'We've been working with them, but we have not given the green light,' Alameda County Health Officer Erica Pan said of Tesla. 'We have not said it is appropriate to move forward.'

Ms Nandy has raised the case with the UK ambassador to the US, Karen Pierce. Harry, 19, was killed when his motorbike crashed into a car outside a US military base in Northamptonshire.

Unable to put on a show of military might in the Red Square today due to surging coronavirus infections, Russia indulged in a series of spectacular fireworks displays over the capital as night fell.

Officials are refusing to provide a breakdown of exactly who is being tested for coronavirus amid accusations that the Government is massaging figures to hit targets set by Matt Hancock (pictured).

El Nacional published allegedly deleted tweets from state military command ZODI La Guaira center which claimed that Russian special forces members were aiding the search for coup members.

A surfer has been killed in a shark attack off a Northern California beach, state park officials said Saturday.

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,

2. The subscriber reports furnished by the petitioner since the introduction. of new regime from 01.02.2019 as per new Regulations and Tariff Order of 2017 were not in accordance with the legal requirement. In the notice, the respondent had alleged under-reporting of subscribers in respect of its channels and later also alleged that petitioner was redistributing Zee Bangla channel in unencrypted mode. As the earlier orders would disclose, technical audit held under the orders of this Tribunal was not a smooth affair. The audit report of KPMG is on record. The parties have filed their response to the audit report. Some of the initial difficulties in the audit and reasons for delay of several months will appear from orders passed on 23.07.2019 and also some of the subsequent orders. The initial shortcomings in the petitioner's system are clear not only from the facts available on record and in the order sheets but also from reports of technical audit of petitioner's system prepared 'at the instance of some other broadcasters. As an interim measure, provisional bills were directed to be raised by the respondent on the basis of subscriber reports of the petitioner but it has been made clear that this arrangement shall not prejudice the claim of the respondent for a higher amount, if justified.

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".

2. It may be useful to note that the facts relevant for the main issue of law indicated above are not in dispute and hence do not require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, facts will be referred to from the records of T.P. No.77/2019 which has been heard as the lead matter, unless indicated otherwise.

3|Page

3. The two respondents, Tata Communications Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are owners / operators of certain facilities which have been described as Cable Landing Operations. For these facilities they are entitled to levy three distinct charges i.e. (i) Access Facilitation Charges (AFC), (ii) Co-Location Charges(CLC) and (iii) Operation and Maintenance Charges (OMC). Prior to 07.06.2007, the charges were based purely on contract between the parties. In 2007, TRAI issued the "International Telecommunication Access to Essential Facilities at Cable Landing Stations Regulations 2007" (2007 Regulations). This introduced the requirement of framing of Cable Landing Stations - Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be calculated on cost based method. Such RIOs for all the three charges were required to be submitted to TRAI, the Regulator for approval. This light- touch regulation was operational till the 2007 Regulations were amended by Amendment Regulation, 2012 dated 19.10.2012. This amendment enabled TRAI to fix and specify the highest charges which could be realizable as per agreement between the parties. On 21.12.2012, TRAI fixed all the three charges vide notification which brought into effect the "International Telecommunication Landing Station Access Facilities Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations 2012. The said Regulations (No.27 of 2012) contained 3 schedules of charges made effective from 01.01.2013.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Vishwanathan and learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant, Bharti Airtel, Mr.Gopal Jain through video-conferencing.

3. The applicant seeks a direction upon Bharti Airtel not to encash the Bank Guarantee (BG) to which it has become entitled vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.04.2020 whereby applicant's petition bearing T.P. No.77/2019 has been dismissed on merits. In the last paragraph of that judgment notice has been taken of an order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 14.11.2019 and in view of the said consent order this Tribunal has directed that the BG submitted to the Tribunal stands invoked for immediate payment to the non-applicant. The prayer in the MA is solely on the ground that moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal is likely to take some time because of the prevailing pandemic COVID-19.

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:

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

Dated: 30th September , 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member

1. Admit.

2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the Applicant is the land holder of Khasra No. 614 measuring 1.113 hectare in Village Barua, Tehsil Gaurihar, Dist. Chhatarpur, MP and as a result of flooding of river Ken huge amount of sand and muram got deposited on his agriculture field. With a view to cultivate the said land, he intended to remove the aforesaid deposit of sand and muram which would amount to mining operation and as such requiring the grant of EC from SEIAA. However, it was brought to his notice on approaching the authorities of MPSEIAA that under the orders issued in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 by the MoEF, Government of India, no such application could be entertained.

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

Dated: 30th September , 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member

1. Admit.

2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the matter raised in this application has already been covered by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 315/2014 (CZ) in case of Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi V/s Chairman, MPSEIAA & Ors. decided on 11.09.2014 in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013, issued by the MoEF, Government of India.

3. We have considered the application as well as submissions made before us. We would accordingly dispose of this petition in the light of our earlier judgement dated 11.09.2014 in O.A.No. 315/2014 and the directions contained therein shall also apply to the applicant in so far as the applicability of the aforesaid orders of MoEF dated 24.12.2013 is concerned. In case an application is submitted by the Applicant, online or as prescribed under the procedure alongwith requisite fee, such application shall be entertained by the MPSEIAA in accordance with law within two months without being influenced by the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 issued by the MoEF in so far as its operations have been stayed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Application No. 343 of 2013 (M.A.No. 1093/2013) in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors and Page 2 of 3 Application No. 279/2013 (M.A.No. 1120 of 2013) in case of Promila Devi Vs. State & Ors. dated 28.03.2014.

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.

Case No. 36 of 2019 1

Brief facts and allegations

2. JSW Paints is stated to be a part of the JSW group of companies, which is involved in several sectors, including steel, energy, cement, etc. JSW Paints was incorporated in the year 2016 and launched its decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli in Karnataka. JSW Paints has introduced many innovative approaches in the paints industry for the first time in India.

3. Asian Paints is a listed company and is primarily engaged in manufacture and sale of decorative and industrial paints. According to its Annual Report for the FY 2018-19, it is the 3rd largest paint company in Asia and largest in India. In India, it has 8 manufacturing plants for decorative paints and 2 for industrial paints.

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, 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'.

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

2. The Informant, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of export of stone aggregates/ boulders and has stated that it exports stone aggregates/ boulders through rakes allotted by OP. For allotment of rakes, the Informant places indent itself or through its consignor at respective railway sidings. The Informant also stated that OP follows quota system for dispatch of rakes. Under such a system, the Informant got rakes allotted to it at various sidings in Howrah and Malda Division of the Eastern Railways, which is OP in the present case.

3. The Informant alleges that from July 2019 onwards, OP stopped allotment of rakes to it and instead, the rakes were allotted to Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the Indian Railway Board contained in letter No. 2017/TT- III(M)/71/D/10/Quota dated 18.07.2019. The Informant claims that this decision was taken by Indian Railway Board as per the request of the Bangladesh Railway Board. The Informant has stated that non-allotment of rakes has impacted its goodwill amongst its customers as it is not being able to meet its prior commitments.

2. It was stated that OP-1 is an association of man-made fibre manufacturers in India; OP-2 is the largest producer and seller of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) in India; OP-3 is a company registered in Thailand and promoted by OP-2; and OP-4 is a company belonging to the Aditya Birla Group operating in Indonesia and engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting VSF to customers located in the US, Europe, Turkey, Japan, Korea, China and other countries in both textile and non-woven segments.

3. The Informant alleged that OP-2 is the sole producer of VSF having a market share of almost 100% in India and it is misusing its sole position in the domestic market to squeeze the textile industry consumers. With regard to OP-3 and OP-4, it was alleged that OP-2 imports and markets its products and Case No. 62 of 2016 2 Public Version OP-3, operating from Thailand and OP-4, operating from Indonesia, have joined hands to exploit the Indian market.

2. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of Kerala to apply part of the proceeds of the financial aid received from the World Bank through the Government of India for execution of the work, namely "KSTP-II -Upgrading Punalur to Ponkunnam Road (SH 8) Package 8A: Km 0+000 (Punalur) to KM 29+840 (Konni)"(the Work), the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), the Consultant Engineer of the Government of Kerala for the World Bank aided projects, invited bids for construction and completion of the Work. Ext.P1 is the procurement notice issued by KSTP in this connection. It is specified in Ext.P1 notice that the bidding will be conducted in accordance with the Wpc nos.26853 & 31556 of 2019 6 procedures prescribed in the Guidelines issued by the World Bank for procurement under IBRD loans and IDA credits (current edition) and it will be open to all eligible bidders as defined in the said Guidelines to participate in the bidding process. In terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) published in this regard by KSTP, the prospective bidders could be individuals or joint ventures and they were to submit technical as also financial bids.

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.

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, हमारी तरफ से बहुत से लोगों के एजर्नमेंट मोशन हैं। …(व्यवधान) जैसे साध्वी जी ने बाहर बोला था और हाउस में माफी मांगी थी, ऐसे ही राहुल गांधी जी ने बाहर बोला कि ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ की जगह ‘रेप इन इंडिया’ हो गया है। यह बहुत कन्डेम्नेबल एक्टिविटी है। …(व्यवधान) उन्हें हाउस में आकर माफी मांगनी चाहिए।…(व्यवधान) वह हाउस में आकर माफी मांगें।…(व्यवधान) हाउस में ऐसा पहले कर रखा है, साध्वी निर्मला ज्योति जी ने।…(व्यवधान)  वह हाउस में नहीं बोली थीं, पब्लिक में बोली थीं, मीटिंग में, …(व्यवधान) ऐसे ही राहुल गांधी जी पब्लिक में बोले हैं।…(व्यवधान) उनको माफी मांगनी चाहिए।…(व्यवधान) उन्होंने कैसे कह दिया कि यह ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ नहीं ‘रेप इन इंडिया’ है। …(व्यवधान) यह बहुत ही निंदनीय है। …(व्यवधान) घोर आपत्तिजनक है।…(व्यवधान) सदस्य को यहां बुलाया जाए और हाउस में माफी मांगी जाए।…(व्यवधान)

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

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.

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

List after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 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.