Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1168; (2007)1CompLJ46(SC); 2006(12)SCALE543; 2007[5]STR161
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants are members of Hotel Association of India and Hotel & Restaurant Owners Association (Western India), EIH Limited and Eastern International Hotels Ltd. The members of Hotel Association of India are owners of big hotels whereas the members of Hotel & Restaurant Owners Association (Western India) are owners of small hotels. They provide television services to their guests. Respondents herein are broadcasters or distributors. The television services provided for by the broadcasters to the actual consumers are carried through distribution of Cable or Multi System Operators (MSOs). Whereas ordinarily in the small hotels cable operators give signal to all the rooms wherefore separate charges are levied; the services provided in the big hotels are through an equipment installed for the said purpose known as Head End. The signals are received through satellites. They have contracts with the broadcasters directly. 2. The Parliament enacted the Cable Television Network...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to Direct the R4 to R22 to telecast/publish the clippings and videos showing the assault on innocent lawyers vide Annex-A and B.)Per Ajit J. Gunjal J.,1. An unsavory incident which took place on 2nd of March 2012 has resulted in a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court seeking various reliefs including one for a direction to the State Government to entrust the Investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). Various reliefs were sought for in the said writ petitions including a direction to some of the respondents, who are electronic media houses to telecast the clippings and videos showing the assault on innocent lawyers and also a direction to the Union of India to initiate action against Media for telecasting/publishing false information in the electronic and print media against the Advocates and for host of other reliefs.2. Bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha 1. Whether a multi service operator has a legal right to obtain an order from this Tribunal directing a broadcaster to supply signals to it on a voluntarily CAS basis is one of the questions which the petitioner raises in this petition. 2. The petitioner is a multi service operator having a PAN India presence. It is said to be the biggest multi service operators operating in the town of Pune in the State of Maharashtra. 3. It’s not in dispute that the respondent no. 2 which is a content aggregator was the distributor of TEN SPORTS, a sports channel. In the said capacity the respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the year 2005. It is furthermore not in dispute that from 2006 onwards the petitioner had not entered into a separate agreement with the respondent no. 2. It is moreover not in controversy that the petitioner fell in arrears in payment of subscription fee which, according to the respondents, was almost to the tune of Rs. 4.3 Crores. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. All these appeals relate to the demand of entertainment tax raised by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1936 Act”) on DTH (direct to home) broadcast provided by the appellants to their respective customers on payment of subscriptions. The appellants in all the appeals challenged the demand by the State Government by filing writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the demand by the State Government by the judgment and order dated August 20, 2010. That judgment was rendered in a batch of three writ petitions, taking Writ Petition No. 10148 of 2009, filed on behalf of Tata Sky Limited (appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.2752 of 2011) as the lead case. The rest of the writ petitions were dismissed following the judgment da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
By an order dated 22.02.2011 while admitting this petition, we have refused to pass an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner herein. The reasons in support thereof now are being assigned. 2. The petitioner herein is a broadcaster. It entered into an agreement with the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 separately for carriage of its channels in their network. By reason of a notice dated 25.12.2010, the said agreement was sought to be terminated. 3. Mr. Bhatia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that from a perusal of the impugned notices, it would be evident that they are identical in nature and as such, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were acting to cause loss to the petitioner conjointly and committed breach of the provisions of the agreement. The learned counsel would contend that keeping in view the conduct of the respondents, the only conclusion which can be arrived at, is that having regard to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
W.P.(C) 6728/2013, C.M. APPL.14592/2013 W.P.(C) 4792/2014, C.M. APPL.9548/2014 W.P.(C) 6767/2014, C.M. APPL.16010/2014 W.P.(C) 2825/2015, C.M. APPL.5077/2015 W.P.(C) 2886/2015, C.M. APPL.5179/2015 W.P.(C) 3247/2015, C.M. APPL.5819/2015 & 5820/2015 W.P.(C) 3308/2015, C.M. APPL.5928/2015 W.P.(C) 3626/2015, C.M. APPL.6472/2015 W.P.(C) 6839/2015, C.M. APPL.12508/2015 W.P.(C) 9166/2015, C.M. APPL.20893 & 20894/2015 W.P.(C) 1927/2016, C.M. APPL.8262/2016 W.P.(C) 5994/2016, C.M. APPL.24660/2016 & 24661/2016 W.P.(C) 9153/2016, C.M. APPL.37062-37063/2016 FASHION DESIGN COUNCIL OF INDIA ........ Petitioner % + W.P.(C) 2563/2013 versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:24. 11.2017 PRONOUNCED ON:22. 12.2017 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) 4966/2013, C.M. APPL.11216/2013, 6704/2016, 6706/2014 & 44758/2016, W.P.(C) 10729/2016, W.P.(C) 10731/2016 BCCI versus ........ Petitioner GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS W.P.(C)2563/2013 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2007)208CTR(P& H)450; 2007[5]STR188; [2007]7STT237
1. This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos. 3094 and 5617 of 2005.2. The petitioners seek quashing of demand of service tax on the ground that service tax was not leviable on 'Multi System Operator' (MSO). Averments in CWP No. 3094 of 2005 may be first noticed.3. Respondent No. 3 is Multi System Operator providing TV signal to the petitioner and other cable operators, who in turn provide cable services to residents. Service tax is leviable under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994) as amended by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f 16-8-2002. Respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that with effect from 10-9-2004, Central Excise Department has claimed service tax as per communication dated 18-2-2005. Letter of respondent No. 3, Annexure P. 2 is reproduced below:As a Multi System Operator, we are providing signal to you and as a consequence thereof you have been rendering your cable operator business in the area of Sectors-11, 12, 12-A and 14, Panchkula. As per the earlier circula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)9STJ145CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 26.09.2006 by which the order-in-original confirming demand of Rs. 38,267/- of Service Tax, imposing penalty of like amount under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 78 of the said Act, and ordering recovery of interest of Rs. 38,267/-, was set aside.2. A show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2005 to the respondent, Anubhagya Welfare Society, for not paying Service Tax in respect of taxable service under the category of 'Cable Operators Services'.According to the Revenue, the assessee received from its members one time security deposit of Rs. 500/-, which was later on adjusted and utilized as additional collection for providing taxable services over and above charging regular amount of Rs. 50/- per member per month upto March, 2003, which was raised to Rs. 60/- per member per month from April, 2003 to March, 2005. A total amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was adjusted as ad...
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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3882 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.27595 OF 2010.M/s Tata Sky Ltd. Appellant Versus State of M.P. and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3888 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.27655 OF 2010.WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3889 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.30034 OF 2010.WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3890 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32475 OF 2010.WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3891 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.2528 OF 2011.AND CIVIL APPEAL No.3892 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.2752 OF 2011.JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. All these appeals relate to the demand of entertainment tax raised by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Act) on DTH (direct to home) broadcast provided by the appellants to their respective customers on pa...
Tag this Judgment!