport to JG Engineers. The contracted period for completion of the project was 21 months, but it was extended twice till July 1995. While the contractor had challenged the termination of the contract by the government in 1996, the arbitrator had awarded R1.04 crore with interest and costs to the firm. The arbitrator had also rejected the government?s counter-claims aggregating to R2.79 crore by holding that the termination of the contract was illegal. The trial court had upheld the arbitrator?s award. However, the high court set aside the award, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act
Amidst a growing demand from civil society for a strong anti-graft law, the Supreme Court has called for an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act to root out corruption in the country. ?In this country, if there are two laws that need to be changed or amended to act as a deterrent, they are laws relating to anti-corruption and sale of spurious drugs,? the apex court observed while dismissing the appeal of an assistant excise commissioner in a graft case. Rejecting the plea that the conviction of Satpaul was erroneous as the alleged bribe amount of R4,000 was more than the ?permit fee? of R850, the apex court said there was no logic in the argument as bribe is demanded by officials irrespective of the nature of work. A special anti-corruption court had awarded a three-year sentence under PCA to the official charged with accepting a bribe. The Calcutta High Court had reduced the sentence to one-and-a-half years.
Motor vehicles
The Supreme Court has ruled that the owner of a motor vehicle would be liable to pay compensation for the accident if the owner failed to ensure that the vehicle was not being misused. ?We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was the minor, who came on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility of causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of the minor… It was the responsibility of the Petitioner (owner) to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the same,? the apex court stated in the case of Jawahar Singh vs Bala Jain. A claim was filed by the kins of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which in September 2007 asked the owner to pay R8.35 lakh to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the petition. The Delhi High Court had upheld the Tribunal?s order.
indu.bhan@expressindia.com