Page 17 - Banking Finance August 2017

LEGAL UPDATE

Contract for Naval gun justified Insecticide Act

UK based firm Emdigital Ltd' petition was dismissed against the Israeli firm Elbit Abundant power has been granted
Systems for supply of naval guns to India, by the by the Insec-
Delhi High Court. The British firm alleged the Is- ticide Act to
raeli firm cannot sell the guns as it was manufac- its inspectors
tured by a US company and it required parliamen- for suo motu
tary approval according to the law of that coun- collection of
try. The Israeli firm denied it stating that it had samples
obtained sanction. The High Court explained that from dealers and sending them for
according to US law, the second stage of approval could be sought after obtain- testing at the Central Insecticide
ing the contract and there was nothing in the Arms Export Control Act which Laboratory. It is also the inspector's
barred the Israeli firm from selling the guns to India. duty to do so if the person from
whom the sample is taken requests
SC quashes CESTAT order on anti dumping case for test and analysis.
The apex Court had recently upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Ser-
vice Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an anti-dump- Tractor with a trolley -
ing case, which favored importers of cold rolled stain-
less steel of certain specifications. The domestic in- Light Motor Vehicle
dustries had made representations to the respective The Supreme Court recently gave its
authorities that some firms were hiding specifications verdict that no sepa-
of the goods imported from different countries like rate licence for driv-
China, Japan, Taiwan, and the European Union. An- ing the ve-
other notification was issued to fill the gap. This was hicle is
questioned by the importers before the CESTAT. It allowed exemption from the needed if
duty. It led to the appeal before the Supreme Court, Commissioner of Customs the driver
Duty (Exports) vs. M/s Mascot International. has a Light
Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence for a
Payment terms does not reflect dispute free execution tractor attached to a trolley carrying

Even when a contractor accepts payment for the work done for the employer it goods. For the case in question Sant
does not mean that all disputes between them Lal vs. Rajesh, a tractor with a trol-
had been settled. If the contractor does not sign ley met with an accident. The motor
the final bill, he would not get even the payment accident claims tribunal held that the
admitted by the employer. To this, the Delhi driver did not carry endorsement for
High Court has stated that even if the contrac- driving the vehicle and therefore the
tor signs the usual clause of "full and final settle- insurance company was not liable to
ment" to get the payment, arbitration can be compensate the damage.
invoked on the disputed issues. The court stated so in its judgment in Union of The only countermeasure for the vic-
India vs. Baga Brothers.
tims was to sue the owner who al-
Penal charges on website for misuse of trademark lowed the driver to take the vehicle.
However, on appeal, it was ruled that
The Delhi high court recently imposed a penal charge of Rs. 20 lakh on
99labels.com for selling spurious goods using the reg- no separate endorsement was neces-
sary. The Apex Court held that the in-
istered trademarks in the name of Burberry Ltd. The
surance company was liable to pay
latter is involved in designing, manufacturing and sell- compensation and that the liability
ing luxury goods, complained that the website sold was joint and several, distributed
false goods using its trade marks registered in India among the insurer, the owner and
and abroad. It was stated in the judgment that the the driver.
illegal act of the website derogated the goodwill and reputation of the aggrieved.

BANKING FINANCE | AUGUST | 2017 | 17

Sashi Publications Pvt Ltd Call 8443808873/ 8232083010