It's the wholesome morning TV show enjoyed by millions for its gentle take on the day's news. But it seems that all is not so cosy behind the scenes at BBC Breakfast.

Public are being encouraged to shine a light from windows in recognition of nurses in the coronavirus fight, described as the 'greatest health emergency in NHS history'.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has defended the decision to stand down 20,000 staff in the face of the coronavirus outbreak which he described as the worst crisis to ever hit the airline industry.

A woman in her 40s was found dead after emergency services were called to Greenall Court in Prescot, Merseyside, at around 3.30am on Saturday. A man, 38, was arrested at the scene.

Wanda Cooper spoke out over her son's brutal slaying on what would have been his 26th birthday and slammed law enforcement for failing to bring his killers to justice for months.

3. Both the Appeals arise out of and are directed against the same order dated 19.5.2018 passed in Complaint No.14/2016 by Shri S V R Srinivas, Principal Seoretary, Information and Technology, Government of Maharashtra in the capacity of Adjudicating Officer (AO) exercising jurisdiction under section 46 of the Information Technology Act,2000, Since parties and the issues are common, both the Appeals have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement.

4. The proceedings before the learned AO commenced on filing of a complaint on 14.12.2015 by the complainant, Sandeep Singhal, a businessman residing at Nagpur. The complaint contains all the relevant informations with respect to both the respondents, Bank of India, Rana Pratap Nagar Branch, Nagpur and Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Maharashira, The particulars of claims show that Rs. 18,75,381.41 has been claimed towards actual losses sustained because of alleged negligence of the bank andfor because of negligence of M/s. Vodafone in illegally issuing the duplicate SIM Card to an imposter, Rs. 5 lakhs have been claimed towards actual costs on account of travelling and ldgation expenses etc. Rs 10 lakh has been claimed towards damages on account of mental agonies caused to the complainant.

2. The petition was filed on 16.08.2019 against an order dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure N) whereby the petitioner's application for migration of CMTS Licence effective from 31.12.1998 for Tamil Nadu Service Area to Unitied Licence (UL) was rejected for the second time by the respondent. Before adverting to the issues, it will be useful to take note of some significant and relevant facts.

3. The historical facts relating to the petitioner company; its wholly owned subsidiary, Aircel Cellular Ltd. (ACL); the details of its licences and also subsequent allocation of spectrum which came to be bundled with the said licence are not in dispute. The petitioner's CMTS Licence for Tamil Nadu Circle was for a period of 10 years and due to expire on 30.12.2008. In terms of National Telecom Policy of 1999, DoT offered a migration package. The migration package, inter alia, changed the "Fixed Fee" policy for Indian Telecom Licences to a "Revenue Share" regime. The period of licence got extended upto 20 years and as a result petitioner's licence was to be valid till 30.12.2018. In 2010, the petitioner acquired 5 + 5 MHz of 2100 MHz (3G) and 20 MHz of 2300 MHz spectrum (BWA) in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. These are fully paid for and the validity of allotment is of 20 years i.e. till 2030. In 2015, the petitioner further acquired 10 + 10 MHz of 1800 MHz spectrum in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. Petitioner has the right to use the said spectrum for a period of 20 years Le. till 26.05.2035 and under a deferred payment plan, it claims to have paid 33% of its price.

2. The petition has been filed for a money decree for an amount of Rs. L81,81,517/- and also for pendente lite and future interest with effect from Financial Year 2014-15 along with certain further claims which require i i s been consideration of foreign exchange fluctuations. The said amount has b 2 claimed for recovery of dues/outstanding dues in relation to an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent dated 10.08.2011 whereunder respondent was provided 3 MHz of Ku-band Space Segrnent Capacity on INSAT --~ Asiasat 5 Satellite System.

3. The petitioner, Government of India, has preferred this petition as a service orovider and the respondent, a broadcast licencee, is also a service orovider. The respondent has been shawn to be a "licencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA] Act, 1997 (the Act}. The petition is thus claimed to be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act.

2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent in January 2014, two main defenses were raised against the claim. Firstly, the respondent pleaded that the channels of the respondent were not placed regularly and due to such irregularity, the respondent suffered loss of revenue and loss in viewership. Secondly, it on claimed that payment had been made regularly as per the agreed terms. In other words, the second defense was that all the lawful outstanding dues have been paid by the respondent and, therefore, the demand is on account of errors in accounts etc.

3. Through a rejoinder filed in February 2014, the petitioner denied the defense of the respondent and some other allegations and pointed out that at no point of time any grievance or notice was communicated to the petitioner about the alleged irregularity in placement. Through the rejoinder an updated statement of accounts in respect of both the channels was brought on record as annexure to show payment made after the filing of the petitioner and also updated claim of interest. On the basis of statement of accounts the rejoinder disclosed that the claimed amount stood reduced and the respondent was liable till 17.01.2014 only for Rs.2,34,11,352/-.

2. Only to avoid repetition of facts relating to the petitioner and because the nature of agreements with the respondent(s) in both the petitions are similar, both the petitions involving claim for a money decree have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement and order.

3. As noted earlier, the petitions have been filed for money decree. In BP No. 39 of 2018, the total claimed amount is for Rs.1,31,40,753.00 involving dues payable from October 2015 onwards, In B.P. No, 163 of 2018, the claim is for an amount of Rs.7,53,44,675.00 to cover dues from January 2011 | onwards. The prayer has been made for pendente lite and future interest also at the rate of 18% p.a. in both the petitions. In B.P. No.163 of 2018, there is an additional prayer for an amount of Rs. 63,843.00 said to have been deducted by the respondent{s) as TDS during the Financial Year 2011-12 but allegedly not deposited with the Income Tax Authorities,

Mr, Saniay Govind Dhande & Ors. .. Respondents BERPORE:

HON BLE MR.FUSTICE SHIVA BIRTI SINGH, CHAIRPERSON For Petitioner (in C.A. No.l of 2014) =: Mr, Thyagrajan, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Banerjee, Advocate For Petitioner (in C.A. No.4 of 2014) : Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate For Respondents > Mr. Arpun Natrajan, Advocate QRDER By S.K. Singh, Chairperson -- At the outset, it ig recorded that learned counsel for Vodafone Cellular Ltd, appellant in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has informed that the name of the above corporate entity now stands changed to Vodafone Idea Lid. He prays that this change may be recorded and the changed name should appear in the judgment. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the other side and hence the change in the name of Vodatone Cellular Ltd. to that of Vodafone Idea Lid. is recorded and the cause title of this judgment and order is accordingly modified so as to teflect the name of Vodafone Idea Lid. Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has been taken as the lead matter. The appellant in the other appeal (Cyber Appeal No.4 of 2014) Le. ICICT Bank Lid. is one of the respondents in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014,

2. At the outset, it is deemed useful to record that besides the two agreements both dated 1.4,2012 between the parties which are covered by present petition, the petitioner and a sister concern of the respondent namely, Mi Marathi Media Ltd. also had a similar agreement with the petitioner. Some of correspondences ayailable on record support the aforesaid fact and disclose common meetings on the issue of outstanding dues.

3. Against Mi Marathi Media Utd, alryost in similar factual situation, petitioner had preferred BP No. 39 of 2018 for claiming an amount of Rs. 1.31 crores approximately. After considering ali the relevant issues, that broadcasting petition alongwith BP No. 163 of 2018 was heard ex-parte and substantially allowed by a recent judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 14.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon that judgment more so because this petition is also against the sister concern of Ml Marathi Media having aimest identical factual background and is also being heard ex-parte. This petition has been filed for a money decree for an arnount of Rs. 2,46,20,606/- and for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% ¢.a, 4, The petitioner is Union of india in the capacity of a service provider. The respondent, who is a broadcaster Heencee, is.alse a service previder. The respandent has been shawn ta be ef a "Hcencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA! Act, 1997. The petition is, therefore, claimed ta be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the TRAI Act.

os Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice and as a result the petition has been heard ex parte. The respondent has not appeared at any stage and has filed neither reply nor any affidavit of evidence

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/eontent provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Bs.13,41,756/- said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 15.03.2016 along with interest @ 18% til the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channels.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs. l6,52,587/- said to be thé outstanding dues inclusive of Interest as on 15.03.2016 along with interest @ 18% ail the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are iowards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of tts television channels.

of areas and other details including the schedule of carriage foe and payment schedule are mentioned in the agreement dated LB.1O2013 which was valid for one year for the period 23.05.2015 to 22.05.2016. A oypy of the agreement is annexed with the petition and has also been proved as exhibit. Trac and correct copies of the inveices and a credit note have also heen proved as an exhibit icolly.). These show that the dues are as per invoices and pertain to the period covered by the agreement.

2. Yhe petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from Pt gh ei ae broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same thr franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadeaster/content provider. Both the purlies are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tebunal,

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seek dng recovery of Re.4d0 98 000/.

aid to be the oufstand) me dues inelusive of interest as on 1s 03 2016 along with os interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the re Spondent. The dues are a towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent trom the petitioner for carnage of its television channels.

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,44,84,050/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Fifty Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Mi Marathi".

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,51,88,898.26p(Rupees One Crore Fifty One lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Ninety Eight and Paise Twenty Six Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by 3 the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Live India".

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Prof. A.R. Yousuf (Expert Member) Dated: September 25, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The Ministry of Environment and Forest (for short 'the MoEF'), Government of India vide their letter dated 21st December, 2011 accorded Environmental Clearance for Parsa East and Kanta Basan Opencast Coal mine project of 10 MTPA production capacity along with a Pit Head Coal Washery (10 MTPA ROM) to M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited involving a total project area of 2711.034 hectare under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (for short 'EIA Notification, 2006') subject to the specific conditions stated in that Order. 2

1. Goa Foundation Through Dinesh George Dias G-8, St. Britto's Apts. Feira Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa - 403507.

2. Peaceful Society Through Kumar Kalanand Mani R/o Peaceful Society Campus Honsowado-Madkai, Post: Kundai 403115, Goa .....Appellants Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

2. State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400023

3. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore - 560001

National Green Tribunal Bar Association Through the Secretary Trikoot II Bikaji Cama Palace New Delhi .....Applicant Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forest Prayavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. State of Uttranchal Through Chief Secretary Department of Environment and Forest Uttranchal Secretariat, Dehradun Uttrakhand- 248006

3. Divisional Forest Officer IT Cell, PCCF Office, 87-Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001

4. VS Sidhu IPS Officer Police Officers Colony Kishanpur, Dehradun Uttrakhand-24800 .....Respondents Counsel for Applicant:

2. Considering above, the sentence in paragraph 30, reading "The industry has also filed M.A.No.145/2014 in connection with such closure with a prayer to direct MPCB to give hearing before restart" Should be read as "The industry has also filed MA No.145/2014, with a prayer to direct the MPCB to take decision on the Application of the Applicant for revocation of closure directions at the earliest, on the basis of merit of the matter".

3. Considering the above specific directions, we do not find any necessity to rectify the operative part of the Judgment. However, considering the fact that hearing has already been extended to the said Industry on 19.8.2014, by the Member Secretary, as mentioned by the Applicant- Industry, and also by MPCB in its affidavit Misc Appln. No.155/2014 Page 2 dated 2nd September, 2014, we expect that the learned Member Secretary will expedite decision making, and take a decision on the request of the Industry for re-start, in any case, not later than two (2) weeks from today.

5 Mr. Rishi Gulati, "IGBT-based power quality compensation solutions are high Business end solution in terms of technology as compare to non IGBT Development which our company manufacturing. As per my market Manager, experience, I can say that approximately IGBT based power Cummins India quality compensation solution cost double to the customer as Ltd. compare to non IGBT base solutions. Switching speed is in nano seconds in IGBT based solutions whereas switching speed is in milliseconds in TSC or non-IGBT solutions."

2. Brief facts and allegations in the present case are summarised as under:

a. The Informants i.e., Mr. Meet Shah and Mr. Anand Ranpara are individuals residing in Ahmedabad and Rajkot, respectively.

b. OP-1 is the Ministry of Railways, which controls Indian Railways, a departmental undertaking of the Government of India which is administered by the Railway Board. The Ministry of Railways through Railway Board also owns and administratively controls a large number of Public Sector Undertakings including IRCTC.

c. OP-2, IRCTC is a public sector enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be an extended arm of Indian Railways. OP-2 is, inter-alia, engaged in online ticketing operations of Indian Railways.

2. The Informant is stated to be a company engaged in manufacture of high performance and highly sophisticated machines for track maintenance, track laying and track renewal. OP-1 is a private limited company incorporated in India and OP-2 is a partnership firm established in India. OP-3, OP-4 and OP- 6 are Chinese companies engaged in developing railway track maintenance machinery. OP-5 is the Indian Railways, a Department of the Government of India.

Case No. 45 of 2019 2

3. The Informant states that OP-5 periodically invites tenders for the supply of track maintenance machinery. In this connection, it is averred that OP-5 invited electronic bids for supply of Dynamic Track Stabilizing Machine vide Tender No. 'TM 1709' which inter alia required that 'Manufacturer or their agents may note that an agent can represent or quote on behalf of only one firm in a tender' [Clause 1.4.1 of 'Instructions to Tenderers]. Further, Check List-II of tender document also reiterates the same by stating that 'Manufacturer or their sole selling agents may note that an agent can represent only one firm in a tender and any manufacturer cannot submit more than one offer against a tender through different sole selling agents, or one directly and others through sole selling agents. In such a situation all the offers will be rejected.'

2. The Informant has filed the information for Teleclub (Alberta Limited), Canada in the capacity of its CEO. It is submitted by the Informant that Teleclub is one of the international telecom carriers in Canada.

3. As per publically available information, OP-1 is an Indian subsidiary of Britain based Vodafone Group PLC, which started Indian operations in 2007 with the acquisition of controlling interest in Hutch Essar. In 2018, Vodafone acquired Idea Cellular and became the largest telecom service provider in India. Likewise, OP-2 and OP-3 are also major telecom service providers operating in India. Further, as per publicly available information, OP-4 is the largest Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") service provider, systems integrator and all-in-one network solutions company operating in India, which has partnered with major network operators to deliver global network solutions.

2. The Informant, a company incorporated in May, 2015, has been operating under the brand name of Treebo Hotels' and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels in India. In addition to this, Treebo also provides service to numerous independent budget hotels who partner with it under its newly launched 'Hotel Superhero' scheme. Under the said scheme, Treebo only provides services such as hotel management technology services, listing on its platform and other online travel aggregators, credit facilities, support and quality control of the staff and hotel management resources etc. but does not provide its brand name.

3. MMT is an Online Travel Agency (OTA) engaged in the business of providing travel and tourism related services in India. It is a part of MakeMyTrip group of companies (MMT Group). OYO, on the other hand, provides budget accommodation to customers and is in the market for providing franchising services to budget hotels under the brand name 'OYO'.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

"That CISF No.902292498 Constable K. Lakshmanan of CISF Unit, NMPT Mangalore was W.P.(C) No. 28322 of 2015 4 detailed for B' Shift duty on 29.05.2009 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs along with No.721370091 HC/GD K. Sreedharan at K.K. Gate-Out. Shri K. Korappan, AC, CISF Unit NMPT Mangalore, while carrying out surprise checking at 2055 hours on 29.05.2009 along with SI/Exe R.R. Singh, In-charge(CIW), Shri K. Korappan directed to SI/Exe R.R. Singh to conduct pocket checking of B' shift duty personnel deployed at K.K. Gate. Accordingly SI/Exe R.R. Singh conducted pocket checking of Constable K.Lakshmanan in presence of No. 753460102 ASI/Exe P.K. Thampy, In-charge, KK Gate and No.773430028 HC/GD Kuttan Pillai K.K., Main Gate-In and found an illegal money of Rs.1573/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred seventy three only) in possession of Constable K. Lakshmanan in various denominations and the amount was seized which was kept hidden between his belt and waist. When asked by Shri K. Korappan as to where the money came from and why he kept such huge amount with him, Constable K. Lakshmanan did not give any satisfactory reply. Immediately a seizure list was prepared wherein signature of witnesses were obtained. In this regard, a GD has been made at Sl. No.1324 at 2117 hours on 29- 05-09 at KK Gate. As per Unit standing instructions, duty personnel are not allowed to keep more than Rs.10/- for refreshment purpose during duty hours.

2

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law.

4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company.

5. The disqualification of the company‐in‐question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") and as such, the provisions of the 2018 Amendment would not be applicable thereto.

Appearance:

Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up.

List this matter on 1st April, 2020.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh

In such view of the matter, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as to the fixation of dates and time for the general election being mala fide on the part of the respondent no. 4 authorities. The balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of granting such injunction, since if the election is held and a newly elected body assumes power, the writ petition would be infructuous; on the other hand, in the event the writ petition fails, another date can be fixed for such election, if necessary upon imposition of compensatory costs being awarded against the petitioners.

Although there is a notification of this Court requesting Judges not to take up matters for hearing in the absence of all the parties, since sufficient notice 3 has been given to the respondents and in view of the extreme urgency involved in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing.

Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, Sr. AS Mr. S.N. Bajaria, Acivor .. Faint The Court : This affidavit of arrest has been Med in an admiralty auit fled by the plaintiff praying for, inter alia, arrest af the defendant veasel, M¥ Han Xin, flying the flag of Hong Keng. I am told that the said veese! is presently ying at the Kolkata Port, within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, After hearing learned Counsel for the phantiff, in view af the urgency mvolved, 1 dispense with the requirement of camplying with Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act and amit the plaint subject te scrutiny.

Mr. S.K. Bajoma, loarned Advocair-on-Recard for the plaintif is appointed Receiver for the purpose of paying deficit Quurt fees within a week _.

2

The application has been filed on the ground of urgency that the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court cannot be taken up immediately.

In view of the present situation, the time to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court is extended till June 30, 2020. However, this order will not be a charter for the applicant to continue manufacturing its products. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no manufacturing activity is being undertaken in the present situation.

G. A. 804 of 2020 is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties thereto.

(Through video conference) The Court : The Marshall, Calcutta High Court, has filed a report of service and arrest, which is taken on record.

GA No.810 of 2020 is an application for vacating, recalling and/or modification of the order dated April 24, 2020 passed in AS No.2 of 2020.

It is the contention of the defendant in this application that the order dated April 24, 2020 was obtained 2 by suppression, misstatement and fraud. It is their further contention that the plaintiff was neither an endorsee in the bill of lading nor a named consignee and, as such, the plaintiff did not have locus standi to file the said suit. It is further contended that there is a grave urgency in vacating and/or modifying the interim order passed by this Court as the ship is due to receive cargo in some other port but the ex parte order of arrest has been causing severe loss to the defendant.

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND BIRLA CABLES LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

.................

APO NO.17 OF 2019 APOT NO.138 OF 2019 GA NO.1735 OF 2019 TS NO.6 OF 2004 IN THE GOODS OF:

PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA AND VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.

VS.

ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.

..............

2

PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABORTY AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Heard on : 04.02.2020, 11.02.2020, 13.02.2020, 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020.

The dispute in this appeal relates to valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 of import of certain items made by the respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under two contracts, bearing nos. PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt.II dated 31.10.1989 and PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt-I dated 29th March 1990. These imports were made in connection with modernisation, expansion and modification 1 for their plant at Durgapur in West Bengal. For this purpose, SAIL had floated seven Global Tender Contract Packages. The two contracts were part of these Tender Contract Packages. They were registered with the customs authorities for the purpose of project import benefits in terms of the 1962 Act. The first contract involved in this appeal was with a consortium consisting of a German Company, Hoestemberghe & Kluisch, GMBH and H & K Rolling Mills Engineering Private Limited, an Indian Corporate entity. The second contract was also with a German Company, Siempelkamp Pressen Systeme and the Indian entity was Escon Consultants Private Ltd, with whom the consortium was formed. Both these contracts were in connection with modernisation of SAIL’s rolling mills at the aforesaid plant.

1. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners have questioned four notifications ­ two notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (for short, ‘the MCI’) and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short, ‘the DCI’). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of India, amended the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Similarly, the other notification issued by MCI called “Post­Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part­II)” to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The regulations came into force on their publication in the Official Gazette. The other two notifications dated 31.5.2012 issued by DCI were relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses.

These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof”. The appeals are against a common decision and we shall also deal with both these appeals together in this judgment. The respondent-assessee want their goods to be placed under Chapter heading 5703.90. We shall refer to the specific entries against this item later in the judgment. The respondent, at the material point of time were engaged in the business of manufacture of textile floor coverings and car matting. The subject-goods have been referred to interchangeably by the revenue also as car mattings and car carpets. The respondent, at the material time, were clearing the goods declaring them to be goods against Heading No.570390.90. Effective rate of excise duty on goods under that entry was 8% and education cess at the applicable rate for the subject period. We find this rate of duty, 2 inter-alia, from the order of the Commissioner dealing with the first and the second show-cause notices. The rate of basic excise duty would have been 16% apart from education cess if these goods were classified against goods specified in heading no.8708.99.00. Altogether three show-cause-notices were issued against the respondent over clearance of goods under the said heading. These notices required them to answer as to why they should not be charged the differential rate of duty and interest. We would like to point out here that in the show-cause notices, the respective chapter sub-headings have been referred to as 8708.99.00 and 570390.90 and in the order of the Tribunal also, the sub-headings have been referred to as such. But the authorities themselves in certain places described the sub-headings in shorter numerical forms, as 5703.90 and 8708.00. We find these minor variations in the paper-book. But this variation of the sub- headings represented in numerical form is not of any significance so far as adjudication of these appeals are concerned. The respondent were also to answer as to why penalty should not be 3 imposed upon them in terms of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Rules made thereunder. The first show-cause notice is dated 9th August, 2005 in regard to clearance of goods made during the period between 9 th July, 2004 and 31st March, 2005. They had cleared altogether 8,65,777 pieces of those items in different sizes in that period. The second show-cause notice was issued on 2 nd May, 2006 and related to clearance of 12,02,482 pieces of the same goods for the period between 1st April, 2005 and 31st January, 2006. The third show- cause notice is of 7th March, 2007 and the clearance involved 20,15,412 pieces from 1st February, 2006 to 31st January, 2007. For the period involved in the third show-cause notice, clearance was made by the respondent under Chapter sub-heading no.570500.19, which carried effective rate of duty @8%.

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

Considering the same, matter stands adjourned today. List after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

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.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to a mandate that the travellers of Delhi Metro Rail should provide proof of their identities and addresses while purchasing Metro cards from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020 Page 1 of 2

4. Petitioners, who appear in person, state that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation issues digital Metro cards or tokens (digital monies) to its customers, who in turn use it as travel coupons. They state that linking of Metro card and token with the address proof of the travellers would protect the right to property, in the event, the Metro card or token is lost. They further state that in the wake of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is of utmost importance that the respondents should be aware about the details of the passengers travelling by Delhi Metro as it would help in preventing a patient from travelling and would also help in tracing the affected travellers in case a patient had unwillingly travelled in Delhi Metro.

1. The present public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a number of directions. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

W.P.(C) 3068/2020 Page 1 of 8

"a) the respondent no.1 (Union of India) be directed to stop respondent no.2 (Govt. of Haryana) from doing all these restriction activities in violation of their orders dated 15.04.2020;

CM(M) 769/2018 with CM APPL. 27219/2018

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.04.2018 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner that the petition filed by the Respondent under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Arbitration Act) impugning award dated 14.07.2016 was liable to be dismissed because Respondent had not deposited 75% of the awarded amount as stipulated in Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium CM(M) 769/2018 Page 1 of 16 Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act).

2. Respondents had issued a Tender Enquiry for procuring Cover Water Proof 9.1 M x 9.1 M. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted by the Respondents and contract dated 05.04.2005 was entered between the parties.

The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :-

"(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of

shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.69/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 13 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.