1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter,"Gujarat Urja"or "GUVN”) ；the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP”). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity（“APTEL” hereafter).

2. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now “Gujarat Urja”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the Signature Not Verified PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:10 IST Reason:

Let this matter be listed in the first week of June, 2020 on a date to be fixed by the Registry. On the next date so fixed, this matter will be taken up for its disposal.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

1. All the four writ petitions seek identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, the "CGST Rules"). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the CENVAT credit to the GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statutory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.

1. By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant's (VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter 'the Act')have been rejected, and common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter 'arbitration agreements')concerning separate portions of same property. Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a common judgement.

CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

C.R.P. 57/2019 & CM APPL.9037/2019 (for interim relief), CM APPL.9038/2019 (for calling Trial Court record)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.01.2019 whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 1(1) and 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) filed by the Respondent and C.R.P. No. 57/2019 Page 1 of 9 permitted the Respondent to withdraw the Suit with liberty to file a fresh Suit for damages.

2. A License Agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.09.2015, whereby Petitioner had agreed to license part of its premises in commercial complex known as "Worldmark 1" located at Asset Area 11, situated at Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The license was entered into for a period of 15 years for the purposes of running of multi-tenanted Food & Beverage concepts under the brand and style of Epicuria.

Elon Musk says Tesla may leave its Palo Alto headquarters and Fremont, California factory. In a tweet Saturday morning, the chief executive continued his outrage against shelter-in-place orders that have forced most non-essential businesses to close. Last week, Musk likened the rules to fascism, and urged leaders to "give people their goddamn freedom back." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.After a week of decrying coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that have left Tesla's main factory shuttered and unable to produce vehicles, Elon Musk says the company may move its factory out of the state."Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately," the chief executive said on Twitter Saturday morning. "The unelected & ignorant 'Interim Health Officer' of Alameda is acting

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:34:03 ::: (2) Cr.WP 1611/2016 both the parties and matter is taken for fnal hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. Present petition has been fled by the original accused, invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 2015 dt. 21-09-2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and also to challenge the order passed below Ex.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 573 of 2006 dt. 26-11-2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.

It is the submission of the petitioners that the respondent nos.9 to 12 were the erstwhile tenants who are allegedly occupying the impugned premises and are presently running a quarantine center as per the Memo No. H&FW/132/2020/128 (Annexure-P/6).

Mr. Gaggar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner led by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submits that in spite of several representations having been made before the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station being the respondent no.8 herein and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 herein, no action has been taken by the State authorities.

Anthony Stott was fatally hit by a truck in northern New South Wales less than 24 hours after stepping off a plane at Brisbane airport on February 9.

1. The present Execution Petition is filed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Page 1 of 25 EP No.09 of 2016 in A. No. 171 of 2012 Limited ("TPDDL/Petitioner") for execution of the Judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2012. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the tariff order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Delhi Commission/Respondent") in Petition No. 05 of 2012 whereby, the true up of expenses of the Petitioner for FY 2010-11 and ARR for the Control Period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 were determined. By the said judgment this Tribunal has inter-alia decided as under:-

Though Man United and Everton have been monitoring McNeil, Palace hope the offer of regular first-team football coupled with a handsome increase on his current salary will help them land him.

2. Relevant facts are that plaintiff has filed suit for recovery against the defendant no.1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing of coating powder and trading of decorative and industrial paints and thinner since 1994. The defendant is a limited company and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the manufacturing of electrical panels. The defendant through its directors/ officials approached the plaintiff for purchase of the coating powder and industrial paints and thinner and at the time of commencement of the business, the terms of business, as specifically printed on or contained in the plaintiff's invoices were agreed by the defendant and thereafter business dealings and transactions started between the parites hereto in 2004 and since 15.04.2004 they have been maintaining a running account.

2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed from the plaint is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing internet services under licence from Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology. The defendants approached the plaintiff for taking internet services and after negotiations the plaintiff agreed to provide services to a defendant and thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant signed customer application form (CAF) on 04.04.2015. The plaintiff provided the internet services to a defendant No. 1 company on monthly basis and after providing the services, the plaintiff raised bill of Rs.27,54193/­ and out of the said amount the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 22,08,000/­ and the balance sum of Rs. 5,46,193/­ is outstanding and due against the defendants which defendants failed to pay despite demands from the plaintiff.

The line of people stretched for more than 1 km (half a mile) outside an ice rink where volunteers were handing out around 1,500 parcels to people who started queuing as early as 5 am.

TDG vs HST Dream11 Team - Check My Dream11 Team, Best players list of today's match, Taiwan Dragons vs Hsinchu Titans Dream11 Team Player List, TDG Dream11 Team Player List, HST Dream11 Team Player List, Dream11 Guru Tips, Online Cricket Tips, Taiwan Dragons vs Hsinchu Titans Head to Head.

Archives, Room Use Only - HE8110.C33 B34 1978

The Union Health ministry put the number of positive cases at 82, eight more since Thursday night, which includes the woman and a 76-year-old man from Karnataka who became the country's first coronavirus fatality besides 17 foreign nationals, Health Ministry officials said.

The decision, that would be reviewed on a month-by-month basis, came a day after England registered its biggest jump in death toll of 39 to hit 177.

Taiwan Dragons vs Hsinchu Titans, Dream11 Prediction: Best picks for TDG vs...

While arrivals of vegetables remained resilient with a fewer number of trucks enter into evening also, the biggest surge was seen in fruit supply.

TDG vs TDR Dream11 Team - Check My Dream11 Team, Best players list of today's match, Taiwan Dragons vs Taiwan Daredevils Dream11 Team Player List, TDG Dream11 Team Player List, TDR Dream11 Team Player List, Dream11 Guru Tips, Online Cricket Tips, Taiwan Dragons vs Taiwan Daredevils Head to Head.

HST vs TDR Dream11 Team - Check My Dream11 Team, Best players list of today's match, Hsinchu Titans vs Taiwan Daredevils Dream11 Team Player List, TDG Dream11 Team Player List, HST Dream11 Team Player List, Dream11 Guru Tips, Online Cricket Tips, Hsinchu Titans vs Taiwan Daredevils Head to Head.

Comparison of the structures of ClpC1-Ecumicin and ClpC1-Rufomycin reveals unique interaction relevant to the mode of action.

TatD has been thoroughly investigated as a DNA-repair enzyme and an apoptotic nuclease, and still-unknown TatD-related DNases are considered to play crucial cellular roles. However, studies of TatD from Gram-positive bacteria have been hindered by an absence of atomic detail and the resulting inability to determine function from structure. In this study, an X-ray crystal structure of SAV0491, which is the TatD enzyme from the Gram-positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus (SaTatD), is reported at a high resolution of 1.85 Å with a detailed atomic description. Although SaTatD has the common TIM-barrel fold shared by most TatD-related homologs, and PDB entry 2gzx shares 100% sequence identity with SAV0491, the crystal structure of SaTatD revealed a unique binding mode of two phosphates interacting with two Ni2+ ions. Through a functional study, it was verified that SaTatD has Mg2+-dependent nuclease activity as a DNase and an RNase. In addition, structural comparison with TatD homologs and the identification of key residues contributing to the binding mode of Ni2+ ions and phosphates allowed mutational studies to be performed that revealed the catalytic mechanism of SaTatD. Among the key residues composing the active site, the acidic residues Glu92 and Glu202 had a critical impact on catalysis by SaTatD. Furthermore, based on the binding mode of the two phosphates and structural insights, a putative DNA-binding mode of SaTatD was proposed using in silico docking. Overall, these findings may serve as a good basis for understanding the relationship between the structure and function of TatD proteins from Gram-positive bacteria and may provide critical insights into the DNA-binding mode of SaTatD.

The post Kepler 11: A Six-Planet Sonata by Alex Parker, postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics appeared first on Smithsonian Insider.

The partial federal government shutdown is one week old, but economists are still saying that its impact in Southern California and elsewhere will be limited.

Susanne Whatley: Business analyst Mark Lacter, why is that?

Mark Lacter: If you look back on the history of these things, Susanne, you see that the disputes are resolved before too much damage gets done.  As for Southern California, I notice that KPCC's Alice Walton was asking around over the weekend about the shutdown, and most folks gave it a shrug.  The regional economy is just too diversified - and not especially tied to federal employment.  You have about 46,000 federal workers employed in L.A. County in one capacity or another - that's out of a workforce of nearly 5 million.  And, now it appears as if the federal employees who have been furloughed are going to receive their back wages whenever the shutdown finally ends.

Whatley: That still might make things dicey when it comes time to pay the monthly mortgage...

Lacter: ...but at least money will be available before most folks run into serious liquidity issues.  That's what the shutdown really comes down to - inconvenience rather than dislocation.  And, you see this with the various government services affected: the E-Verify website is down - that lets business owners know whether the people they're wanting to hire can work legally in the U.S., which obviously is important.  The Small Business Administration has stopped processing loan applications, and the Federal Housing Administration is reporting delays in its loan processing, which could mean a home buyer might not complete his or her paperwork all that quickly.

Whatley: But, what if this were to go on for months?

Lacter: Well, then it would create problems, but nobody really thinks that's going to happen.  The real issue, not just nationally and regionally - but globally - is the refusal by Congress to raise the debt ceiling.  The deadline is a week from Thursday, and - of course - there's been all sorts of debate about what this would mean for the economy.

Whatley: All right, so what would this mean for the economy?

Lacter: Well, no one knows exactly.  But, then again, no one knows exactly what would happen if you fell out of a airplane without a parachute.  I just wouldn't want to test it out.  And, of course, let's keep in mind that these are manufactured crises - not reflective of anything that's going on with the real economy.  It's certainly not reflective of anything that's going on in L.A., which saw a big jump in payroll jobs for 2012 - actually it was the sharpest increase since 2005, and nearly double the national rate (that's despite an unemployment rate that remains very high in certain parts of Los Angeles).

Whatley: What about some of the big locally based companies?

Lacter: Well, if your company is publicly traded, there's a good chance your shares took a dip these past few days.  Going back to September 18, the Dow has lost almost 700 points, which - percentage-wise - is not very much, but it is reflective of how uneasy Wall Street has become.  Public companies based in the L.A. area are taking it on the chin - Disney, Amgen, Mattel, DirecTV - their stock prices are all down going back to the middle of September.

Whatley: Even so, hasn't this been a good year for the stock market?

Lacter: It has - those local companies are up anywhere from 13 percent 30 percent year to date, and the Dow is up 14 percent year to date.  Of course, the stock price of a company doesn't always match the amount of money it makes, and this year, even before worries about the debt ceiling, the numbers haven't been as good as they should be at this stage of a recovery.  And, that's why there's particular concern about next week.  You do have to wonder whether a default could have ripple effects involving trade, consumer spending, the dollar - who knows what?  Now, it's still a pretty good bet that saner heads will prevail, although there are no guarantees - and again, if worse came to worse, do you really want to be jumping out of that plane?  Guess we'll find out.

Mark Lacter writes for Los Angeles Magazine and pens the business blog at LA Observed.com.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Source: Streetwise Reports   05/07/2020

In a May 5 research note, analyst John Freeman reported that Raymond James increased its target price on Parsley Energy, Inc. (PE:NYSE) after it posted its Q1/20 numbers.

Raymond James' new target price on Parsley is $12 per share, up from $11. The Texas-based energy company's stock is trading now at about $9.38 per share.

Freeman reviewed and commented on Parsley's Q1/20 results. The company "delivered modest EBITDA and earnings per share beats relative to the Street" due to oil pricing," Freeman pointed out.

Production was relatively in line at 126,600,000 barrels of oil per day (126.6 MMbbl/d), which was 1% higher than consensus' forecast but 1% below Raymond James' estimate. Total production was 1% above the Street's projection but 3% below Raymond James' forecast.

"The performance on the quarter was encouraging, however, the highlight from earnings was the significant reduction in 2020 capex (down from about $1 billion to less than $700 million)," Freeman commented.

Capex, "a welcome surprise," Freeman wrote, came in 5% and 7% lower than the investment bank and the Street's estimates, respectively. Opex was 3% under Raymond James' projection

Moreover, Parsley's related maintenance capital needs were greatly below expectations as well, indicating that Parsley made capital efficiency gains during the period.

"We were pleasantly surprised that Parsley is able to maintain in line Q4/20 oil volumes (about 115 MMbbl/d) on a capital program that's about $300 million/30% below the Street," added Freeman.

Looking forward, Raymond James modeled a base case, or stable scenario for Parsley, that implies a West Texas Intermediate oil price of about $30 a barrel and Parsley having four to five rigs and one to two crews operating. In that scenario, Parsley would produce about 117 MMbbl/d in 2020 and 115 MMbbl/d in 2021.

Capex would amount to about $678 million in 2020, dropping to $598 million in 2021.

Free cash flow would be about $300 million in 2020, which coincides with Parsley's guidance of $300M plus, and increasing to $370 million in 2021.

Raymond James has an Outperform rating on Parsley Energy.

Disclosure:
1) Doresa Banning compiled this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. She or members of her household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. She or members of her household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees.
3) Comments and opinions expressed are those of the specific experts and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The information provided above is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
4) The article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports' terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.
5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the interview or the decision to write an article until three business days after the publication of the interview or article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases.

Disclosures from Raymond James, Parsley Energy Inc, May 5, 2020

ANALYST INFORMATION

Analysts Holdings and Compensation: Equity analysts and their staffs at Raymond James are compensated based on a salary and bonus system. Several factors enter into the bonus determination, including quality and performance of research product, the analyst's success in rating stocks versus an industry index, and support effectiveness to trading and the retail and institutional sales forces. Other factors may include but are not limited to: overall ratings from internal (other than investment banking) or external parties and the general productivity and revenue generated in covered stocks.

The analyst John Freeman, primarily responsible for the preparation of this research report, attests to the following: (1) that the views and opinions rendered in this research report reflect his or her personal views about the subject companies or issuers and (2) that no part of the research analyst's compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views in this research report. In addition, said analyst(s) has not received compensation from any subject company in the last 12 months.

RAYMOND JAMES RELATIONSHIP DISCLOSURES
Certain affiliates of the RJ Group expect to receive or intend to seek compensation for investment banking services from all companies under research coverage within the next three months.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. makes a market in the shares of Parsley Energy, Inc.

Additional Risk and Disclosure information, as well as more information on the Raymond James rating system and suitability categories, is available here.