Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2001Cal30
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This public interest litigation being T. No. 1285 of 2000 as well as the appeal being MAT No. 2731 of 2000 arising out of interim order passed in A.S.T. No. 2879 of 2000 as well as the writ petition being Tender No. 1285 of 2000 involve common question of law, therefore they are being disposed of by the common order. In the public interest litigation filed by Bimalendu De it has been prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued against the respondent No. 1 from prohibiting transmission of two programmes namely 'Kaun Banega Crorpati' by Star T.V. and 'Jackpot Jeeto' by Zee T.V. In the writ petitions filed by the petitioners almost identical prayers have been made but in addition 'Fashion Show' has also been prayed to be prohibited.2. After filing this public interest litigation a notice was issued and the matter was pending before this Division Bench, this writ petition (AST No. 2879 of 2000) was filed before the Learned Single Judge by Devasmita Sridhar in which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC80
ORDER1. In Writ Petition No. 14177 of 1999, petitioner Association seeks for a direction to forbear the respondents from registering any person as a Cable T.V, Operator and prevent person from commencing operation as Cable T.V. Operators except after obtaining licence under the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Video Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984. In Writ Petition No.541of 2000, petitioner seeks for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to initiate penal action as provided for under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1994 against the third respondent. Petitioners in all the other writ petitions seek for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from issuing registration certificate to any other Cable T.V. Operator in respective areas. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu introduced the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen Through Video Cassette. Records (Regulation) Act, 1984. The said Act was subsequently amended to include cable television netw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. 'Comparison lies at the root of modern advertising' says Cornish, W., in his 'Intellectual Property'(4th Edn., Page 656). In McDonalds v. Burgerking (1986) FSR 45 Whitford J., warned that 'advertisements are not to be read as if they are testamentary provision in a will or a clause in some agreement with every word being carefully considered and the words as a whole being compared'. Yet, comparative advertisements have led to a lot of litigation and the case on hand is one.2. C.S. No. 451 of 2008 has been filed by Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned Television advertisements, filed as plaint document No. 3 in a Compact Disk (CD) or telecasting any other advertisement which is disparaging or slandering the Colgate tooth pastes and for damages to the tune of Rs. 10,01,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff has come up with -(i) O.A. No. 493 of 2008 for an inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 Praying that this Honble Court may be Pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence Both Dated: 27.09.2014 Passed by the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha and Others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 Convicting the Appellant/Accused No.1 for the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Appellant/Accused No.1 is Sentenced to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for a Period of Four Years, and to pay a Fine of Rs.100 Crores. In Default to pay the Fine Amount, she shall Undergo Further Imprisonment for One Year For the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha Introduction Tariff Regulation dated 21.07.2010 made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commonly known as Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable System Order), 2010 (the impugned tariff order) is in question in this batch of appeals. Backdrop The Appellants before us are broadcasters. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TRAI’) was originally the sole Respondent. Some of the DTH operators with DTH Operators Association of India as also other MSOs have been impleaded as parties in these proceedings and/or permitted to intervene. On a letter received by this Tribunal from Tamilnadu Progressive Consumer Centre praying for its being impleaded as a party to protect the consumers’ interest, it was also impleaded as a party. However, it did not file any pleadings nor did it advance any independent argument. The impugned tariff order came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2010. De-fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7326-7327 OF2018STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7328-7329 OF2018JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. The present civil appeals raise a challenge to certain clauses of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) notified on 3.3.2017 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) 1 Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Order) dated 3.3.2017 made under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the TRAI Act). Since regulations made under the TRAI Act were under challenge, a writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court in which the main issues that arose before the Division Bench were as follows:- a...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-790-MA-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** M/S.Tata Steel LTD.. . Petitioners versus M/S.Atma Tube Products LTD.& ORS.. . Respondents **** CRM-A-547-MA-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** Kesar Singh . . Petitioner versus Dheeraj Kumar . . Respondent **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** Present: Mr.HL Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate; Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate (in CRM-790-MA-2010) Mr.PS Ahluwalia and Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocates (CRM-A-547-MA-2011) for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Mr.Pardeep S. Poonia, Additional AG Haryana; Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana; and Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr.Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No../2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No../2022 @ Diary No.34207/2018) ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI . APPELLANT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT1 There is a delay of 216 days in filing of this special leave petition against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Criminal Revision Application No.205/2014. Even though the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is blissfully vague and bereft of any material facts and particulars, keeping in mind the 1 for short, the High Court 2 subject matter involved, we deemed it appropriate to ignore/condone the delay and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.2. We must note that the respondents had faintly objected to the hearing of this matter on merits owing to unexplained delay in filing of the petition. However, they have a serious objection to the joining of Ms. Teesta S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007. 1. The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.2. Objecti...
Tag this Judgment!