Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2008
Reported in : LC2008(2)75; 2008(36)PTC492(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA No. 1469/2008 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)1. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from utilizing the footage of plaintiff, in the matches played, and to be played during the India-Australia test matches, 2020 series and the tri-series One day internationals involving Sri Lanka, India and Australia, without obtaining its prior permission and in violation of the plaintiff's terms and conditions and from utilizing the footage from the television for any television programme, except for regularly scheduled news bulletin, in excess of 30 seconds per bulletin and a total of two minutes per day and from carrying any advertisements before, during and after such footage. An ad-interim injunction to the same effect has also been sought.2. The plaintiff, ESPN Star Sports is a general partnership under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America. Its beneficial owners are Star Group Limited (50%) and ESPN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-28-2008
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(Del)37; 2008(102)DRJ356; [2008]98ITR302(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this order, we propose to deal with the existing grievances of the Petitioners, at a prima facie and interim stage, in a batch of over a hundred writ petitions. Learned Counsel for all the parties were heard on these grievances from 17th to 20th March, 2008 when orders were reserved.2. In this particular writ petition (along with a few connected writ petitions), we had earlier passed a detailed interim order on 18th December, 2007 and the present order is really a continuation thereof.3. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of Sections 245D(2A), 245D(2D), 245D(4A) and 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as being arbitrary and unconstitutional. There is also a challenge to some provisions of the Finance Bill, 2008 but we are presently not concerned with that.4. The challenge has arisen out of amendments to the Act by the Finance Act, 2007. The effect of the amendments is that where a settlement application has been filed under Section 245C of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-11-2008
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ255
T.S. Thakur, J.1. More than 20 years after the issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 and a Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings in respect of a parcel of land measuring 66 Bighas and 6 bids was situate in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi for the public purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. Two primary grounds were urged before us in support of the said challenge. Firstly, it was contended that the delay in the completion of the acquisition proceedings vitiated the said proceedings. That contention was, however, given up by Mr. Vashisht, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions in the light of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 1996 I AD (Del) 6. We need not, thereforee, dilate on that aspect of the matter. The second ground of challenge was, however, pursued by Mr. Vashisht who cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3148; 2008(3)ALD147(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1811; 148(2008)DLT705(SC); JT2008(5)SC376; 2008(6)SCALE325; (2008)5SCC287; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37
..... by the landlord who is the owner of such premises for occupation as a residence for himself or his family and that he has no other suitable accommodation;explanation:-for the purposes of this clause, 'residential premises' include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes:....(vi) after 6 years, the delhi rent control act, 1958 was enacted. the preamble of this act shows that it is a legislation for the control of rents and evictions and of rates of hotels and lodging houses, and for the lease of vacant premises to government, in certain areas in the union territory of delhi. section 2(i) of that act defines the premises ..... out flat no. 28-e, connaught place, new delhi to national insurance company limited for non-residential use. subsequently, the national insurance company limited became life insurance corporation of india. the petitioner made efforts to convince the corporation that the premises are required for his bona fide use and occupation but could not convince the concerned authorities. he, therefore, filed an application for recovery of possession. the same was dismissed by the high court. he then filed writ petition questioning the constitutionality of section 14(1)(e .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : May-07-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ217
M. Yaqoob Mir, J.1. Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2003 passed by City Judge Srinagar, upheld by 1st appellate court i.e. 1st Additional District Judge vide Judgment and decree dated 16.6.2005 is impugned in the Civil 2nd appeal. In keeping with Section-100 of CPC, the substantial question of law for determination as formulated vide order dated 16.9.2005 are as under:1. Whether a suit can be decided by the court without framing the necessary issues, which arise for determination?2. Whether the draft issues, placed on the record of the file were treated by the trial court vide its order dated 12.7.2002-as the issues in the case,, if so, whether without deciding those issues the court could have decided the suit in favour or against the plaintiff?3. Whether Rule 14 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Classification, Control and Appeals Rules supersedes the J&K; Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, in so far Class-IV post was concerned.2. For proper determination of these formulated qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-30-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj62
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant (C) with the respondent National Insurance Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Company'] and having been transferred from Divisional Office, Jodhpur to Branch Office, Balotara, has challenged the transfer order dated 18.08.2006 (Annex.7) as being violative of statutory requirements.2. Put in a nut-shell, the contentions of the petitioner are that a part of Transfer Policy as framed, and the consequential Administrative Instructions as issued by the respondent Company are not in conformity with the statutory Scheme related with such transfers; and that his transfer order has been issued by an officer who could not have been and has not been authorised to do so; and further that the transfer order has been issued even contrary to the terms of the Transfer Policy.3. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Sep-04-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ559
T.P. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-7-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Durg, in special Case No. 1/1988 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act') and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months Under Section 5(2) of the Act and to undergo RI for one year Under Section 161, IPC2. The judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the ground that without there being any proof of motive or reward and acceptance or recovery of the alleged illegal gratification in breach of mandatory provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Act, learned Special Judge has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above.3. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT133
S. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1. The subject matter of all these petitions is land to an extent of over 40 bighas in Village Kapashera, New Delhi belonging to the Deputy Commissioner (South-West) ('DC'), Government of National Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'). The DC is the petitioner in the first mentioned writ petition W.P. (C) No. 7687 of 2004 Accordingly, all these petitions, including the two contempt petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.Relevant Facts2. On 17th April 1986 a notification was issued under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Holdings Act') by the competent authority commencing the process of consolidation of land in the Village Kapashera in New Delhi. Pursuant to the said notification dated 17th April 1986 the Consolidation Officer ('CO') published a draft scheme under Section 19 of the Holdings Act on 19th December 1986. After considering the objections the scheme was confirmed by the Sett...
Tag this Judgment!