Public RelationsCase against Coca-Cola employee quashed
The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a branch manager of Coca Cola under the Food Adulteration Act, stating that prosecution could not be initiated unless the complaint was accompanied by the report of the public analyst. This principle was laid down in the case, Saumindra Bhattacharya vs State of Bihar. In this case, a lawyer bought three bottles of Limca. When he drank one, he fell sick. He complained to Coca Cola company, which owns the Limca trademark, that the bottles contained foreign substance. It replied that it was receiving several such complaints and the bottles were being tampered with by unscrupulous elements.
- SC quashes criminal proceedings against Coca Cola manager - Input credits under service tax law - More advertisers for performance-based payment - Coca-Cola starts new marketing initiative - Spy games - HC cannot quash bank"s notice to debtors
The lawyer was not satisfied with the reply and started criminal proceedings against the company and its top men. The company executives moved the Patna high court, which let off the two top ones, but allowed the prosecution of the branch manager to continue. He appealed to the Supreme Court. It quashed the proceedings, stating that the procedure laid down by the law should be strictly followed by all private complainants and the analyst’s report is essential before filing a complaint.
Regularising seasonal employees
The Supreme Court has rejected the request of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd against the judgement of the Gujarat high court order to conditionally regularise a large group of workers seasonally employed in the geological surveys. The industrial tribunal and the high court had asked the corporation to absorb those who had worked for over 240 days continuously in one year and who were educationally qualified. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court complaining that this order was holding up the appointment of those who had to be employed on compassionate grounds. The court rejected the request and asked it to regularise the concerned employees or compensate them according to a formula proposed by it.
SC to keep off issue of valuation of land for public purposes
The Supreme Court has declared that it would not interfere in the valuation of land acquired for public purposes unless there was some “glaring infirmity” in the assessment. While allowing the appeals of the landowners in the case, Charan Dass vs Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Board, it reduced the compensation assessed by the district judge by half. The district judge had assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs two lakh per bigha and the high court had reduced it to Rs 1.5 lakh per ha. The Supreme Court further reduced it to Rs 1.05 lakh. The court observed that some guess work is involved in the assessment but it is the duty of any court to see that the compensation so determined is “just and fair not only to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it.”
Old age saves excise evaders
The Supreme Court last week reduced the sentence of imprisonment on two partners of a firm which evaded central excise duty in view of their old age. Both of them were in their seventies and their appeals had been dismissed by the Madras high court. The Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice, in the case, Rainbow Rubber Industries vs Assistant Collector of Central Excise, allowed them to go free on payment of Rs 2 lakh each.
Interest, penalty for delayed insurance payment
The Delhi high court has dismissed the appeal of National Insurance Co Ltd which had moved it more than one year after the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The commissioner had ordered payment to a worker’s family. However, the insurer challenged the order in the high court after a year. It criticised the excuse of the insurance company for the delay as vague and lacking in details. Though the company belongs to the government, the court cannot condone such delays merely for the asking. The insurance company was asked to pay interest and penalty according to the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the delay. “Keeping in view the wilful defiance on the part of the company, Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation from date of the accident,” the judgement said.