Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Carswell. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would dismiss this petition. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. Naomi Campbell sued the publishers of the Daily Mirror ("MGN") for breach of confidence. She alleged that they had published information in respect of which she was entitled to privacy. After a trial lasting five days in February 2002, Morland J found the case proved and awarded her 3,500 damages and costs. This modest award reflected the fact that Ms Campbell conceded that her own conduct prevented her from objecting to the newspaper's most serious allegation, namely, that she had been addicted to drugs. Her complaint concerned the publication of additional details and photographs concerning the treatment she was receiving. In October 2002 the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WILSON 1. I consider that each of the nine appeals should be dismissed. In my respectful view the approach of Lord Phillips, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr to the meaning of the word "knowledge" in sections 11(4) and 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 ("the Act") is misconceived and would throw the practical application of the subsections into disarray. I also consider that any exercise of the discretion under section 33 so as to permit any of the nine actions to proceed would be aberrant in circumstances in which they have no real prospect of success. 2. What is the nature of the exercise which the court conducts when asked by a defendant to rule that an action in respect of personal injuries is time-barred under section 11 of the Act? Subsection (4) provides that the action shall not be brought after the expiration of three years from "(a) the date on which the cause of action accrued; or (b) the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured." The subsection refers, at (a), to "the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7875-7879 OF2015BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA A.K. BALAJI AND ORS. APPELLANT VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENTS (Association of Indian Lawyers versus M/s. London Court of CIVIL APPEAL NO.7170 OF2015International Arbitration (LCIA) and ors.) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.8028 OF2015(Global Indian Lawyers versus Bar Council of India & Ors.) JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J1 The issue involved in this batch of matters is whether foreign law firms/lawyers are permitted to practice in India. Reference needs to be made to two leading matters. Civil Appeal Nos.7875-79 of 2015 have been filed by the Bar Council of India against the Judgment of Madras High Court dated 21st February, 2012 in A.K. Balaji versus The Government of India1. Civil Appeal No.8028 of 2015 has 1 AIR2012Mad 124 1 been filed by Global Indian Lawyers against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 16th December, 2009 in Lawyers Collective versus Bar Council of India2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WILSON (with whom Lady Hale and Lord Reed agree) 1. Birmingham City Council ("Birmingham") appeals against the order of the Court of Appeal (Mummery and Davis LJJ and Dame Janet Smith) dated 29 November 2011, whereby it dismissed Birmingham's appeal against the order of Mr Colin Edelman QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, Queen's Bench Division, dated 17 December 2010. The deputy judge had dismissed Birmingham's application for a direction that the claims made against it by 174 claimants, joined as parties to the single action, should be struck out. 2. The claimants allege that they are former employees of Birmingham. All except four of them are women. The claims, which were issued in the High Court on 30 July 2010, were founded on an alleged breach of the "equality clause" which, by section 1(1) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 ("the Act"), as substituted by section 8(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was deemed to have been included in their contracts of employment. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :3. rd July, 2013 Judgment pronounced on:22nd November, 2013 % + ITA10342009 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate. versus INFRASOFT LTD. ..... Respondent Mr. Ajay Vohra with Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. Through CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the Revenue impugning order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) 2. Vide order dated 20.10.2009, the following ======================================================================= substantial questions of law were framed:1) Whether the learned ITAT erred in holding that nature of receipts amounting to Rs. 2,74,00,630/- was business income and not royalty income wherein the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) read (SI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD306; 2004(3)ALT696
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions arise under similar legal and factual back-ground; hence, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts mentioned in Writ Petition No. 20087 of 2003.2. The petitioner, a private limited company, promoted by fourth respondent-Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation and two other investor companies, has filed this writ petition, questioning the order dated 16-6-2003 passed by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, cancelling the quary lease and the order of the revisional authority dated 15-9-2003, rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner.3. The fourth respondent-Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, a company owned by Government of Andhra Pradesh, has purchased an extent of Ac.89.06 cents of land in Sy.Nos. 52, 55/3C, 55/4A of R.L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. They have initially obtained prospecting licence for black granit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2010)230CTR(Del)43
A.K. Sikri, J.1. These appeals were admitted on the following question of law:Whether on a true and correct appreciation of the relationship between the assessee and its distributors, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payments paid by the assessee is not commission as envisaged under Section 194H of the Act?This question has arisen for determination for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. A survey under Section 133 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of the respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). It revealed that the assessee was not deducting tax at source. It was found that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of providing cellular telephone network through a card called Subscriber Identification Module (SIM). Prepaid or post paid connections are provided to the subscribers through distributors called 'Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs)' appointed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD570
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by a common order since substantial question involved in all these writ petitions being the same. In certain of these writ petitions, there are interim orders and in certain of these writ petitions, no interim orders are made. Learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce had opposed the passing of an interim order on the ground that there is a change of situation by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 217, dated 29.9.2004.2. The learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that in the nature of the reliefs prayed for, it would not alter the situation in any way and even otherwise subsequent to the said G.O. in certain writ petitions interim orders have been made. Inasmuch as, counter-affidavits are filed, this Court thought it fit to dispose of all these matters finally.3. Submissions at length were made by Mrs. Shoba, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2751; 2006(3)AWC2128(SC); 2006(4)BomCR694; 2006(2)CTLJ111(SC); 2006(5)SCALE44; (2006)10SCC510
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2005 in Petition No. 49(C) of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the Respondent herein was allowed. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A Notice inviting tender was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in the month of October, 1999 from the companies registered in India for grant of licence to operate FM broadcasting service at Mumbai. The Respondent herein was one of the successful bidders along with four others. It is not in dispute that in terms of the agreement, it was stipulated that holders of 10 licences, which were planned for the city of Mumbai, would co-locate the transmission infrastructure on a common transmitter tower, as required in Clause 14 of the Licence Agreement, as also Article 7.1(i) of the Schedule (C) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) No.17 OF2020DLF Home Developers Limited ..... Petitioner VERSUS Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr. ..... Respondent(s) WITH ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) No.16 OF2020DLF Home Developers Limited ..... Petitioner VERSUS Begur OMR Homes Pvt. Limited & Anr. ..... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.The Petitioner DLF Home Developers Limited (hereinafter, DHDL) has filed Arbitration Petition No.16 of 2020 and Arbitration Petition No.17 of 2020 under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, Act) for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the differences between the parties that have arisen out of the two Page | 1 Construction Management Agreements dated 25.01.2017. FACTS2 DHDL is a limited liability involved in the business of providing development, management, and investment services concerning real estate projects. The Petition...
Tag this Judgment!