OPEN LETTER THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "OPEN LETTER THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU"

Transcription

1 1 OPEN LETTER To THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU REVIEW OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER TITLED GM TELECOM VS M. KRISHNAN BEARING CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7687/04 DATED I, Ramesh Kumar Rohilla, a telecom consumer, most respectfully submit before the Hon ble Supreme Court this appeal as follows which is related to maintainability of the complaint of millions of individual consumers before consumer fora: 1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The Hon ble Apex Court vide order dated in General Manager, Telecom vs M. Krishnan & others bearing Civil Appeal no. 7687/04 has ousted the jurisdiction of the telecom disputes before consumer fora while reversing the order of full Bench of Kerala High Court. The true typed copy of this order is annexed as ANNEXURE P/1 (Page 30-32).

2 2 The origin of this case was the disconnection of the telephone of a subscriber M. Krishnan in 2001, for outstanding dues against the telephone of his landlord TK Reghunath and on the complaint of the consumer, the Hon ble Kozhikode District Consumer Forum directed BSNL to restore the connection and pay compensation. In response, BSNL filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer court in view of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, The single bench as well as full bench of the Kerala high court dismissed it. The full bench has relied on the view that the remedies under the CP Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law in force. This full bench order further said that The special law always overrides the general law. However, the question is - which is the special law? In our view, the 1986 Act having been enacted with the object of providing 'better protection', the statute would be the special law in so far as the rights and remedies of a 'consumer' against the wrongs committed by the provider of a service are concerned. The doubt, if any, was clarified by the Parliament by enacting the provisions contained in sections 1(4) & 3. Thus, even if the principle of special law overriding the general law is

3 3 invoked, we have no hesitation in holding that in a matter like the present one, the 1986 CP Act would operate as the special law. The copy of this order of the Hon ble Kerala High Court order is annexed as ANNEXURE P/2 (Page 33-48). But the Hon ble Supreme Court in this ex-parte order reversed the above said order of full bench of High Court of Kerala and considered the Telegraph Act, 1885 as the special law and CP Act, 1986 as general law and reliance was placed upon the judgment in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 wherein it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. The Hon ble Supreme Court ruled that when there is a special remedy (arbitration) provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The Hon ble Supreme Court further ordered that if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined

4 4 by arbitration under section 7B of the telegraph act, The award of the arbitrator appointed shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. 2. REPERCUSSIONS & IMPLICATIONS OF THIS CASE The above verdict of Hon ble Supreme Court has shaken the foundation of the consumer justice system and just after it; thousands of the genuine consumers with pending complaint before various consumer courts of the country were forced to face the wrath of dismissal of the complaints for the simple reason that it is a telecom dispute. Every day, one and the other complaints are being dismissed without any valid reason and a long queue has lined up. The height of rejection of such complaints due to jurisdiction can be gauged from a common order of Hon ble State Commission, Chennai, where 60 complaints were dismissed on a single day on which reminds a saying shoot the maximum with one bullet. Various orders by Hon ble National Commission are being passed where complaints of individual consumers are being rejected straightway. It appears that the protection granted to consumers by Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has become meaningless because those who

5 5 are entrusted with the job of doing justice are not delivering quality orders towards consumers problems. It is truly a travesty of the justice that consumers are being forced to bear such pain & unfair trade practice and all the telecom service providers are celebrating on such erroneous orders. Since mobile/telephone users are huge, thus, even an iota of misappropriation is a big gain e.g. ` 1 per person per day can fetch over 90 Crore which is alarming. It appears that this is how various telecom service providers have become richest and most profitable organizations in the country. Today the scenario is that justice is out of the bounds for the general public in the country to redress the grievances of an individual telecom consumer because of the mess and confusion about jurisdiction due to the above verdict. The consumers are thus forced to approach various forums one and the other and presently there is no clarity rather it is an ambiguity where to file the complaint for justice. 3. INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC & THE APPELLANT The said order of Hon ble Supreme Court has taken away rights of over 900 million telecommunication consumers to sue telecom companies in consumer courts and thus has caused turmoil in the consumer

6 6 justice system. Millions of complaints are pending before various forums as on date against almost all the service providers including 1.28 Lac against BSNL alone. And further, due to the above ruling, the appellant is also a victim of a telecom giant who challenged the authority of consumer court on the basis of provision (7B) of the telegraph act, 1885 that did not apply to it at all. The appellant had filed an exemplary Revision Petition No. 190/2012 titled RK Rohilla vs Bharti Airtel Limited before Hon ble National Commission relying on the latest TRAI Act, 1997 applicable to adjudicate such telecom disputes but the Hon ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition and held that the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court namely GM Telecom vs M. Krishnan is binding on us and we respectfully follow the same and further the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The history of the telecom matters shows how such small issues which hardly require ten minutes for explanation are being dragged and the consumers are deprived of their legitimate rights. The Hon ble Nation Commission and various State Commissions are deciding the matters barring the jurisdiction before consumer fora. A few examples are :

7 7 i. Hon ble State Commission, Chennai, a common order dated having 60 appeals filed by the Telecom Service Providers like BSNL, Reliance, Bharti Telenet, Vodafone & Tata Tele. ii. Hon ble State Commission, Bhopal, order dated titled Reliance Telecom Ltd. Versus Jay Kumar Jain. iii. Hon ble State Commission Haryana, order dated titled Bharti Airtel vs Anil Harnikiya. iv. Hon ble State Commission Haryana, order dated titled Bharti Airtel vs Karan Singh. v. Hon ble State Commission Chennai, order dated titled M. Gunasekaran vs Reliance. vi. The Hon'ble National Commission order dated titled Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular. vii. The Hon'ble National Commission order dated titled Mani Ram Pareek vs BSNL. viii. The Hon'ble National Commission order dated titled Ziyauddin Alvi vs Bharti Airtel. ix. The Hon'ble National Commission order dated titled Lokesh Parashar vs Idea. x. The Hon'ble National Commission order dated titled RK Rohilla vs Bharti Airtel Ltd., the true typed copy of this order is annexed as ANNEXURE P/3 (Page 49-55).

8 8 The plain reading of all the above cases will reveal how all telecom service providers are using the said order of the Hon ble Supreme Court as a safe and great tool to question the maintainability of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Ironically, various State Commissions and the National Commission without referring TRAI Act & wrongly interpreting the order of the Hon ble Apex Court, are straightway dismissing the complaints of the genuine consumers without giving any valid reason or merely saying that the dispute is related to telephone where the Hon ble Apex Court has ousted the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. Due to the dismissal of telecom complaints of the consumers, an irreparable loss and damage is being caused to the public in large which cannot be compensated at all. Therefore, the appellant hereby submits this appeal to restore the rights of telecom consumers and or for an urgent Sue Moto Review of the above Hon ble Supreme Court order titled GM Telecom vs M. Krishnan. 4. QUESTIONS OF LAW : The following substantial questions of the law of general telecom consumer importance arise for kind consideration by this Hon ble Supreme Court:

9 9 i) Whether the views taken on maintainability of the consumer complaint by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the verdict dated relying on section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are correct and fulfills the object of judiciary in the light of latest amendments given in section 14 of TRAI Act, 1997 itself? ii) Whether the Hon ble Supreme Court should pass any ex-parte verdict relying solely on Telegraph Act, 1885 while deciding any telecom matter without referring even the definitions of the TRAI Act, 1997 & further Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations 2007 which are relevant and latest acts to decide any dispute between a consumer & the service provider in the country? iii) Whether the telegraph authority mentioned in the verdict and defined under section 3(6) of telegraph act has the responsibility to provide telephone connections to any of the consumer in the country as on date especially when it has a new role of a policy maker or a licensor as defined under section 2 (1)(ea) of TRAI Act,

10 who grants a license under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885? iv) Whether the Appellant (BSNL) in that verdict being a Govt. undertaking company has purposely concealed the fact about its true identity before the Hon ble Supreme Court and or misrepresented the status of a service provider and telegraph authority? If yes, then whether any penalty be imposed to them or not? If yes, to what extent? v) Whether the Hon ble Supreme Court has committed an error by that verdict as the complete provisions of TRAI Act, 1997 and the facts were not placed before it or were overlooked by it? If yes, whether the consumers who suffered due to that verdict are entitled to any relief, quantum and how? 5. GROUNDS & REASONS OF THIS APPEAL Whereas the views which were not explored and discussed in the above verdict by the Hon ble Supreme Court, inter alia, on the grounds as follows needs to be reviewed:

11 11 i. That the Hon ble Supreme Court verdict dated , an ex-parte order judgment does not discuss TRAI Act, 1997 anywhere while deciding the telecom dispute of an individual consumer, therefore, it cannot be said to be correct and not per incurium because of the amendments and empowerments given in latest telecom TRAI Act, 1997 itself, as explained below : That the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a preindependent act is amended from time to time to suit various advancement in telecommunication. Originally, the telecommunication was under the exclusive control of the Government and considering the global development business and the necessity of private parties also participating, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, a post-independent act, was enacted in the year 1997 in order to effectively control the advance telecommunication services without superseding the original telegraph act, 1885 and further eventually covering all those aspects which were not specifically covered in the 112 years old telegraph act at that time. The Telegraph Act, 1885 was not surely sufficient to cover all such advance telecommunication issues

12 12 specially the control of the licensee, hence, the TRAI Act, 1997 and other regulations came into existence. Now the meaning, expression & role of Telegraph Authority have been entirely changed. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is the Telecom Authority or watchdog and Licensor is the Telegraph Authority or the Central Government. The Department of Telegraph has been separated from the earlier common Department of Post & Telegraph and the Government of India has further separated its policy wing (known as Department of Telecom) from operation wing (now named as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - BSNL which operates as a public sector) and now a new chapter of Telecom Service Providers both private & Government as a service provider has been added and as per the latest statute, all complaints against any of the telecom service provider including Government as a service provider are to be decided as per TRAI Act, And further Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations 2007 is also another appropriate regulation made by TRAI for deciding the complaints against service providers. As per section 1(3) of Telecom

13 13 Consumers Protection & Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007, these regulations shall apply to all service providers including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, being the companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 providing basic telephone services, unified access services and cellular mobile telephone services. As per brief statement of objects and reasons of the TRAI Act, 1997, it can be implied that there is a felt need to separate regulatory functions from service providing functions which will be in keeping with the general trend in the world. In the multi-operator situation arising out of opening of basic as well as value added services in which private operator will be competing with Government operators, there is a pressing need for an independent telecom regulatory body for regulation of telecom services for orderly and healthy growth of telecommunication infrastructure apart from protection of consumer interest. In view of above, it was proposed to set up an independent Telecom Regulatory Authority as statutory body and for that purpose the Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Bill, 1995 was

14 14 introduced and then passed by Lok Sabha which is now known as TRAI Act, 1997 and further it was amended in 2000 which includes various new provisions made for establishment of a Tribunal known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for adjudicating disputes between a licensor and a licensee, between two or more service providers, between a service provider and a group of consumers, and also to hear and dispose of any appeals from the direction, decision or order of the Authority. The section 14 of this TRAI Act, 1997 covers the disputes related to the service providers and further Proviso B of this section specially empowers that the complaint of an individual consumer is maintainable before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the consumer protection act, The old Telegraph Act, 1885 does not mention anywhere to adjudicate disputes in case of consumer complaints against service providers. However, an exception in the form of section 7-B covers limited jurisdiction to decide the case if the dispute between the

15 15 telegraph authority & a consumer arises for technical matters. Therefore, from the above it can be clearly implied that the telecom disputes are to be adjudicated under TRAI act, 1997 where the complaint is maintainable before the consumer fora in case of dispute between the licensee/service-provider and an individual consumer. It is also implied that the regulation of the licensee, not being a telegraph authority, comes under the TRAI act, 1997 and not directly under the telegraph act, Therefore, any order to adjudicate consumer dispute with any service provider cannot sustain if the telegraph act, 1885 is solely relied upon. ii. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said order said it is well settled that special law overrides general law and considered Telegraph Act overrides Consumer Protection Act. Now if the same dictum is followed further, then, TRAI Act, 1997 supersedes by default the Telegraph Act, 1885 in the matters not covered in the original telegraph act because TRAI Act, 1997 is the purpose of the Indian Telegraph Act (Amendment) Bill, Further TRAI Act being

16 16 latest statute applicable in the telecom matters as per proviso (B) section 14 empowers that the complaint of an individual consumer is maintainable before Consumer Fora. So, ultimately Consumer Protection Act overrides the Telegraph Act & TRAI Act both as per the above special empowerment given in the TRAI Act, 1997 itself which is a special law. Therefore, by all means the views taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated are in itself contradictory in view of the latest amendment & empowerment given in the TRAI act which was not considered and discussed at that time. iii. Further if the relevancy of section 2 (1) (e, ea, j) {definition of licensee, licensor & service provider} & section 14 (Tribunal Jurisdiction) of the TRAI Act, 1997 along with section 3(6) {definition of Telegraph authority} of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, could have been discussed and explored in this ex-parte order of Hon ble Supreme Court titled GM, Telecom vs M. Krishnan, then, surely the decision and views of the Hon ble Supreme Court would have been different because the telegraph authority & licensee are two different entities under the act

17 17 and have different powers & functions. The Hon ble Supreme Court passed the verdict in a dispute between telegraph authority and the consumer but the Appellant (BSNL) in that case was not a telegraph authority as explained herein: As per TRAI Act, a new chapter of service providers as per section 2(1) (j) has been added which include Government as service provider and licensee. Further, as on date Director General of Telegraph including its all officers (of telegraph authority) does not provide any telephone connection to any of the consumers in the country. It is absolutely necessary here to mention that the appellant (BSNL) in that case concealed the very fact of its true identity before the Hon ble Supreme Court. If the BSNL in that case could not have concealed the material fact that the Government of India has separated policy wing from operation wing and this operation wing is now functioning w.e.f. 01 October, 2000 as BSNL as a service provider (not as a telegraph authority) which is the true identity of the appellant in the case on that date and today also, then, for sure the decision of the Supreme Court would have been different. The

18 18 history of BSNL is annexed as ANNEXURE P/4 (Page 56). The appellant (BSNL) in that case has purposely concealed the material fact before the Hon ble Supreme Court by not disclosing its true identity of Government as service provider under section 2(1) (j) of the TRAI Act, Further the BSNL was successful in posing him-self as a telegraph authority and took the advantage of his birth position as being separated from the telegraph authority. The fact that the BSNL got separation from the telegraph authority was not brought into the knowledge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the appellant (BSNL). Hence, the fact that the BSNL was not a telegraph authority remained a secret in that case at that time. And as on date, no service provider at their own because of their ulterior motive is revealing this truth. iv. Further, a plain reading of the above Hon ble Supreme Court order dated undoubtedly proves that the said dispute was between General Manager-Telecom (seems to be an officer on behalf of department of telecom being Telegraph Authority), appellant in the case and M. Krishnan, a consumer or otherwise, it is

19 19 specifically mentioned in the said order itself that if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration. Therefore, it implies that the dispute was between the telegraph authority and the consumer. However, the dispute in that case was not between telegraph authority and the consumer but the Hon ble Supreme Court assumed the dispute between telegraph authority and the consumer. Further, there is no possibility of deviating from the said ruling and the option available is straight to the point that in view of section 7B, the jurisdiction of consumer fora is ousted if any dispute arises between the telegraph authority and the consumer. In other words, all the contents of this ruling points towards the telegraph authority thereby leaving no room to deviate or to widen the scope of the telegraph authority. The definition of the telegraph authority has been well defined under section 3(6) of the Telegraph Act which does not include licensee or service provider at all. Whereas Central Government can grant a license

20 20 as per section 4(1) of the telegraph act but the licensee does not have the powers of the Telegraph Authority as per section 19B of the Telegraph Act and further control of the licensee or service provider comes under TRAI Act, 1997 as defined in the act itself. Therefore, any licensee cannot take the advantage of the powers of the Telegraph Authority unless the powers of Telegraph Authority are so vested to the licensee by the licensor or by the Central Government through notification. Thus, a single judgment cannot be taken for granted for all cases without proper discussion or for the simple reason that the dispute is related to telephone matters being similar in every case. v. That as and when arbitration is conducted under section 7B of Telegraph Act, 1885, the civil court s jurisdiction (including consumer fora) is barred. The view that the disputes with regard to the matters covered by section 7B should be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator is a view which is the right way of looking at the matter. This is because the arbitrator so appointed can properly appreciate the technical and non-technical matters. As to whether there is any defect in the

21 21 instrument or in the installation of the same, is a technical matter and can be more appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator. This technical knowhow may not be available with any other authority. Thus, it proves that Section 7B is applicable only for the matters of technical nature and surely not for non-technical matters such as administrative lapses in billing etc. And even further, the privilege of arbitrator under Section 7B for technical matters is exclusively enjoyed by the telegraph authority only and certainly not by any licensee or service provider. The Hon ble Supreme Court does not mention anywhere in the said order that the disputes between service provider and the consumer are to be decided under section 7B because the word service provider was beyond the imagination of that Telegraph Act at that time and even the word service provider is nowhere mentioned in the dictionary of 128 years old Telegraph Act. vi. That the Consumer Fora have failed to consider the detailed speaking and well reasoned orders which are much relevant in case of dispute between the service provider and a consumer. Further these orders have attained its finality and

22 22 are not purposely questioned by the service provider. In the order dated passed by Hon ble District Forum-Central Mumbai, it is clearly indicated that the Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain telecom disputes and further the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court titled GM-Telecom vs M. Krishnan has been discussed properly and judiciously to prove that the same is not applicable when the dispute is between the consumer and the service provider. The copy of order of District Forum, Mumbai is annexed as ANNEXURE P/5 (page 57-67). Recently in the judgment of Delhi High Court decided on titled JK Mittal vs Union of India and Bharti Airtel Limited, it is clearly held that the impugned order dated passed by the State Commission, Delhi cannot be sustained, as it erroneously holds that the consumer complaint of the petitioner was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The copy of order of the High Court of Delhi is annexed as ANNEXURE P/6 (page 68-75). vii. That the Hon ble National Commission and various State Commissions are wrongly interpreting and blindly following the above

23 23 Hon ble Supreme Court order judgment dated The reason seems to be that the said order is open to two interpretations. The order states that dispute between the telegraph authority and the consumer can be resolved by arbitration. But the appellant in that case was not the telegraph authority. As on date in the country Department of Telecom (DOT) is the telegraph authority or the licensor which does not provide any telephone connection to any consumer in the country, however, earlier DOT was providing connections and now the onus of connections has been transferred to BSNL. The DOT is acting as the policy maker or licensor which means the Central Government or the Telegraph Authority who grants a license under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, Therefore, any case between the consumer and the telegraph authority under section 3(6) of Telegraph Act or licensor under section 2(1)(ea) of TRAI Act is to be decided through arbitration as per section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 which was reconfirmed in the latest amendment under Proviso C section 14 of the TRAI Act, But in reality, the appellant in that case who was successful in posing himself as a telegraph

24 24 authority before the Hon ble Supreme Court is a public limited company, BSNL and a service provider with undertaking of Government. And if it is a service provider, then, the consumer can surely file the complaint before Consumer Fora as per Proviso B section 14(a) of TRAI Act, Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court did not discuss or explore the complete identity of the BSNL. The telegraph authority (or licensor) and service provider (or licensee) both cannot exist into one authority because by default it is not possible that the licensor and licensee both are one and the same. These two identities of the appellant in that case are creating great confusion in the minds of all consumer courts in the country. Therefore, in this imbroglio, the consumer courts without applying their mind, keeping in view the dignity of the Supreme Court or otherwise knowingly/unknowingly or as a matter of law under article 141 of the constitution, are preferring to dismiss straightway the consumer complaints thus defeating the objects and reasons of the consumer protection act, Thus, as per the explanations and submissions given above, the following can be firmly concluded:

25 25 That the complaint of an individual consumer for all matters is very much maintainable before consumer fora if the dispute is between a consumer and licensee/service provider because Proviso B of section 14 of the TRAI Act, 1997 specifically empowers that complainant of an individual consumer is maintainable before Consumer Fora as per the Consumer Protection Act, That section 7B of Telegraph Act, 1885 does not undermine the right of an individual consumer to file the complaint before any of the civil courts & consumer fora in the country when the dispute is between the consumer and the licensee or any of the service providers including Government as a service provider. That section 7B as an exception does not bar the right of a consumer to approach any courts when the dispute between the consumer and the telegraph authority is related to non-technical matters because the telegraph authority has the privilege to invoke section 7B of the Telegraph Act only when the dispute arises concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus etc. being

26 26 technical matter and certainly not for any administrative lapses or billing dispute etc. That TRAI Act, 1997 does not bar the rights of an individual consumer to approach the Civil Courts also for redressal of his grievances as the jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) established under this Act for this purpose is well defined under section 14 of this act. That BSNL is a service provider and not a telegraph authority. That any judgment passed solely relying upon Telegraph Act, 1885 cannot be sustained without referring the relevant and latest TRAI Act, 1997 in case of dispute between a consumer and the licensee/service provider. 6. PRAYER In view of the facts, circumstances & submissions made above, it is most respectfully prayed before the Hon ble Supreme Court : i) That pass an order to restore the rights of individual telecom consumers as per TRAI Act, 1997 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to approach any consumer court and or civil court.

27 27 ii) That the appeal for suo motu review of the order dated of Hon ble Apex Court may please be allowed and the matter be decided as early as possible because it involves the right of millions of needy telecom consumers in the country who are running from pillar to post to get redressal of their genuine grievances. iii) That vacate all order(s)/judgments of any court or consumer court which have been passed relying solely on the above order dated of the Hon ble Supreme Court titled GM Telecom vs M. Krishnan. iv) That pass necessary instructions to all courts and consumer fora to decide telecom disputes cases between the individual consumers and service providers within maximum three months. Such matters of phone connections should be given priority because such communication services among general public are essential now-a-days to run a normal life. v) That an exemplary order be passed against all those service providers who concealed this very fact of status/identity between licensee and licensor before various courts/forums and

28 28 betrayed millions of the common telecom consumers in the country. vi) That any other order/relief/direction may also kindly be passed in favour of telecom consumers as this Hon ble Supreme Court may deem fit, just and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. I hope that your Excellencies would consider my appeal and suggestions just in the larger public interest, democratic values and also in the larger interest of the efficacy of the judiciary. With best regards, Yours sincerely, Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Address : , Bhanot Bhawan, Commercial Complex Azadpur, Delhi rkr@carewellpipes.com Phone : Place : Delhi. Dated : 17 th Oct., 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 Date of Decision: 06.02.2012 W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.21319/2010 JK MITTAL... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person

More information

GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN AND ANR. HAS THE SUPREME COURT ERRED?

GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN AND ANR. HAS THE SUPREME COURT ERRED? Bharati Law Review, Jan. Mar., 2016 145 GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN AND ANR. HAS THE SUPREME COURT ERRED? Ms.Anita Patil Abstract There is a paradigm shift in the role of judiciary from consumer

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : 13.03.2013 IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR....Petitioners Through: Mr. Maninder

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010

The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010 Kerala High Court The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014 BELA RANI BHATTCHARYYA.. Appellant Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattacharya & Mr. Niloy Dasgupta,

More information

B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED

B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8107 OF 2010 REPORTABLE Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited...Appellant (s) Versus Vodafone

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS. - Versus -

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS. - Versus - THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.01.2010 + W.P.(C) 583/2007 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS... Petitioner - Versus - NIVEDITA SHARMA & ORS... Respondent Advocates who

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar

More information

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2018 Revenue Bar Association New No. 115

More information

the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity

the court may be enabled to make a complete decree between the parties [and] prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity CLASS ACTION SUITS UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 Sushma Sosha Philip Introduction: Class Action suits originated as a means of overcoming the impracticalities imposed by a large group of plaintiffs/petitioners

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER. Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER. Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY MATTER Date of Decision : January 16, 2007 W.P.(C) 344/2007 YOGESH JAIN... Petitioner Through Mr. Laliet Kumar, Advocate. versus BSES YAMUNA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1997 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1997 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1997 SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY

More information

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 248 of 2007 PETITIONER: Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum & Ors. RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC

REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC REGULATION MAKING POWER OF CERC Introduction Kartikey Kesarwani* Sumit Kumar** Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by regulation and litigation. Laws from all three sources are

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 29 th March, LPA No.777/2010

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 29 th March, LPA No.777/2010 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 29 th March, 2012 + LPA No.777/2010 % ANAND BHUSHAN...Appellant Through: Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, Adv. Versus R.A. HARITASH Through: CORAM

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 3455 of 2013 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad... Petitioner Versus Sri Arun Krishna Rao Hazare, Ex General Manager (HRD), Bharat Coking Coal

More information

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 45305/2011 (L-PG) BETWEEN: C.D ANANDA RAO S/O SRI DALAPPA AGED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO: OF In the matter:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO: OF In the matter: IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO: OF 2018 In the matter: i) Article 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India. ii) The Advocates Act, 1961 iii) The

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131/2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR. PETITIONER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 298 of 2013 ------- Md. Rizwan Akhtar son of Late Md. Suleman, resident of Ahmad Lane, Azad Basti, Gumla, P.O, P.S. and District: Gumla... Petitioner

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 1961 of 2010 Smt. Padma Rani Mudai Hazarika - Versus - - Petitioner Union of India

More information

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person.

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESERVED ON: 12.09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 12.12.2014 REVIEW PET.188/2014, CM APPL.5366-5369/2014, 14453/2014 IN W.P. (C) 6148/2013

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 PRADIP BURMAN Represented by: Versus... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8444/2011 Date of Decision: 29 th September, 2015 REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY... Petitioner Through Mr.

More information

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ORISSA NOTIFICATION The 20 th April 2010

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ORISSA NOTIFICATION The 20 th April 2010 PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ORISSA NOTIFICATION The 20 th April 2010 No.270-R- In exercise of powers conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and as per

More information

Case No.83 of In the matter of Petition under Section 67 of the E.A, 2003 seeking directions upon MSETCL in regard to erection of Tower.

Case No.83 of In the matter of Petition under Section 67 of the E.A, 2003 seeking directions upon MSETCL in regard to erection of Tower. Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in

More information

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South Western Railway Hubli Division, Hubli PETITIONERS

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South Western Railway Hubli Division, Hubli PETITIONERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NOS.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11824-11825 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1274-75 of 2015) REPORTABLE SP SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon ble The Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya. AND The Hon ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. MAT 901 of 2016

More information

Centre for Child and the Law National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1)

Centre for Child and the Law National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1) Judicial Decisions Relevant to Human Rights Institutions (Digest 1) The Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts have in several cases opined on the powers, jurisdiction, functions, and limitations

More information

Case No. 17 of Shri. V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Santacruz (E).

Case No. 17 of Shri. V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Santacruz (E). Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in

More information

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 129/2013 (CZ)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 129/2013 (CZ) BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL Original Application No. 129/2013 (CZ) CORAM: Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh (Judicial Member) Hon ble Mr. P.S.Rao (Expert Member) BETWEEN:

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

Case No.3 of Shri P.Subrahmanyam, Chairman Shri Venkat Chary, Member, Shri Jayant Deo, Member.

Case No.3 of Shri P.Subrahmanyam, Chairman Shri Venkat Chary, Member, Shri Jayant Deo, Member. BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION MUMBAI World Trade Centre, Centre no. 1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Tel: 91-22-2163964/65/2163969 Fax: 91-22-2163976 Case No.3 of

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 OMP No.356/2004 Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD. Through : PETITIONER Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 Reserved on: January 27, 2012 Pronounced on: February 22, 2012 W.P.(C) No. 2047/2011 & CM No.4371/2011 JAI PAL AND ORS....

More information

UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW. Notice dated U/s130 of Electricity Act2003.

UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW. Notice dated U/s130 of Electricity Act2003. UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW In the matter of : Notice dated 12.5.2007 U/s130 of Electricity Act2003. AND In the matter of : 1. Managing Director, U.P.Power Corporation Limited,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 6094 of 2012 Laxmi Narain Bhagat... Petitioner Versus Naresh Prasad & others..... Respondents For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar For the Respondents

More information

640 KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE [Vol. 49 First of all let us go through this amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, It reads as under: Section 35F. T

640 KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE [Vol. 49 First of all let us go through this amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, It reads as under: Section 35F. T Amended Section 35F of C. Ex. Act, some judicial interpretations and some circulars for clarification A Study Sagar Mal Pareek* The issue of mandatory deposit of certain per cent of amount of dispute at

More information

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 16.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 201/2012 of the State Commission U.T., Chandigarh) WITH

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2015 + CM(M) 1155/2015 PURAN CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr.Arun Kumar and Mr.Udit

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ) WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015 IN THE MATTER OF : An application under Article 102 of Constitution of the People s Republic

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Judgment reserved on: 02.03.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 05.03.2012 W.P.(C) 1255/2012 & CM No. 2727/2012 (stay) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner

More information

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013. Versus

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013. Versus * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013 SETU NIKET Versus Pronounced on: 19.11.2015... Petitioner Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA & ORS... Respondents

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on : November 05, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on : November 05, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11979-80 of 2006 Judgment reserved on : November 05, 2008 Judgment delivered on: December 12, 2008 Union of India

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 406 OF 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 406 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO. 406 OF 2009 Reserved on : 11-05-2010 Date of pronouncement: 04-06-2010 M/s Kesinga Paper Mills Private Limited..Petitioner

More information

Mediation in Cheque Dishonour Cases : Legality and Binding effect.

Mediation in Cheque Dishonour Cases : Legality and Binding effect. Mediation in Cheque Dishonour Cases : Legality and Binding effect... Bharat Chugh (Civil Judge - Delhi) This article is an attempt to highlight a very important question of law facing magisterial courts

More information

MEHTA & MEHTA. Powers vested with Supreme Court by 9 th August Dipti Mehta LEGAL & ADVISORY ARTICLE.

MEHTA & MEHTA. Powers vested with Supreme Court by 9 th August Dipti Mehta LEGAL & ADVISORY ARTICLE. MEHTA & MEHTA LEGAL & ADVISORY ARTICLE Powers vested with Supreme Court by 9 th August 2017 Dipti Mehta Mehta & Mehta Legal and Advisory Services Private Limited Address: 201-206, Shiv Smriti Chambers,

More information

Bar & Bench ( SYNOPSIS

Bar & Bench (  SYNOPSIS SYNOPSIS That the petitioner is approaching this Hon ble Court seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, and thereby defer the implementation of Notification published in

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 123 of 2018 5 THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018 A BILL to amend the Courts, Division

More information

THE PUNJAB RIGHT TO SERVICE ACT, 2011 ( PUNJAB ACT NO.24 OF 2011.) A ACT

THE PUNJAB RIGHT TO SERVICE ACT, 2011 ( PUNJAB ACT NO.24 OF 2011.) A ACT PART-1 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFIARS, PUNJAB Notification The 20 th October, 2011 No.37-leg/2011- The following act of the Legislature of the State of Punjab received the assent of the Punjab

More information

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART III, SECTION 4 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFICATION

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART III, SECTION 4 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFICATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART III, SECTION 4 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25 th February, 2015 TELECOMMUNICATION MOBILE NUMBER PORTABILITY

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2008 AND AND AND AND AND. In the matter between;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2008 AND AND AND AND AND. In the matter between; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14664 OF 2008 In the matter of a petition under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; AND In the matter

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: WP(C) No. 416 of 2011 and CM Nos /2011. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: WP(C) No. 416 of 2011 and CM Nos /2011. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21.01.2011 + WP(C) No. 416 of 2011 and CM Nos.839-840/2011 DINESH KUMAR & ANR. PETITIONERS Through: Mr.S.N.Khanna, Advocate Versus DELHI COOPERATIVE

More information

W.P. (C) No of 2005

W.P. (C) No of 2005 -1- W.P. (C) No. 1992 of 2005 WITH W.P. (C) No. 3105 of 2007 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] By Court: Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Electrical

More information

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798 of 2010)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798 of 2010) Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10209 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2798

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Reserve: January 14, 2008 Date of Order: January 21, 2009 CS(OS) No.2582/2008 and IA No.425/2009 M/S DRISHTICON PROPERTIES

More information

Maheshwary Ispat Limited vs Tata Capital Financial Services... on 17 April, 2015

Maheshwary Ispat Limited vs Tata Capital Financial Services... on 17 April, 2015 Calcutta High Court Maheshwary Ispat Limited vs Tata Capital Financial Services... on 17 April, 2015 Author: Banerjee Form No. J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original

More information

Bar & Bench (

Bar & Bench ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO OF 2018 (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) (ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 05.01.2018

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO OF 2010.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO OF 2010. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2010. IN THE MATTER OF: An application for acceptance of additional grounds

More information

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in Website: www.mercindia.org.in Case

More information

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 2003 (Vol. 22) - 330 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J. Trade Tax Revision No. 677 of 2000 M/s Rotomac Electricals Private Limited, Noida vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and others Date of Decision :

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8320 Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR....RESPONDENT(S)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO. 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.7/2014 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION ( SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ) WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015 IN THE MATTER OF : An application under Article 102 of Constitution of the People s Republic

More information

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Rajeev Kumar Manglik vs The Director General Of Works on 26 May, 2014 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.1599/2013 MA 1216/2013 Order

More information

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORIry MUMBAI COMPLAINT NO: CC Avinash Saraf, Neha Duggar Saraf... Complainant. Versus

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORIry MUMBAI COMPLAINT NO: CC Avinash Saraf, Neha Duggar Saraf... Complainant. Versus BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORIry MUMBAI COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000032 Avinash Saraf, Neha Duggar Saraf... Complainant. Versus Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. MahaRERA Regn: P51800000271..

More information

Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight

Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight Impounding of A Passport - Ambiguity of Applicable Laws Vis. a Vis. Defaulter s Delight By Jayashree Shukla Dasgupta, Partner and Swati Sharma, Associate Personal liberty is the liberty of an individual

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010 % Date of decision: 6 th December, 2010 SRISHTI SOLKAR & ANR. Through:... Petitioners Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (Arising out of Order dated 10 th October, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in C.P.

More information

Bar&Bench (

Bar&Bench ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between: W.P.(P.I.L)No. of 2017 Telangana State Panchayat Raj Civil Engineers Forum Govt. Reg.

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

W.P.No.32054/2014 (GM-RES) ORDER. In Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, Apex Court issued several directions in the matter of police

W.P.No.32054/2014 (GM-RES) ORDER. In Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, Apex Court issued several directions in the matter of police 1 ANVGJ: 17.06.2015. W.P.No.32054/2014 (GM-RES) ORDER In Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, Apex Court issued several directions in the matter of police reform. One of the directions was,

More information

JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI. Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 ORDER

JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI. Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 ORDER JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 Dated: 6 th October 2010 Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Chairperson Shri T. Munikrishnaiah, Member (Tech) ORDER IN THE MATTER OF

More information

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI Petition No.149/MP/2013 Coram: Shri V. S. Verma, Member Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member In the matter of Date of Hearing: 13.08.2013 Date of Order: 21.11.2013

More information

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015 1 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 252 of 2015. THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015 A BILL to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. BE it enacted by Parliament in the

More information

BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM B.E.S. & T. UNDERTAKING. (Constituted under section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003)

BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM B.E.S. & T. UNDERTAKING. (Constituted under section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003) BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM B.E.S. & T. UNDERTAKING (Constituted under section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003) Ground Floor, Multistoried Annex Building, BEST s Colaba Depot Colaba, Mumbai

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act. Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act. Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009 (1) Crl.M.C. No. 3011/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009 Judgement delivered on: January 13, 2009 (2) Crl.M.C. No.

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2882/2005 M/s. Ladi Steel Industries Pvt. Limited, a private limited company duly incorporated under

More information

Shri Rajeev Khosla, President, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Shri Jatan Singh, Vice-President, Delhi High Court Bar Association,

Shri Rajeev Khosla, President, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Shri Jatan Singh, Vice-President, Delhi High Court Bar Association, FAREWELL SPEECH ON THE RETIREMENT OF HON BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA DELIVERED ON 06.09.2016 Justice Sudershan Kumar Misra, G. ROHINI CHIEF JUSTICE My esteemed brother and sister colleagues, Shri

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT. Reserved on: November 21, Pronounced on: December 05, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT. Reserved on: November 21, Pronounced on: December 05, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT Reserved on: November 21, 2011 Pronounced on: December 05, 2011 W.P.(C) No.3521/2008 AHUJA REFRIGERATION P.LTD. Through:... PETITIONER

More information

Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System

Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI H RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O

More information

BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION. PETITION No. CP 02/17

BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION. PETITION No. CP 02/17 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION PETITION No. CP 02/17 In the matter of : Non implementation of the order dated 29.05.2017 in P/005/2016 of Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BID. Writ Petition (Civil) No.8529 of Judgment reserved on: January 13, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BID. Writ Petition (Civil) No.8529 of Judgment reserved on: January 13, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BID Writ Petition (Civil) No.8529 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: January 13, 2008 Judgment delivered on: January 21, 2009 Mr. Virendra Kapoor Proprietor

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 22.07.2014 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Through Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate... Petitioner

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT-2017-0001)] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS Jurisdiction: HIGH COURT OF DELHI (INDIA) Abstract: The petitioners entered the national

More information

THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009

THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 112 of 2009 THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) BILL, 2009 A BILL further to amend the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and to make provisions for validation

More information