Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8733-8734 OF2018ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME RESPONDENTS TAX & ANR. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8735-8736 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8737-8941 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8942-8947 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8950-8953 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8948-8949 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.4419 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.4420 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.10114 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.10097 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10112-10113 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.10106 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8954-8955 OF20181 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10115-10117 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.8956 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8957 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8990 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.10103 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.10104 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.8960 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8966 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8958 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8959 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8962 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8961 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8963 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.8964 OF2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha The petitioner is a Multi Service Operator. It entered into a subscription agreement with the respondents for obtaining supply of signal its channels in Toopran, Ramayampet and Chegunta villages. An agreement was entered into by and between the parties hereto on or about 9.6.2010 for the period 1.1.2010 and 31.12.2010. Annexure B appended to the said agreement apart from mentioning the aforementioned villages postulated the area of operation to be “As per Annexure-1”. The petitioner has annexed a list of subscribers which are at of the paper book containing the names of Mandals and Villages within which the subscription agreement is said to be operating. The respondent, however, contends that Annexure-1 to the agreement is not what has been projected to be at the aforementioned pages and the same was to be containing the details of the LCOs operating in the said villages. The petitioner by a letter dated 21.7.2010, however, expressed its intention to extend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
(1) These Civil Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ striking down Sections 2(ff), 13, 33(3), 34(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as these provisions are perceived by the Petitioners as being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In WP(C) No.452/1999 & WP(C) No.914- 1040/2009, the Indian Performing Rights Society (hereinafter referred as IPRS) stands impleaded as Respondent No.2, Phonographic Performance Ltd. (hereinafter referred as PPL) as Respondent No.3 and the Registrar of Copyrights as Respondent No.4. In WP(C) No.23787-89/2005 & WP(C) No.3870-3995/2009, the IPRS has not been impleaded. The Prayers contained in these two set of Writ Petitions read thus:- a. declare by an appropriate writ order or direction, Section 2(ff), 13, 33(3) and 34(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to be ultra vires Article 14 & 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India; orb. issue a writ of mandamus or any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha 1. The petitioner is a Local Cable Operator within the meaning of the provisions of Telecom (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 (The Regulation) as amended from time to time. 2. It is registered under the meaning of provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (the Act). 3. The 1st respondent is a company engaged in the business of transmission of Channels of various broadcasters. The 3rd respondent is a distributor of the 1st respondent. With a view to obtain supply of signals of various broadcasters, of which the respondent No. 1 is the distributor, the petitioner applied for entering into an agreement sometime in December, 2007. Necessary payments were also made by it as specified in paragraph 8 of the petition which reads thus : “That as per terms and conditions the petitioner has sent a demand draft and cash value of Rs. 15,000/- on 10.12.2007, Rs. 12,000/- on 11.12.2007, Rs. 1,500/- on 22.12.2007, Rs. 15,000 on 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 01.10.2009 Coram:- The Honble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. Nos.33757, 33881, 34416, 10367, 10524 & 10536/05, 4699, 7496, 7765, 17258, 150 & 720 of 2006 & Crl.R.C. No.710/2006 and Miscellaneous Petition Nos.9552 of 2005 etc. Crl.O.P. No.33757 of 2005 1. A.M. Rathinam 2. Perarasu 3. Actor Vijai Petitioners Vs. S. Sellapandian, B.A. B.L., Advocate. Respondent Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C. No.1100 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, and quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.V.Bhiman, for M/s.Sampathkumar Associates. For respondents : Mr.S.Prabakaran COMMON JUDGMENT Alleging opprobrious visual artistic work designed against lawyers and legal profession in a Tamil movie called Sivakasi, pocketful private complaints came to be filed against the Producer, Director and Actor of the movie before various Judicial Magistrate Courts in the State and to qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: W.P.No.25721 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ declaring Sections 3(3-B), 3(4), 3(9), 4-I, 7-A(1) & (3), 7-B(1) & (2) and S.10(1) ["impugned provisions"] of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 (Act No.X of 1939) ["Entertainment Tax Act"] as amended by Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2011 (Act No.XXV of 2011) ["2011 Amendment Act"] and the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 as revised by Notification G.O.Ms.No.125 dt. 12.10.2011 issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration (c1) Department ["Revised Rules"] in so far as Entertainment Tax is sought to be levied by the respondents on the Petitioner's direct-to-home services ["DTH Services"] as ultra vires and unconstitutional. W.P.No.27070 of 2011is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ declaring Sections 3(3-B), 3(4), 3(9), 4-I, 7-A(1) & (3), 7-B(1) & (2) and S.10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1849; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN162; 2005(2)CTC300; JT2005(3)SC339; (2005)3SCC711; [2005]140STC154(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The State of West Bengal - Department of Finance, Calcutta and two others are the appellants in this appeal. Leave was granted by this Court on 30.03.2001 and pending disposal of the appeal, stay of operation of the judgment and order under challenge was passed.2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in W.P.T.T. No. 338 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and declared clause (ii) of Sub-section (4a) of Section 4A of the West Bengal Entertainment-cum-Amusement Tax Act, 1982 (as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 1998) is ultra vires to the Constitution.3. Respondent No.1 carries on business as a Multi System Operator (hereinafter referred to as 'MSO') and is engaged in receiving and providing TV signals to individual cable operators of various localities. The respondents are receiving communication signals known as TV signals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2005Mad408; 2005(4)CTC337; (2006)3MLJ684
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 35545 of 2004 is a senior Advocate and he seeks to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(1-A)(a) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 3 of 2003, by substituting Schedule III, Part-I and Section 3-A levying Green Tax in respect of vehicles mentioned under the Fourth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it amounts to levy of life tax for new registration of vehicle of the petitioner is concerned.3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 35545 of 2004:(a) According to the petitioner, he placed an order for purchase of SKODA Car with Millinem Motors, Chennai, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008BusLR366(Del); 147(2008)DLT561
Sanjiv Khanna, J1. At the very outset, we begin with the Caveat, which is almost universal whenever constitutional validity of a legislation is challenged, while deciding the question of constitutional validity, we do not pronounce judgment on whether the impugned legislation is desirable and should have been enacted. A legislation may be constitutional, yet it may not be desirable [Denis v. U.S. reported in (1950) 341 U.S. 492.2. The present Writ Petitions challenge the legality and validity of some of the provisions of the the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the amended Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prevention of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short). It may be noted that Writ Petition (Civi...
Tag this Judgment!