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

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

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

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

2. The Appellate Tribunal at the relevant time could not take up the appeals because of vacancies in its composition and therefore, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad through a writ petition bearing WP No.22474/2014 to challenge the impugned Tariff Order dated 24.02.2014 and also to seek its suspension/stay. The High Court issued notices and by an order passed on 26.11.2014 it also directed the Registry to requisition/eall for the records of the present appeal. The Appellate Tribunal was also directed to send the records of this appeal which was accordingly sent within time. It may be noted that the High Court did not transfer the appeal to itself but only requisitioned the records. When the Appellate Tribunal began to function, then in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant, vide order dated 26.11.2015, it held that since the Hon'ble High Court has decided to examine the correctness and validity of the impugned Tariff Order challenged in the present appeal, the appeal has been rendered mfructuous.

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 other appeal (No.7of 2013) has been preferred by Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) which has challenged the legality etc. of a subsequent Order No.30/2012-13 dated 28.12.2012 issued by AERA in exercise of powers under Section 13(1)(b) of the AERA Act read with Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act 1994(AAI Act) to re-determine the amount of DF at IGI Airport, New 4 Delhi. By this order AERA reviewed the earlier DF Order dated 14.11.2011 in a small measure, reduced the rate of DF w.e.f. 01.01.2013 and extended the levy period upto April, 2016 subject to further review. The FIA, it appears, had challenged the earlier DF order dated 14.11.2011 also. Its stand is that levy of DF to bridge the funding gap for IGI Airport is contrary to law and the relevant agreements which cast a duty upon DIAL to arrange for funds for development of the Airport. It is also pleaded that the project cost has been blown-up beyond realistic proportions and AERA has failed to exercise the required level of scrutiny which would have kept the final project cost at a reasonable and permissible level.

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

2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This application was filed by the Applicant in the matter of the grant of the mining lease to the Respondent No.1 for executing the construction work of the road from the Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda - Sailana at the instance of the Respondent No. 8/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC). For the aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.1 was granted temporary mining lease in July, 2013 for mining of material i.e. stone/boulder and murrum from the land in Khasra no. 308/1/1/a, village Amba, Tahsil Sailana, District Ratlam. The question raised by the Applicant was looking to the close proximity to the site of the aforesaid mining lease granted to the Respondent No.1, to the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary famous for the Lesser Floricon bird, commonly known as Kharmour which is reported to be on the verge of near extinction and the aforesaid Sanctuary is one of the few habitats left over for the breeding purpose preferred by this bird, would be extensively disturbed as a result of the mining activity in such close proximity of the Sanctuary as also the fact, as was revealed before the Tribunal during the hearing, that the extent of the area of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary was limited to just about 13 sq.km.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

Counsel for Respondent Shri Sachin K. Verma,Adv. Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 8: Shri D.S.Kanesh, DFO Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Shri Rajendra Babbar, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Qasim Ali, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 6 & 7: Shri Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. & Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. Dated : October 1st, 2014 J U D GEM E N T

1. This Application was originally filed as Writ Petition No. 6930/2009 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur as Public Interest Litigation. In pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in consonance with the judgement dated 9th August, 2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India & Others (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Central Zone Bench, National Green Tribunal, Bhopal and was registered as Original Application No.114/2013. The matter was listed for hearing on 13-1- 2014 since the Hon'ble High Court, while ordering the transfer of the case, directed that the parties shall appear before this Tribunal on 13-1-2014.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

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

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

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.

2. The Informant is an individual user/consumer of the services provided by PayU and other e-payment gateways.

3. PayU is a fintech company that provides payment technology solutions to online merchants. It was founded in the year 2002 and has its head-quarter at Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It allows online businesses to accept and process payments through payment methods that can be integrated with web and mobile applications. Further, PayU is the e-payment division of Naspers, a global internet and entertainment group and one of the leading technology investors in the world. Naspers is a leading financial services provider in the global growth markets and is engaged in the business of providing payment gateway services and other digital payment enablement services to both consumers and businesses. It also holds a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') license in India to offer credit services.

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.'

Case No. 34 of 2019 1

2. The Informant is an association of the plywood manufacturers in State of Assam. The OP is a public sector undertaking of Government of Assam established for production of methanol and formalin.

3. As per the Information, formalin is used by plywood units for manufacture of resin, which, in turn, is used as a binding agent in the manufacture of plywoods. The Informant states that formalin is purchased by them from OP, which is the sole unit in North-Eastern India manufacturing the same. The Informant has alleged that the OP is abusing its dominant position by charging a discriminatory price of formalin in State of Assam and State of West Bengal, while it charges Rs. 15,300/- per Metric Tonne ('PMT') in State of Assam, it charges only Rs. 11,000/- PMT in State of West Bengal.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler who had placed an order for purchase of drugs from USV on 31.07.2019. Kundan vide its letter dated 06.08.2019, confirmed receipt of the said order of the Informant along with documents and demand draft.

3. The Informant alleged that USV imposed the following unfair conditions on the Informant:

 Collection of goods from Pune C&F agent (Kundan), which is 360 km away from the Informant's location.  The Informant is not entitled to return any product purchased from USV for any reason whatsoever including those on account of expiry or damage.  Advance payment to be paid every time.  The Informant cannot purchase the products of USV from any other C&F agent.

2. Anti TB Department Mr. K. S. Sachdeva, DDG, Room No. 243-A/523 'C' Wing, Nirman Bhawan Opposite Party No. 2 New Delhi

3. RITES India Ltd.

MSM Division, RITES Bhawan-II, 4th Floor, Plot No. 144, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003 Opposite Party No. 3 Haryana CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member Case No. 02 of 2020 1 Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The Information in the present case has been filed by Mr. Ambalal V. Patel (hereinafter, the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the "Act") against Central Medical Service Society (hereinafter, the 'CMSS/ Opposite Party No. 1 / OP-1'), Anti TB Department (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 2 / OP-2') and RITES India Ltd (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 3 / OP-3'), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Hereinafter, OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 are collectively referred to as 'Opposite Parties / OPs'.

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

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

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. A/59876/Durries/ Clo-1/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec dated 15.12.2015 for procurement of 8,18,009 Durries IT OG ("Item").

3. The Informant averred that 09 firms participated in the said tender including Standard Gram/OP-2 and out of the said 09 firms, only 06 qualified for opening of commercial bids. As stated by the Informant, Standard Gram/OP-2 could not qualify in technical evaluation as the firm was not registered with Association of Corporations and Apex Societies of Handlooms/Khadi Village Industries Commission ("ACASH/KVIC") which was a pre-requisite. It is further stated that while the contract was under progress, Standard Gram/OP-2 merged with Integrated Defence/OP-3. Subsequently, the L1 firm (HP Handicraft/OP-1) sublet the manufacture of the Item to Integrated Defence/OP-3 vide Letter No. HPSHHC:173/10(EM)/Durries/838081 dated 23.03.2018.

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'.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

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.

4. Saransh Biotech Pvt. Ltd Opposite Party No. 4 5. Aarav Pharmaceuticals Opposite Party No. 5 6. Laxmi Pharma Opposite Party No. 6 7. M C Pharma Opposite Party No. 7 8. Maa Ambey Enterprises Opposite Party No. 8 9. Goyal Pharma Opposite Party No. 9 10. MD Medical Store Opposite Party No. 10 CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary of Home Department Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The District Collector, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhishek Purohit for Mr.Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 This application is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for extension of period of first parole granted to him pursuant to order dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court.

1. Subash Chandra S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Dhani Ratanpura Bypass, Village Chotala, P.s. Sadar Dabawali, District Sirsa. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

2. Manpreet Singh @ Mana S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 19 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Sanghariya, District Hanumangarh).

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

----Petitioner Versus State

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA For Respondent(s) : O;fDr"k% dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 fo'o LokLF; laxBu ¼MCY;w- ,p-vks-½] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ,oa dsUnzh; ,oa jkT; ljdkj }kjk uksoy dksjksuk ok;jl ¼dksfoM&19½ds xaHkhj egkekjh ,oa laØe.k dks QSyus ls jksdus ,oa fu;a=.k ds fy;s tkjh ,Mokbtjh ds dkj.k izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku~ vf/koDrk Jh jkds"k eVksfj;k ,oa fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd Jh vfuy tks"kh dks tfj;s fofM;ks dkWy lquk x;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh tekur gks pqdh gS ftlds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks eqyfte cuk;k x;k gSA blds foijhr fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tkfgj fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ls 118-5 fdyks MksMk iksLr dh cjkenxh gqbZ gS tks fd okf.kfT;d ek=k gSA vfHk;qDr eqds"k dk izFke tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-03-2019 dks pkyku izLrqr gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu^% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk nwljk tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-05-2019 dks lhtj vkWfQlj lquhy dqekj ds c;ku gksus ds i"pkr~ iqu% tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh NwV nsrs gq;s uksV izsl djus ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3497/2020] lhtj lquhy dqekj ds c;kuksa esa vfHk;qDr eqds"k ds lEcU/k esa vk;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij r`rh; tekur izkFkZuk i= fnukad 22-07-2019 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA xkSjryc gS fd ml le; eqds"k ds fo:) pkyku izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ&eqyfte ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr pkyku yafcr j[kk x;k Fkk D;ksafd izdj.k esa vuqla/kku iq'isUnzflag o lqHkk'kpUnz }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% izkFkhZ dks tekur dk ykHk fn;s tkus ls iwoZ bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 16-04-2020 dh vuqikyuk djok;k tkuk vko";d izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is"kh ls iwoZ mDr vkns"k dh vuqikyuk lqfuf"pr dh tkosA i=koyh fnukad 15-05-2020 dks lwphc) dh tk;sA (DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 2-/AK (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:28:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.62,866/- for the expenses incurred towards medicines and treatment of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

3. The claimant aged 45 years filed MAC No.239 of 2008 against the driver & owner of the vehicle and the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Mathura claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident alleged to have occurred on 17.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m.

This Suo-Moto Writ Petition has been taken up pursuant to a note dated 07.05.2020 of Registrar General, which was put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 08.05.2020 and as directed, the same has been listed before this Division Bench today.

We have perused the file and have heard Mr. Rahul Mehra, Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Director General (Prisons).

It has been noticed that for effective implementation of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Petition (Civil) W.P. (C) 3080/2020 Page 1 of 3 No.1/2020-In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons vide its orders dated 23.03.2020 and 13.04.2020, a High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted by High Court of Delhi to decongest the Jails to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Novel Corona Virus) and as per the recommendations of this Committee dated 28.03.2020, 07.04.2020 and 18.04.2020 and on the basis of orders in WP (C) No.2945/2020 titled as "Shobha Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.", 2177 Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) were released on interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of their respective release.

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.

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners which is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent bank for the debts due from the third respondent.

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thriruvananthapuram, finding that the property sought to be taken possession is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent.

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

2. Alleging non compliance of the award, the 2nd respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No.9 of 2016 WP(C).No.40468/2018 3 claiming a total sum of Rs.12,39,802.02/- which includes interest of Rs.4,84,600/-. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Labour Court and the 2nd respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.7,55,202.02/- by excluding the interest which was claimed. Being aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded and the denial of interest, the 2 nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.33527 of 2017 which is pending before this Court. The petitioner is stated to have remitted a sum of Rs.7,55,202/- as ordered by the Labour Court.

As a new mother, actor Laura Prepon felt scared and unprepared, as parents often do with their first child. But now a mother of two (and a noted meal prep master), Prepon is sharing everything she's learned about pregnancy and parenting in her second book, "You and I, as Mothers: A Raw and Honest Guide to Motherhood."The half-memoir, half-handbook is an intimate look at Prepon's own experiences paired with advice from fellow moms and experts on topics like stress, survival, and reproductive health."I'll tell you my truth, and not in a whisper," Prepon admitted in the book's opening chapter. "I felt blindsided by motherhood. In the early days, I — someone who generally considers herself confident — felt insecure, clueless, and scared."Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.Like Fiona Apple's

माननीय अध्यक्ष: अब पत्र सभा पटल पर रखे जाएंगे । श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल ।

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): महोदय, श्री किरेन रिजीजू की ओर से  मैं निम्नलिखित पत्र सभा पटल पर रखता हूं:

1.  (एक)     दादरा और नागर हवेली वक्फ बोर्ड, सिलवासा के वर्ष 2018-2019 के वार्षिक       प्रतिवेदन की एक प्रति (हिन्दी तथा अंग्रेजी संस्करण) तथा लेखापरीक्षित लेखे ।

(दो) दादरा और नागर हवेली वक्फ बोर्ड, सिलवासा के वर्ष 2018-2019 के कार्यकरण की सरकार द्वारा समीक्षा की एक प्रति (हिन्दी तथा अंग्रेजी संस्करण) ।

[Placed in Library, See No. LT 1092/17/19]  

2.  (एक) वक्फ बोर्ड अंडमान और निकोबार द्वीपसमूह, पोर्ट ब्लेयर के वर्ष 2018-2019के वार्षिक प्रतिवेदन की एक प्रति (हिन्दी तथा अंग्रेजी संस्करण) तथा लेखापरीक्षित लेखे ।

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): सभापति महोदया, हम एग्रीकल्चर के विषय पर नियम 193 की चर्चा दो-तीन दिनों से लगा रहे हैं । मैं आपसे अनुरोध करना चाहूंगा कि उसको पहले ले लिया जाए, क्योंकि वित्त मंत्री जी दूसरे हाउस में टैक्सेशन लॉ में बिजी है, इसलिए इसके बाद उस विषय को ले लिया जाए ।

माननीय सभापति: ठीक है, नियम 193 के अधीन चर्चा शुरू की जाए ।

       श्री कोडिकुन्नील सुरेश जी ।

SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH (MAVELIKKARA): Hon. Chairperson, thank you for giving me this opportunity to raise a discussion under Rule 193 on the topic `Crop loss due to various reasons and its impact on farmers’. At the outset I would like to submit that the Government has no intent, desire, and genuine concern towards addressing the issues of farmers in the country. The notice I gave for this discussion read -- `Agrarian crisis and farmers’ distress’. The Government did not accept the language in which I submitted my notice for this discussion, instead have formulated the language for the discussion in another way. The Government chose to ignore the topic that would have exposed the failure of the BJP Government to the public. The Government formulated another language which read -- `Crop loss due to various reasons and its impact on farmers’. They have not chosen the straight path but instead have taken a circuitous route to deviate from the core issue. But this anti-farmer and anti-agriculturist attitude of the BJP Government thus stands exposed in this House as the Modi Government is afraid of facing the truth of deeply disturbing agrarian crisis engulfing the country by refusing to address the real concern. The Congress and other like-minded parties decided to raise this issue in this august House.