Latest news with #IndianContractAct
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Telangana HC upholds Rs 26 crore arbitral award in favor of Visaka Industries, dismisses Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) appeal
HYDERABAD: Brushing aside allegations of undue influence and coercion against Visaka Industries, a division bench of Telangana high court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) challenging an arbitral award in their (Visaka) favour. A bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao upheld the Commercial Court's order of July 2024 refusing to set aside the arbitral award of nearly Rs 26 crore in favour of Visaka Industries. The bench also found fault with HCA for being unfair towards Visaka Industries. The dispute arose in 2011 when HCA terminated its agreement of Oct 16, 2004, under which Visaka Industries was granted exclusive in-stadia advertisement rights at the Uppal International Cricket Stadium in Hyderabad. The 2004 agreement had allowed it to name the stadium as 'Visaka International Cricket Stadium' and display its branding during matches. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad H by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo CA terminated the agreement citing helplessness in light of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) restrictions during Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. This led Visaka to initiate arbitration, leading to an award in its favour in 2016. This was challenged by HCA. On Thursday, the HC bench said there was no evidence to support the allegation that the agreement was signed under pressure from two individuals - G Vinod and Dr G. Vivekanand - who held positions in both HCA and Visaka. The court rejected this claim noting that HCA had honoured the agreement for seven years before raising objections and failed to provide any evidence of coercion. HCA challenged the appointment of MR Vikram as an arbitrator, claiming a conflict of interest since he was a partner at a firm that audited Visaka. The court found that full disclosure was made in 2011, and HCA had waived objections by participating in arbitration without protest. The court upheld the Rs 26 crore compensation, calculated as six times the consideration paid by Visaka, as a genuine pre-estimate of damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The bench said the actual loss was difficult to quantify, given the massive visibility Visaka lost due to HCA's breach.
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Delhi high court reiterates legal right to switch jobs
Looking for better job prospects after quitting? The Delhi High Court says that's legal your right—and no company can take it away. Any clause that forces employees to choose between going back to their old boss or staying unemployed, the ruling declared, is not allowed under Indian law. (HT Archive) In a significant ruling aimed at curbing the misuse of restrictive employment contracts, the Delhi High Court has ruled that employers cannot prevent former employees from taking up new jobs, including with their clients or associates. Any clause that forces them to choose between going back to their old boss or staying unemployed, the ruling declared, is not allowed under Indian law. 'An employee cannot be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the previous employer or remain idle,' said justice Tejas Karia. 'Freedom of changing employment for improving service conditions is a vital and important right of an employee.' In its June 25 judgment, the court ruled that post-employment non-compete clauses—common in contracts across sectors—are 'void' under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. This provision invalidates any agreement that restrains someone from pursuing a lawful profession, trade, or business. The court also issued a wider critique of employment contracts that restrict worker mobility. 'An employer-employee contracts, the restrictive or negative covenant are viewed strictly as the employer has an advantage over the employee and it is quite often the case that the employee has to sign standard form contract or not be employed at all.' The case involved software engineer Varun Tyagi, who had worked on the government's POSHAN Tracker project while employed by Daffodil Software. The project, owned by the Digital India Corporation (DIC), is a key national initiative aimed at improving child nutrition. After completing his notice period in April 2025, Tyagi joined DIC directly. However, Daffodil Software took him to court, citing a clause in his contract that barred him from joining any 'business associate' for three years after leaving. A district court agreed and restrained Tyagi from working with DIC, forcing him to approach the high court. In overturning the district court's order, the high court not only allowed Tyagi to take up his new role but also made strong observations on employment rights. It said companies cannot use broad, catch-all clauses to prevent former employees from working elsewhere, especially when they were not hired to develop any proprietary technology. Justice Karia found that Daffodil had no grounds to prevent Tyagi from joining DIC, especially since he hadn't created any proprietary software or confidential intellectual property. All rights to the POSHAN Tracker project, the court noted, belonged to the government, not the private contractor. 'Freedom of employment cannot be restricted merely because someone worked on a sensitive project, particularly when that project was not owned by the employer,' the court said. It added that such freedom cannot be restricted just because someone once worked on sensitive projects. Importantly, the court explained that Indian law is clear that any agreement that blocks someone from doing their job, unless it is about selling goodwill of a business, is not enforceable. Justice Karia underscored that Indian jurisprudence differs fundamentally from English law, where limited post-employment restraints may be upheld based on reasonableness. Under Indian law, such restrictions are permissible only in the rare case of a sale of business goodwill, explicitly carved out as an exception in Section 27. The court held that contracts that inhibit future employment, without protecting genuine proprietary interests, are void. The court also rejected the argument that such clauses were justified to prevent misuse of confidential information. 'Negative covenants after termination can be granted only to protect genuinely proprietary information or prevent client solicitation. But none of the cases cited by Daffodil support restraining employment per se,' the judgment read. Even if an employer believes there has been a breach of the contract, the court said, they can seek monetary damages, but cannot not stop someone from working.
Time of India
19-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SpiceJet passenger wins Rs 2 lakh damage for airline losing check-in bag containing his wife's gold jewellery; Know how this husband won
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Sections 151 and 152 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Supreme Court precedent set by the case: Consumer and Citizen Forum vs Karnataka Power Corporation (1994 (1) CPR 130) How did this compensation for lost baggage case start? May 2, 2013: The passenger booked an international flight SG-46 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi. There were two suitcases of 23 kg each and they were duly accepted and acknowledged by the staff of SpiceJet. The airline issued baggage receipts no. SG-0775590633 & 34. The passenger booked an international flight SG-46 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi. There were two suitcases of 23 kg each and they were duly accepted and acknowledged by the staff of SpiceJet. The airline issued baggage receipts no. SG-0775590633 & 34. May 2, 2013: One of his bags could not be located upon his arrival in Delhi airport, so he contacted SpiceJet's customer care representative and then proceeded to file a complaint. One of his bags could not be located upon his arrival in Delhi airport, so he contacted SpiceJet's customer care representative and then proceeded to file a complaint. May 5 and 6 of 2013: He emailed SpiceJet about the missing bag and got the reply that investigation is on. He was verbally assured that the bag will be recovered soon. He emailed SpiceJet about the missing bag and got the reply that investigation is on. He was verbally assured that the bag will be recovered soon. May 11, 2013: He sent an email to the nodal officer of SpiceJet seeking an update. He got the reply that the suitcase has been declared lost and so he is entitled to a compensation of Rs 200 per kg with the maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as compensation. He sent an email to the nodal officer of SpiceJet seeking an update. He got the reply that the suitcase has been declared lost and so he is entitled to a compensation of Rs 200 per kg with the maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as compensation. May 19, 2013: He wrote to SpiceJet's Appellate Authority but did not get any satisfactory result. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice but still got no reply. He then proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the Delhi District Consumer Commission. He wrote to SpiceJet's Appellate Authority but did not get any satisfactory result. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice but still got no reply. He then proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the Delhi District Consumer Commission. December 7, 2023: Delhi District Consumer Commission held SpiceJet guilty and ordered it to give Rs 1.5 lakh compensation and Rs 50,000 as litigation charges to the passenger. What did the Delhi State Consumer Commission say about lost baggage in airline check-in baggage? It is the primary contention of the Appellant (SpiceJet) that the terms and conditions explicitly advised passengers not to carry valuable items in their checked-in baggage, and that in doing so, the risk and responsibility for any such loss would lie solely with the passenger. It has been averred that these stipulations formed part of the contractual understanding between the parties. Furthermore, the Appellant (SpiceJet) has contended that the terms and conditions impose a capping of the compensation at a sum of Rs 3,000 in the event of loss or damage to checked-in baggage. A perusal of the observation of the district commission makes it clear that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed to place on record any cogent material to show any policy printed on the E-ticket or displayed at the counter where check in baggage was deposited to the effect that passenger shall not carry valuables in the check in baggage and acting contrary will be at their risk. Furthermore, the Appellant (Spicejet) has again failed to produce the aforesaid E-ticket before this Commission and therefore, in absence of any documentary proof to the contrary, we are constrained to not interfere with the observations of the District Commission. Delhi State Consumer Commission says Spicejet failed in its fundamental obligation hence liable to pay compensation Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads It remains an undisputed fact that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed in its fundamental obligation to safely deliver the checked-in baggage of the Respondent (passenger). The District Commission rightly observed that the Appellant (SpiceJet) failed to exercise the reasonable degree of care and caution in handling the baggage. Even otherwise, the Appellant (SpiceJet) has not produced any cogent material to controvert the factual findings of the District Commission, at the appellate stage. Given that the Appellant was entrusted with the custody of the baggage as a bailee under the law, the Appellant had a legal duty to ensure its safe and timely return. The failure to fulfil this obligation constitutes a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and accordingly, the Appellant is liable to compensate the Respondent for the resultant loss and inconvenience. Delhi State Consumer Commission answers why this baggage lost case is different from the other cases Though the Appellant (SpiceJet) has placed reliance upon a number of judicial precedents in support of its submissions, however, the distinguishing factor in the present matter lies in the absence of any material on record to reflect that the terms and conditions purportedly governing the contractual relationship were ever furnished to, or made known to, the Respondent (passenger). The failure to place the terms and conditions on the e-ticket effectively negates the argument that there existed a binding contractual clause limiting liability. In the absence of knowledge or communication of such conditions to the Respondent (passenger), it cannot be said that a valid contract incorporating these terms came into existence. This factor significantly distinguishes the present case from the facts in the precedents cited by the Appellant (SpiceJet), thereby rendering reliance on the precedents cited inapplicable. What might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement? Airlines must prominently display and effectively communicate all terms and conditions, especially those limiting liability or advising against carrying certain items. Mere availability in fine print is insufficient; airlines must be able to prove that consumers were genuinely aware of and agreed to these terms. Airlines are held to a high standard of care for checked baggage under the Indian Contract Act. The burden of proof lies with the airline to explain any loss or damage, and failure to do so constitutes a clear "deficiency in service". The judgment confirms that "deficiency in service" extends beyond direct monetary loss to include non-pecuniary damages such as mental harassment, agony, and inconvenience. This supports claims for comprehensive compensation. Consumer complaints can be filed where the "cause of action" arises (e.g., where the baggage was lost or not delivered), providing consumers with flexibility in choosing the forum. On May 27, 2025, the President of Delhi State Consumer Commission ordered SpiceJet Airlines to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation in total after they lost a passenger's checked-in bag containing his wife's gold jewellery, expensive clothes, etc. The airline was ready to pay Rs 200 per kg up to Rs 3,000 as compensation for this lost bag, but the passenger did not accept this money and hence filed a consumer complaint that resulted in this favourable incident happened more than 10 years ago on May 2, 2013, when the passenger was travelling with his wife and minor son were returning from a vacation in Nepal to Delhi. They had two bags weighing 23 kg each. At Kathmandu Airport, the two bags were scanned and tagged for check-in baggage, but when he landed at Delhi Airport, one of the bags, specifically the one containing the gold jewellery and expensive clothes, could not be located and was deemed airline staff in Delhi Airport told him to file an irregularity report and so he did. But despite the best efforts of the airline and its investigation officer, that specific bag could not be located. The airline told him that for lost luggage he is entitled to compensation of Rs 200 per kg with a maximum cap of Rs 3,000 as over the meagre compensation amount, the passenger tried to raise this issue with the airline's management and even sent them a legal notice. However, he did not get the desired response and nor did he find the bag containing the jewels. He alleged that he was made to run from the pillar to post by the airline. Hence, he filed a complaint with Delhi District Consumer Commission at first and then with the Delhi State Consumer airline's lawyers told the Delhi State Consumer Commission that passengers are well aware about the terms and conditions mentioned in the e-ticket which states no valuables and medications should be carried in check-in baggage. The airline said if a passenger contravenes this rule, then they are doing this at their own risk. The airline's lawyers also said that the passenger has violated the said conditions and thus cannot take advantage of his own the consumer commissions (district and state) rejected SpiceJet's argument and ruled in the passenger's Delhi State Consumer Commission said that the airline has failed to show any evidence of this baggage policy about passengers not carrying valuables in the check-in baggage being printed on the e-ticket or displayed at the airline's counter in the airport. In legal language, the lack of evidence showing placement of the terms and conditions effectively negated the argument that there existed a binding contractual clause limiting liability of the airline for lost the state consumer commission ordered SpiceJet (the airline) to pay Rs 1.5 lakh for mental harassment and Rs 50,000 for litigation expenses. The consumer commission said that this present case is different from the other baggage lost case and hence decided this judgement in the passenger's favour by interpreting:Read below to know why the airline -- SpiceJet -- lost this case and why this passenger could get Rs 2 lakh total compensation for lost to the order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission dated May 27, 2025, here's the timeline of events:SpiceJet filed an appeal against this order with the Delhi State Consumer to the order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission dated May 27, 2025, here's what the commission said:The Delhi State Consumer Commission upheld the district commission's order which said SpiceJet to pay compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh for mental harassment and agony and Rs 50,000 as litigation the final judgement, the Delhi State Consumer Commission said:The Delhi State Consumer Commission said:ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement for consumers. Here's what they said:The key takeaways from this judgment include:This case holds significant importance for consumers, particularly concerning their rights when engaging with service providers such as airlines. It firmly establishes that service providers cannot unilaterally impose terms and conditions without ensuring they are adequately brought to the consumer's notice. In the present case, both the District Commission and the State Commission found that SpiceJet failed to demonstrate that its terms limiting liability for lost baggage were prominently communicated on the e-ticket or displayed at the consumers are not bound by hidden or uncommunicated stipulations. The judgment further reaffirms a fundamental duty of care upon service providers for goods entrusted to them, acting as bailees. Their failure to safely deliver checked-in baggage constitutes a clear deficiency in service, warranting compensation for the consumer's loss and inconvenience caused. This case underscores that consumers can pursue remedies beyond nominal compensation if an airline is found negligent and its terms were not properly judgment underscores the critical importance of communicating terms and conditions, particularly those limiting liability, by service providers. Such terms are not binding unless prominently displayed or explicitly brought to the consumer's notice, such as on e-tickets or at service counters. The ruling reiterates that the burden of proving due care for entrusted goods, acting as a bailee, lies squarely with the service provider, clarifying obligations under relevant contract and evidence the failure to safely deliver checked-in baggage constitutes a clear deficiency in service under consumer protection statutes, establishing liability beyond mere nominal compensation.
