Page 22 - Banking Finance January 2020
P. 22

LEGAL UPDATE


          Alternative remedy in in-         Transmission lines over private property
          come tax case                     Raising power transmission lines on private land often leads to suits involving
                                                                     several parties. The landowner does not want to
                                                                     part with his property, the beneficiary presses for
                                                                     the line, electricity authorities want unobstructed
                                                                     access and the government has to protect the pub-
                                                                     lic interest and economic development. In this
                                                                     case, Century Rayon vs IVP, the chemical company
                                                                     wanted a transmission line through a piece of land
                                            belonging to IVP firm. The latter moved a civil court and obtained an injunction
                                            against the construction. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition of
                                            Century Rayon. The Supreme Court allowed the work to go on imposing several
          When there is an alternative remedy  conditions. Century will pay the landowner Rs. 20 lakh and the electricity au-
          provided in the Income Tax Act, it  thorities can complete the work which had already reached an advanced stage.
          should be exhausted before ap-    The civil suit involving the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act would go on.
          proaching a high court, the Supreme
          Court stated while dismissing the
          appeal Genpact India vs Deputy    Trusts don’t come under consumer law
          Commissioner, and upholding the   The Supreme Court ruled last week that employees of ONGC, which formed a
          Delhi High Court order. In this case,  trust for their benefit, are not “consumers”
          shares held by its sole shareholder  of the trust for purposes of the Consumer
          and holding company Genpact India  Protection Act. The scheme is managed and
          Investment, Mauritius, was bought  run by a trust and not by ONGC. There is
          back in two stages.               virtually no privity of contract for providing
                                            service between ONGC and the claimants.
          Meanwhile, Section 115QA of the
                                            The scheme is also voluntary and optional.
          Act, dealing with buyback of shares,  The court emphasised that there is no relationship of consumer and service pro-
          was amended and an assessement    vider between the claimants and ONGC. The Gujarat state consumer commis-
          order was passed according to it.  sion and the national commission had accepted the consumer complaints of the
          This was challenged by the company.  employees and ordered ONGC to pay amounts to the employees. On appeal
          The revenue authorities mantained  (ONGC vs Consumer Education & Research Society), the court held that the
          that the concerned provision was  employees are not consumers. However, they will be paid according to the
          introduced in 2013 to counter the  commission orders as the public sector corporation had agreed to pay the
          tax avoidance practice mainly     amounts.
          adopted by Indian subsidiaries to dis-
          tribute income among shareholders
          of their foreign-based holding com-  Arbitration of AAI replaced
          panies under the garb of buyback of  The Bombay High Court, in a similar case last week, emphasised that the guid-
          shares.                           ing principles in arbitration are “neutrality, independence, fairness and trans-
                                            parency even in the arbitral-forum selection process”. In this case, Lite Bite Foods
          They demanded tax at the rate of 20
          per cent. The company moved a     vs Airports Authority of India, disputes arose after two restaurants at Pune air-
          writ petition before the high court  port were told to change their sites. They complained that the change had caused
                                            them severe loss as they received less footfall at the new locations. The airport
          arainst the demand but the revenue
                                            director of Pune appointed a retired CPWD officer the sole arbitrator. This was
          authorities submitted that there was
                                            opposed by Lite Bite as the airport director himself was disqualified under Sec-
          an alternative remedy provided in
          the Act. The high court argeed and  tion 12 of the Arbitration Act and its two schedules because he was an inter-
          dismissed the petition. The appeal  ested party in the adudication. Therefore, he could not nominate the arbitra-
          was also rejected.                tor. The court accepted this argument and appointed a former chief justice of
                                            the Bombay High Court the sole arbitrator in the case.

            22 | 2020 | JANUARY                                                            | BANKING FINANCE
   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27