2017 SCC Vol. 8 September 21, 2017 Part 2

Sale of Goods Act, 1930 — Ss. 4 and 19 to 22 — When and where title passes to purchaser: When and where title passes can be ascertained from intention of parties. Intention of parties can be ascertained from terms of contract. If intention is not clear in contract, that is, if it is an unconditional contract, rules in Ss. 20 to 24, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 have to be applied. [Arihant Udyog v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 220]

Contract and Specific Relief — Remedies/Relief — Remedies for Breach of Contract — Damages: Party claiming compensation must establish that breach was cause for loss of anticipated profit. Causal connection between breach and loss is essential. Breach should be sufficiently substantial cause of loss. Remoteness of damage has also to be determined on basis whether loss was within reasonable contemplation of parties. No compensation is payable for making bad bargain. [Kanchan Udyog Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 237]

Service Law — Seniority — Determination of seniority — Conditional absorption: Benefit of service rendered in previous cadre in equivalent post to deputationists who were subsequently absorbed in transferee department on specific terms and conditions in terms of which past service in previous department as well as period of service rendered on deputation was denied, cannot be granted. [Mrigank Johri v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 256]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Ss. 60 proviso and 91: Mortgagor’s right of redemption under S. 60 can stand extinguished under proviso thereto by act of parties or decree of court. Right of purchaser of right of redemption under S. 91 would also be subject to same limitation under proviso to S. 60 and he cannot claim to have better right than his predecessor-in-interest. [Allokam Peddabbayya v. Allahabad Bank, (2017) 8 SCC 272]

Government Contracts and Tenders — Auction/Bidding/Tender Process/Rejection of Bid/Tender: A single entity can bid for itself and it can consist of its constituents which are wholly owned subsidiaries and they may have experience in relation to the project. Where the singular or unified entity claims that as a consequence of merger, all the subsidiaries form a homogenous pool under its immediate control in respect of rights, liabilities, assets and obligations, the integrity of the singular entity as owning such rights, assets and liabilities cannot be ignored and must be given effect. The identity of the entities as belonging to the Government when established can be treated as a Government-owned entity and the experience claimed by the parent of the subsidiaries can be taken into consideration. [CRRC Corpn. Ltd. v. Metro Link Express For Gandhinagar & Ahmedabad (Mega) Co. Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 282]

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Ss. 9-A(1) and (5) — Anti-dumping duty, during the pendency of review exercise: Anti-dumping duty is not automatically imposable. Issuance of a notification is necessary for extending the period of antidumping duty as no duty or tax can be imposed without the authority of “law”. Therefore, the duty would not automatically continue after the expiry of five years simply because review exercise was initiated before the expiry of the said period. Hence, order of continuation of anti-dumping duty made after expiry of duty period is invalid. [Union of India v. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 307]

Service Law — Promotion — Norms/Principles/Rules applicable — Determinative date for — CGO No. 02/2005 or CGO No. 02/2009 dt. 19-6-2009 — Posts of IG (Coast Guards) sanctioned on 22-5-2009 and 23-6-2009 — DPC convened on 23-7-2009: Determinative date for applicability of procedure would be date of convening of DPC and procedure prevalent on that date would be applicable. [Union of India v. K.P.S. Raghuvanshi, (2017) 8 SCC 334]

Electricity Duty Act, 1958 (40 of 1958) — S. 3(2)(vii)(a)(i) — Exemption from payment of duty on electricity generated for captive use — Non-grant of: In this case Appellant 2 had been constituted as a special purpose vehicle for supply of power to Appellant 1 Company in which Appellant 1 had 42% shareholding but out of the 515 MW capacity, 300 MW capacity had also been allocated to the Gujarat Electricity Board. It was held that the statutory scheme for grant of exemption had to be strictly construed. Since, Appellant 2 was not jointly generating energy with Gujarat Electricity Board and was selling the energy to the extent of 300 MW to Gujarat Electricity Board, the conditions of the statutory provisions of S. 3(2)(vii)(a) were not fulfilled, namely, generation of energy for own use. Therefore, Appellant 1 was not entitled to exemption. [Essar Steel India Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 8 SCC 357]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 12(5) — Appointment of arbitrator by parties — When can be adjudicated upon by Court: The courts, in proceeding under S. 11 of the Act, can exercise the jurisdiction to nullify the appointments made by the authorities when there has been failure of procedure or ex facie contravention of the inherent facets of the arbitration clause. [TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.