Surcharge upheld
Confirming the demand of additional charges/surcharges payable on delayed payment of outstanding electricity dues by PSU Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys to Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd, the Supreme Court has held that a party who fails in the final proceedings cannot benefit from the interim orders issued during the pendency of such proceedings. The apex court said that it cannot grant any relief to a defaulting consumer once the demand is upheld nor does it interfere with the principle of restitution, which would entitle the successful party to be relegated back to the position it would hold had there been no judgement adverse to it. ?The interim order may not even prevent a prudent party from paying the charges according to the revised tariffs if it does not propose to take any chance and suffer recovery of an additional amount on account of the non-payment of the dues by the date stipulated for the purpose,? it added.
Arbitrator appointed
The Supreme Court has appointed former Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Anil Dev Singh as the sole arbitrator for resolving a dispute related to a contract for sale of 150 MT of aluminium ingots by Bangkok-based Alva Aluminium Ltd to Gabriel India Ltd. Gabriel had taken a plea that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties as the contract document that the foreign company relied upon had not been signed by an authorised person and, therefore, no arbitrator could be appointed in the matter. Since the Indian firm had stuck to its stand, Alva, a joint venture company between the GP Group in Thailand and Kliss Group in India, was left with no alternative except to file the petition seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator. The apex court, while appointing an arbitrator, held that ?the information provided, the correspondence exchanged and the documents executed are on the contrary clearly suggestive of the parties having finalised and signed a contract.?
Working hours extended
The Supreme Court has ruled that the management has discretion to extend working hours even if their colleagues discharging similar functions work for lesser hours and the same does not violate the Constitutional provision of ?equality? under Article 14. The judgement in the case of Transport & Dock Workers Union Vs Mumbai Port Trust held that such differential timings can be adopted by the government to face competition from the private sector and courts should not interfere in such executive function. ?In our opinion, fixing of hours of work, provided they do not violate any statutory provision or statutory rule, are really management functions and this court must exercise restraint and not ordinarily interfere with such management functions,? it said. The court further added: ?It is not prudent or pragmatic for the court to insist on absolute equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies… In view of the inherent complexities involved in modern society, some free play must be given to the executive authorities in this connection.?
indu.bhan@expressindia.com
