Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10732-10733 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.4574-4575 OF2015 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10734-10735 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [PRASAR BHARATI VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET NOS.4572-4573 OF2015 IN INDIA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10736-10737 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [HOME CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD. VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR NOS.12743-12744 OF2016 CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10738-10739 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.419-420 OF2017 [SOPAN FOUNDATION VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. 1 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.Leave granted in all the Special Leave 1. Petitions. The precise origin of the game of 2. cricket, though largely unknown, has been traced, at least, to late 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10732-10733 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.4574-4575 OF2015 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10734-10735 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [PRASAR BHARATI VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET NOS.4572-4573 OF2015 IN INDIA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10736-10737 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [HOME CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD. VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR NOS.12743-12744 OF2016 CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10738-10739 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.419-420 OF2017 [SOPAN FOUNDATION VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. 1 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.Leave granted in all the Special Leave 1. Petitions. The precise origin of the game of 2. cricket, though largely unknown, has been traced, at least, to late 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10732-10733 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.4574-4575 OF2015 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10734-10735 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [PRASAR BHARATI VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET NOS.4572-4573 OF2015 IN INDIA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10736-10737 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [HOME CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD. VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR NOS.12743-12744 OF2016 CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10738-10739 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.419-420 OF2017 [SOPAN FOUNDATION VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. 1 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.Leave granted in all the Special Leave 1. Petitions. The precise origin of the game of 2. cricket, though largely unknown, has been traced, at least, to late 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10732-10733 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.4574-4575 OF2015 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10734-10735 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [PRASAR BHARATI VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET NOS.4572-4573 OF2015 IN INDIA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10736-10737 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) [HOME CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD. VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR NOS.12743-12744 OF2016 CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S) 10738-10739 OF2017[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.419-420 OF2017 [SOPAN FOUNDATION VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.]. 1 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.Leave granted in all the Special Leave 1. Petitions. The precise origin of the game of 2. cricket, though largely unknown, has been traced, at least, to late 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.1327/2007 % Judgment delivered on:04. 02.2015 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ANOTHER Appellants Versus PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents WITH WP(C) No.8458/2007 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANOTHER Petitioners versus PRASAR BHARATI, BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents AND WP(C) 9610/2007 RAVI DEV GUPTA Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS LPA132707 & WPC Nos. 8458/07 & 9610/07 Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant/Petitioner/BCCI : Mr Amit Sibal with Ms Radha Rangaswamy, Mr Prateek Chadha, Mr Amrinder Singh and Mr Raman Kumar For the Appellant/ESPN & Star : Mr Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocates with Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr Gopal Jain, Mr Siddharth Chopra, Ms Sneha Jain and Ms Savni Dutt For the Respondent/Prasar Bharati : Mr Paras Kuhad, ASG with Mr Rajeeve Sharma, Mr Jitin Chaturvedi, Mr ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.1327/2007 % Judgment delivered on:04. 02.2015 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ANOTHER Appellants Versus PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents WITH WP(C) No.8458/2007 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANOTHER Petitioners versus PRASAR BHARATI, BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents AND WP(C) 9610/2007 RAVI DEV GUPTA Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS LPA132707 & WPC Nos. 8458/07 & 9610/07 Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant/Petitioner/BCCI : Mr Amit Sibal with Ms Radha Rangaswamy, Mr Prateek Chadha, Mr Amrinder Singh and Mr Raman Kumar For the Appellant/ESPN & Star : Mr Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocates with Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr Gopal Jain, Mr Siddharth Chopra, Ms Sneha Jain and Ms Savni Dutt For the Respondent/Prasar Bharati : Mr Paras Kuhad, ASG with Mr Rajeeve Sharma, Mr Jitin Chaturvedi, Mr ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.1327/2007 % Judgment delivered on:04. 02.2015 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ANOTHER Appellants Versus PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents WITH WP(C) No.8458/2007 BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANOTHER Petitioners versus PRASAR BHARATI, BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents AND WP(C) 9610/2007 RAVI DEV GUPTA Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS LPA132707 & WPC Nos. 8458/07 & 9610/07 Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant/Petitioner/BCCI : Mr Amit Sibal with Ms Radha Rangaswamy, Mr Prateek Chadha, Mr Amrinder Singh and Mr Raman Kumar For the Appellant/ESPN & Star : Mr Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocates with Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr Gopal Jain, Mr Siddharth Chopra, Ms Sneha Jain and Ms Savni Dutt For the Respondent/Prasar Bharati : Mr Paras Kuhad, ASG with Mr Rajeeve Sharma, Mr Jitin Chaturvedi, Mr ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20. 12/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.34213 of 2013 TAMIL NADU ARASU CABLE TV CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, 11/22 MANGADU SAMY STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI34 VS THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO.655 5TH FLOOR A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI110001. THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MAHANAGAR DOOR SANCHAR BHAWAN, (NEXT TO ZAKIR HUSSAIN COLELGE), JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG NEW DELHI ORDER Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the writ petitioner, and, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent and for Mr.Devendran, learned counsel for the second respondent.2. Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, an instrumentality of the State of Tamil Nadu, has come before this Cou...
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 : 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!