VIOM NETWORKS LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. Nos. 1-4 & 5-8/2017 IN Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC.ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENT WITH I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 I.A. No.10 in C.A. 6386/2013 I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013 I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA No. 6839 & 6914/2013 [C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013] I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016 I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016 I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016 I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12230/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016 I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/2013

2 I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013 I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014 I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013 [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013 [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013 [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013 [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] O R D E R I.A. Nos.1-4 & 5-8/2017 in C.A. Nos.5360-5363/2013, I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013, I.A. No.10 in C.A.Nos.6386/2013, I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013, I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA Nos. 6839 & 6914/2013, I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/2013 I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013, I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014, I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013, I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013, I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013, I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013 Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the relevant materials. Application(s) for deletion of proforma respondent(s) and amendment of cause title are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application(s) filed by the Municipal Corporation(s) for return of amount deposited by them along with interest are allowed. Registry is directed to return the said amount(s) in each of the application(s) by means of

3 separate account payee cheque(s) payable to the respective Municipal Corporation(s). Accordingly, all the above mentioned application(s) are disposed of. I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016, I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016, I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016, I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A.No.12230/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016, I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 Learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s), on instructions, seek permission of this Court to withdraw these applications. Permission sought for is granted. The above mentioned applications are dismissed as withdrawn. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J. (NAVIN SINHA) NEW DELHI MARCH 06, 2017

4 ITEM NO.6+55 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos. 1-4 & 5-8/2017 IN Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for deletion of the names of proforma respondents and directions) WITH I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title) I.A. No.10 in C.A. 6386/2013 (Application for directions) I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013 (Application for directions) I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA No. 6839 & 6914/2013 [C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013] (With appln.(s) for deletion of the names of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title) I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016 (With appln. for direction) I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12230/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016 (With appln for direction)

5 I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 (With appln for direction) I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014 (With appln for direction and office report) I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013] I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013 (With appln for direction and office report) [@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013 Date : 06/03/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi,Adv. Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Mehul Prasad, Adv. Ms. Moulshree Shukla,Adv.

6 Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishal Balecha, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Mr. R.N. Pareek,Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin,Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Adv. Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Adv. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. Gwen Karthika,Adv. Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suhas Kumar Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.

7 Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. Nos.1-4 & 5-8/2017 in C.A. Nos.5360-5363/2013, I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013, I.A. No.10 in C.A.Nos.6386/2013, I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013, I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA Nos. 6839 & 6914/2013, I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/2013 I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013, I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014, I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013, I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013, I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013, I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013 Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the relevant materials. Application(s) for deletion of proforma respondent(s) and amendment of cause title are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application(s) filed by the Municipal Corporation(s) for return of amount deposited by them along with interest are allowed. Registry is directed to return the said amount(s) in each of the application(s) by means of separate account payee cheque(s) payable to the respective Municipal Corporation(s). Accordingly, all the above mentioned application(s) are disposed of. I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016, I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016, I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016, I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A.No.12230/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016, I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 Learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s), on instructions, seek permission of this Court to withdraw

8 these applications. Permission sought for is granted. The above mentioned applications are dismissed as withdrawn. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file.)

SECTION III-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 5-8 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363 OF 2013, (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5364 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5365 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 10 & 11 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6386 & 6387 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs. 91 to 109 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7865-7883 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs. 110 to 113 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7886-7889 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 114 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7891 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs. 115 & 116 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7893 & 7894 OF 2013 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs. 5 & 6 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 (Application for Direction on behalf of the Appellant for refund of amount deposited by the Appellant) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12209, 12212, 12221, 12228 AND 12234 OF 2016 (Application for Directions) ...2/p.

- 2 - WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12219, 12229, 12230, 12231, 12232 AND 12233 OF 2016 (Application for Directions) WITH INTERLOCTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5360-63 OF 2013, (Applications for deletion of the names of proforma Respondents ) AND INTERLOCTORY APPLICATION NOS 183-273 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6836-6926 OF 2013 (Applications for deletion of the names of proforma Respondents ) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 7-9 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6385-6387 OF 2013 (Application for amendment of Cause Title) AND INTERLOCTORY APPLICATION NOS. 274 & 275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6839 & 6914 OF 2013 ( Application for amendment of Cause Title) AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC.ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS It is submited that the appeals abovementioned were disposed of by this Hon'ble Court by judgment and order dated 16 th December, 2016 along with other connected appeals. (copy enclosed) 1. It is further submited that Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate, has on 16 th January, 2017 filed Applications for Directions on behalf of the Appellant for refund of the amounts deposited by the Appellant vide Court's order dated 9 th July, 2013, which are registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 58 in Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013 . It is also submitted that Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate, has filed applications for directions on behalf of the Appellant(s) for refund of the amounts deposited by the Appellant(s), which are registered as Interlocutory Application No.2 in Civil Appeal No.5364 of 2013, Interlocutory Application Nos. 10 & 11 in Civil Appeal Nos.6386 & 6387 of 2013, ...3/P.

- 3 - Interlocutory Application Nos.91 to 109 in Civil Appeal Nos.7865-7883 of 2013, Interlocutory Application Nos.110 to 113 in Civil Appeal Nos.7886-7889 of 2013, Interlocutory Application No.114 in Civil Appeal Nos.7891 of 2013, Interlocutory Application No.115 & 116 in Civil Appeal Nos.7893 & 7894 of 2013 and Interlocutory Application No.5 & 6 in Civil Appeal Nos.2854-2855 of 2014. It is next submitted that Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate, has filed an application for directions in Civil Appeal No.6385 of 2013. In this regard, he has filed a letter dated 3 rd March, 2013 (copy enclosed) stating therein that he has inadvertently filed an application for directions in Civil Appeal No.6385 of 2013, which was required to be filed in Civil Appeal No.5365 of 2013 since the amount was deposited with the Registry in Civil Appeal No.5365 of 2013 and not in Civil Appeal No.6385 of 2013 and the cunfusion has arisen due to the fact that Respondent No.1 is common in both the matters. He has further requested that application filed in Civil Appeal No.6385 of 2013 may be treated to be filed in Civil Appeal No.5365 of 2013. In this regard, it is submitted that pursuant to the Court's order from time to time, the amounts deposited in these appeals have been kept in FDRs. 2. It is further submited that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advcoate, has filed Applications for Directions on 21 st December and 22 nd December, 2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12209, 12212, 12221, 12228 and 12234 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 12219, 12229, 12230, 12231, 12232 and 12233 OF 2016 respectively, which were registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 3 and 4 of 2017. 3. It is next submited that during the pendency of the batch of appeals, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Advcoate, had on 5 th November, 2014 filed Applications for deletion of the names of proforma Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 536063 and Civil Appeal Nos. 68366926 of 2013, which were registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 14 in Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013 and Interlocutory Application Nos.183–273 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013 . … .4/p .

- 4 - 4. Similarly, M/s Parekh & Co. Advocates, had on 5 th November, 2014 filed Applications for amendment of Cause Title in Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013 , which were registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 79, and in Civil Appeal Nos. 6839 & 6914 of 2013, which were registered as Interlocutory Application Nos.274 and 275. The Office Report is accordingly listed before the Hon'ble Court for orders/directions on the I.As. as mentioned at S.Nos.1,2,3 and 4 above. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR bs5

äI1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. Nos. 1-4 & 5-8/2017INCivil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC.ETC. ...APPELLANTSVERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTWITHI.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013I.A. No.10 in C.A. 6386/2013I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA No. 6839 & 6914/2013[C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013]I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12230/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/20132I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]O R D E RI.A. Nos.1-4 & 5-8/2017 in C.A. Nos.5360-5363/2013,I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013, I.A. No.10in C.A.Nos.6386/2013, I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013,I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A.Nos. 274 & 275 In CA Nos. 6839 & 6914/2013, I.A. No.2in C.A. No. 5364/2013 I.A. No... in C.A. No.5365/2013, I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014,I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013, I.A.Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013, I.A. No.114 inC.A. Nos.7891/2013, I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A.Nos.7893-7894/2013 Heard learned counsels for parties and perusedthe relevant materials.Application(s) for deletion of proformarespondent(s) and amendment of cause title areallowed subject to all just exceptions.Application(s) filed by the MunicipalCorporation(s) for return of amount deposited by themalong with interest are allowed.Registry is directed to return the saidamount(s) in each of the application(s) by means of3separate account payee cheque(s) payable to therespective Municipal Corporation(s).Accordingly, all the above mentionedapplication(s) are disposed of.I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016, I.A.No.3 in C.A. No.

12212/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016, I.A. No.3in C.A. No. 12221/2016, I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016,I.A. No.4 in C.A.No.12230/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No.12231/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016, I.A. No.4in C.A. No. 12232/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016,I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 Learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s), oninstructions, seek permission of this Court towithdraw these applications.Permission sought for is granted.The above mentioned applications are dismissedas withdrawn. ....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)....................,J.(NAVIN SINHA)NEW DELHIMARCH 06, 20174ITEM NO.6+55 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos. 1-4 & 5-8/2017INCivil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for deletion of the names of proforma respondents and directions)WITHI.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title)I.A. No.10 in C.A. 6386/2013(Application for directions)I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013(Application for directions)I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A. Nos. 274 & 275 In CA No. 6839 & 6914/2013[C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013](With appln.(s) for deletion of the names of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title)I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016(With appln. for direction)I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 12212/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12221/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12230/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12231/2016(With appln for direction)5I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12232/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016(With appln for direction)I.A. No.2 in C.A. No. 5364/2013(With appln for direction and office report)

I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013(With appln for direction and office report)I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014(With appln for direction and office report)I.A. Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013(With appln for direction and office report)[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. Nos.110-113 in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013(With appln for direction and office report)[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. No.114 in C.A. Nos.7891/2013(With appln for direction and office report)[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013]I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A. Nos.7893-7894/2013(With appln for direction and office report)[@ C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013Date : 06/03/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHAFor Appellant(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Jesal Wahi,Adv.Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.Mr. Mehul Prasad, Adv.Ms. Moulshree Shukla,Adv.6Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Mr. Vishal Balecha, Adv.Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGMs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv.Ms. Saudamini Sharma, AdvMr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv.Mr. R.N. Pareek,Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin,Adv.Mr. Chaitanya, Adv.Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Adv.Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Adv.Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. Gwen Karthika,Adv.Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv.Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suhas Kumar Kadam, Adv.For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv.Mr. Amit Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.

7Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv.Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RI.A. Nos.1-4 & 5-8/2017 in C.A. Nos.5360-5363/2013,I.A. Nos. 7-9 in C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013, I.A. No.10 inC.A.Nos.6386/2013, I.A. No.11 in C.A. No.6387/2013,I.A. Nos. 183-273 In C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 & I.A.Nos. 274 & 275 In CA Nos. 6839 & 6914/2013, I.A. No.2in C.A. No. 5364/2013 I.A. No... in C.A. No. 5365/2013,I.A. Nos.5-6 in C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014, I.A.Nos.91-109 in C.A. Nos.7865-7883/2013, I.A. Nos.110-113in C.A. Nos.7886-7889/2013, I.A. No.114 in C.A.Nos.7891/2013, I.A. Nos.115-116 in C.A.Nos.7893-7894/2013 Heard learned counsels for parties and perused therelevant materials.Application(s) for deletion of proformarespondent(s) and amendment of cause title are allowedsubject to all just exceptions.Application(s) filed by the MunicipalCorporation(s) for return of amount deposited by themalong with interest are allowed.Registry is directed to return the said amount(s)in each of the application(s) by means of separateaccount payee cheque(s) payable to the respectiveMunicipal Corporation(s).Accordingly, all the above mentioned application(s)are disposed of.I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12209/2016, I.A.No.3 in C.A. No.12212/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12219/2016, I.A. No.3in C.A. No. 12221/2016, I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 12228/2016,I.A. No.4 in C.A.No.12230/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No.12231/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12229/2016, I.A. No.4in C.A. No. 12232/2016, I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 12233/2016,I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 12234/2016 Learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s), oninstructions, seek permission of this Court to withdraw8these applications.Permission sought for is granted.The above mentioned applications are dismissedas withdrawn. (Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master(Signed order is placed on the file.)

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) DIARY NO(S). NO(S). 17294/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13/07/2004 IN WP NO. 6079/1982 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH PETITIONER(S) VERSUS MUKHTIYAR SINGH RESPONDENT(S) (OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS) Date : 28/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Adv. Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Kumar, Adv. For Mr. C. D. Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to cure the defects. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 3/2016 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015 VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.for directions and office report) WITH I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 577/2015 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date : 20/01/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sathupathy, Adv. Ms. Urvashi, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. R.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhagt, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

2 In view of the letter dated 18.01.2017 circulated by Shri Puneet Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioners, I.A. No.3 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.216 of 2015, I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No.611 of 2015 and I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No.577 of 2015 are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the above-mentioned applications are dismissed. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

MATTER FOR 20.01.2017 COURT NO.4 ITEM NO.7 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2016 (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS IN W.P.(C) NO. 216 OF 2015) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2016 (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS IN W.P.(C) NO. 577 & 611 OF 2015) IN WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 216, 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ETC. ....PETITIONERS -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE- REPORT The writ petitions above-mentioned were disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2016 (copy of the judgment dated 16.12.2016 is annexed to the paper book of W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 as Annexure A-1 at page nos. 7-39). W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015 It is submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for the petitioner has on 21.12.2016 filed an application for directions and the same has been registered as I.A. No. 3 of 2016. W.P.(C) NOS. 577 & 611 OF 2015 It is submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has on 22.12.2016 filed two separate applications for directions after taking no-objection from Mr. Nar Hari Singh, the erstwhile Advocate in both the writ petitions above-mentioned. The said applications have been registered as I.A. No. 2 of 2016 in both the writ petitions. The applications in the writ petitions above-mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 17th day of January, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

\2001ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. 3/2016 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSNASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln.for directions and office report)WITHI.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 611/2015(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 577/2015(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)Date : 20/01/2017 These applications werecalled on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,Adv.Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.Mr. Raghunatha Sathupathy, Adv.Ms. Urvashi, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv.Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.Mr. R.C. Sharma, Adv.Mr. Amit Bhagt, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv.Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R2In view of the letter dated 18.01.2017circulated by Shri Puneet Taneja, learned counselfor the petitioners, I.A. No.3 of 2016 in W.P.(C)No.216 of 2015, I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No.611 of 2015and I.A. No.2 in W.P.(C) No.577 of 2015 are allowedto be withdrawn.Accordingly, all the above-mentionedapplications are dismissed.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363 OF 2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(s) VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013, C.A. No. 5365/2013, C.A. Nos. 6385-6387/2013, C.A. Nos. 6737-6738/2013, C.A. No. 6739/2013, C.A. Nos. 6836-6926/2013, C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013, C.A. No. 8114/2013, C.A. No. 8115/2013, C.A. No. 8116/2013, C.A. No. 8117/2013, C.A. No.12209/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 362/2014, C.A. Nos. 2854-2855/2014, C.A. No.12211/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12567/2014), C.A. No.12212/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21521/2014), C.A. No.12213/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 22653/2014), C.A. Nos. 12214-12215/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29803-29804/2014), C.A. No. 12216/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29765/2014), C.A. No. 12217/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31442/2014), C.A. No.12218/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31986/2014), C.A. No.12220/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24053/2014), C.A. No.12219/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3550/2015), C.A. No.12221/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 6149/2015), C.A. No. 12222/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 8705/2015), C.A. No.12223/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9004/2015), C.A. No.12224/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9104/2015), C.A. No.12225/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.37142/2016 arising out of SLP.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015), C.A. No.12226/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9233/2015), C.A. No.12227/2016 (arising out of

2 SLP(C) No.8698/2015), C.A. No.12228/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9620/2015), C.A. No. 12229/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.10288/2015), C.A. No. 12230/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9827/2015), C.A. No.12231/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9994/2015), C.A. No.12232/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11479/2015), C.A. No.12233/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 15175/2015), C.A. No.12234/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28473/2015), C.A. No.12235/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 1457/2016), C.A. No. 12236/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12563/2016), C.A. No. 5348/2015, W.P.(C) No.216/2015, W.P.(C) No.611/2015, W.P.(C) No.577/2015, T.C.(C) No.108/2015, T.C.(C) No. 128/2015, T.C.(C) No. 129/2015, T.C.(C) No. 130/2015 and T.C.(C) No. 131/2015 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. This group of cases may be conveniently arranged in four different categories. The first are the appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 24/25.04.2013 passed by the Gujarat High Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat Act”) as ultra vires the Constitution and on that basis

3 interdicting the levy of property tax on “mobile towers”. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, however, took the view that the Cabin in a mobile tower in which BTS system, details of which are noticed below, is located, would be a building and, therefore, exigible to tax under the Gujarat Act. The State Government and the different Municipal Corporations have challenged the first part of the order of the High Court whereas the Cellular operators have challenged the later part. 3. The Bombay High Court which was in seisin of a somewhat similar challenge, by the order under challenge, has taken the view that the writ petitions challenging the levy of property tax on mobile towers should not be entertained and the aggrieved writ petitioners therein (cellular operators) should be left with the option of exhausting the alternate remedies provided by the Act. This would be the third category of cases. In this regard, it must be noticed that in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the charging section does not specifically contemplate levy of taxes on mobile towers as in the Gujarat Act. The impugned levy, nevertheless, was imposed on the reasoning that mobile towers are buildings as defined in the Act. At this stage,

4 it must also be noticed that the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was applicable to the State of Gujarat also until the year 2011 when by the Gujarat Short Titles (Amendment) Act, 2011 the word ‘Gujarat’ has been inserted in place of the word ‘Bombay’. 4. The fourth and fifth categories of cases would be the writ petitions raising identical issues which have been transferred from the Bombay High Court to this Court and the writ petitions filed before this Court by the cellular operators under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a similar challenge as in the writ petitions filed before the High Court. 5. As the elaborate arguments advanced in the course of the prolonged hearing have centered around the provisions of the Gujarat Act, it may be convenient to take up the Gujarat cases in the first instance. The answer to the issues arising therein would, in any way, effectively decide the issues arising in the Bombay cases also as well as in the transferred cases and the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6. The relevant provisions of the Gujarat Act defining the expressions “building”, “land” and “mobile tower” are as follows:

5 “ Section 2(5) “building” includes a house, out-house, stable, shed, hut and other enclosure or structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever whether used as a human dwelling or otherwise, and also includes verandahs, fixed platforms, plinths, doorsteps, walls including compound walls and fencing and the like. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 2(30) “land” includes land which is being built upon or is built upon or covered with water, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by legislative enactment over any street. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 2(34AA) “Mobile tower” means a temporary or permanent structure, equipment or instrument erected or installed on land or upon any part of the building or premises for providing telecommunication services.” 7. Section 127(1) of the Gujarat Act, the charging section, is in the following terms: “ 127. Taxes to be imposed under this Act .- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the Corporation shall impose the following taxes, namely:- (a) Property taxes either under section 129 or under section 141AA. (b) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals. (c) a tax on mobile towers: Provided that xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. Section 129 of the Gujarat Act deals with different components of the property tax which can be levied under the Act. Briefly put the said components are water tax; conservancy

6 and sewerage tax; general tax of not less than 12% but not exceeding 30% of the rateable value etc. 9. Section 141AA deals with the rate at which water tax, conservancy tax and sewerage tax are to be imposed. Section 141B of the Gujarat Act provides for the rate at which the general tax is leviable. 10. Section 145A (inserted by the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011) provides for tax on mobile towers at rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government. Such tax which is levied on mobile towers is to be collected from persons engaged in providing telecommunication services through service towers. Section 145A is in the following terms. “ 145A Tax on mobile towers .- (1) A tax at the rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government in this behalf from time to time shall be levied on mobile towers from the person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers. (2) The Corporation shall from year to year, in accordance with Section 99, determine the rates at which the tax shall be levied."

7 11. By the aforesaid Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011 similar provisions for levy of tax on mobile towers have been inserted in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and also the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. 12. The short contention of the cellular operators advanced before the High Court is that Section 127(1)(c) read with Section 145A of the Gujarat Act are legislatively incompetent as mobile towers are beyond the scope of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which is in the following terms. “ 49. Taxes on lands and buildings .” 13. The High Court thought it proper to accept the said contention and on that basis to hold that levy of tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Act is ultra vires the Constitution except insofar as the Cabin that houses the BTS system is concerned. 14. Two significant aspects connected to the issues arising may be taken note of at the outset. The meaning of any Legislative Entry e.g. “Taxes on lands and buildings” (Entry 49 of List II) should not be understood by reference to the definition of the very same expressions appearing in a statute traceable to the

8 particular Legislative Entry. In the present case, though the Gujarat Act defines the expressions “land” and “building”, as rightly held by the High Court, it would be self defeating to understand the meaning and scope of Entry 49 of List II by reference to the definition clauses in the Gujarat Act. Definitions contained in the statute may at times be broad and expansive; beyond the natural meaning of the words or may even contain deeming provisions. Though the wide meaning that may be ascribed to a particular expression by the definition in a statute will have to be given effect to, if the statute is otherwise found to be valid, it will, indeed, be a contradiction in terms to test the validity of the statute on the touchstone of it being within the Legislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in the statute. 15. The second aspect, mentioned above, is one concerning the permissible operation of two different statutes relatable to two different Entries in List I or II or even in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This has been acknowledged by the High Court, in the impugned Order, by accepting that even if a mobile tower is a part of the apparatus pertaining to “telegraphs”

9 covered by Entry 31 of List I, yet, the Gujarat Act could still co-exist as a statute levying a tax on lands and buildings so long and if only mobile towers can come within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid expressions “land and building” in Entry 49 of List II. The endeavour, therefore, must be to trace out the true meaning of the expressions “land and building” appearing against Entry 49 of List II by a correct application of the parameters and principles governing the interpretation of a Constitutional provision specially an Entry in any of the legislative fields under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 16. Certain accepted and settled principles of Constitutional interpretation may now be taken note of. It will not be necessary to enter into any detailed deliberations and debate in this regard in view of the undisturbed precedents on which such principles have come to rest. Broadly and illustratively some of the principles which have been culled out from the decisions of this Court are enumerated hereinbelow. (i) In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Legislative Entry, a broad, liberal and expansive interpretation is to be preferred as

10 the meaning of an Entry is always inclusive. [ Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 ] (ii) Principles of interpretation of a statute are not foreign and altogether irrelevant for the purposes of interpreting a constitutional provision and/or a specific Legislative Entry. [ Good Year India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2 ] (iii) A Constitution is an organic document that must grow and live with the times. [ State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd . 3 ] (iv) The spirit of the Constitution, the constitutional goals; and the constitutional philosophy must guide the broad and liberal interpretation of a Legislative Entry. [ State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd . 4 ] (v) The dictionary meaning and the common parlance test can also be adopted. [ Trutuf Safety Glass Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 5 ] (vi) Words and expressions in a constitutional provision or Legislative Entry should not be given 1 (1990) 1 SCC 109 Para 67 2 AIR 1990 SC 781 Para 17 3 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 50 4 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 31 5 (2007) 7 SCC 242 Para 13

11 an unnatural meaning. [ India Cement vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6 ] (vii) If a general word is used in a constitutional Entry, it must be construed as to extend all ancillary and subsidiary matters that can be reasonably included. [ Jagannath Baksh Singh vs. State of U.P. 7 ; Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. & Ors. vs. U.O.I. 8 .] The abovesaid principles which are firmly entrenched as principles of Constitutional interpretation must be borne in mind while proceeding further in the case. 17. In re. The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 9 , a Bench of nine Judges of this Court has observed that, “ Neither the Union nor the States can claim unlimited rights as regards the area of taxation. The right has been hedged in by considerations of respective powers and responsibilities of the Union in relation to the States, and those of the States in relation to citizens inter se or in relation to the Union. Part XII of the Constitution relates to Finances. At the very outset Article 265 lays down that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” That authority has to be found in the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule subject to the provisions of Part XI which deals with relations between the Union and the States, particularly Chapter I thereof relating to 6 (1990) 1 SCC 12 Para 18 7 AIR 1962 SC 1563 Para 10 8 (1989) 3 SCC 698 Para 14 9 1964 (3) SCR 787

12 legislative relations and distribution of legislative powers with special reference to Article 246.” 18. Article 246 is in the following terms: (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”). (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”). (3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”). (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List” 19. Though Article 246 has often been understood to be laying down the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, it must be qualified that such supremacy, if any, is extremely limited and very subtle. This has to be said when the federal structure of the Indian Union has been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution. Both, the Central and the State legislatures, are competent to enact laws in any matters in their respective Lists

13 i.e. List I and List II. Conflict or encroachments must be ironed out by the Courts and only on a failure to do so the provisions of Article 246 will apply. Insofar as the common List i.e. List III is concerned, any repugnancy in law making by the Union and State Legislatures is dealt with by Article 254 which gives primacy to the Parliamentary law over the State law subject to the provisions of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution which again is subject to a proviso which may indicate some amount of Parliamentary supremacy. 20. The fields of taxation on which the Union Parliament and State legislatures are competent to enact legislations to meet the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution are clearly indicated in the respective Lists. While there can be no encroachment either way, it is possible that in a given situation though there may be some similarity between the taxes levied by a Central and a State enactment, both can co-exist having regard to the subject of the levy. A tax on income derived from land and a tax on the land itself wherein the income or earning therefrom forms the basis of the rates of the levy of tax is one such example. The above has been illustrated only to answer the

14 arguments advanced before us on view expressed, in the order under challenge, by the High Court that even if it is assumed that the cellular operators are right in contending that mobile towers are covered by the field “telegraphs” (Entry 31 of List I), it cannot be said that if mobile towers can come within the fold of Entry 49 of List II, such a legislation would be legislatively incompetent. 21. The Constitutional scheme with respect to financial relations between the Union and the State is dealt with by Part XII of the Constitution. The scheme discernible contemplates an equitable distribution of revenues between the Centre and the States. Though the Union and each of the federating units have their respective consolidated funds, the financial arrangements and adjustments that are to be found in the different provisions of Part XII of the Constitution would indicate an attempt at equitable distribution of revenues between the Union and the federating units even though such revenue may be derived from taxes and duties imposed by the Union and collected by it or through the agencies of the States. A perusal of the legislative entries relating to taxes imposable by the Central and the State

15 legislatures do indicate that the larger share of the revenue goes to the Union because of the very nature of the taxes leviable by the Union Parliament which would stand credited to the consolidated fund of the Union. The allocation of revenue heads/taxation power in the States certainly shows a disequilibrium which, however, is sought to be balanced by the constitutional scheme aforementioned, namely, equitable distribution of revenues between the Union and the States even though such revenues may be derived from taxes and duties imposed by the Union and collected by it. This aspect of the Constitutional scheme which has been echoed in para 50 of the decision in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (supra) has to be kept in mind as the discussions unfold. 22. We may now see what a Mobile Tower is and consists of. In technical terms a Mobile Tower is called a “Base Transceiver Station.” It involves the making of structure consisting of the following: a. A pre-fabricated shelter made of insulating PUF material made of fibres. b. Electronic Panel. c. Base Transceiver Station (BTS) and other radio transmission and reception equipment.

16 d. A diesel generator set. e. Six poles of 6 to 9 meters length each made of hollow steel galvanized pipes. A mobile tower is constructed either on vacant land or on the terrace of existing buildings on the basis of agreements with the owners of such properties. 23. To answer the question as to whether such mobile towers can come within the fold of ‘land and building’ appearing in Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule it will be useful to take notice of the meanings of the two expressions as appearing in the leading judicial and English dictionaries. A comprehensive list of the different meanings expressed in different works so far as the two expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ are concerned are set out below. LAND Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines that ‘land’, or ‘lands’, not only means the surface of the ground, but also everything (except gold or silver mines) on or over or under it, for Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Co. Litt. 4 a; Touch. 91; 2 Bl. Com. 18; Lord Coke calls the earth “the suburbs of heaven”). Black’s Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) defines that ‘ land’ means an immovable and indestructible three-dimensional area consisting of a portion of the earth’s surface, the space above and below the surface, and everything growing on or permanently affixed to it. The lexicographer further observes, “In its legal significance, ‘land’ is not restricted to the earth’s surface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is it confined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds such things as gases and liquids. A definition of ‘land’ along the lines

17 of ‘a mass of physical matter occupying space’ also is not sufficient, for an owner of land may remove part or all of that physical matter, as nevertheless retain as part of his ‘land’ the space that remains. Ultimately, as a juristic concept, ‘land’ is simply an area of three-dimensional space, its position being identified by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth’s surface. ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space, although, as we shall see, the owner of that space may well own those fixed contents. Land is immovable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable, it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible. The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.” Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2 nd Edition, 1988). P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observes that the word ‘land’ is a comprehensive term, including standing trees, buildings, fences, stones, and waters, as well as the earth we stand on. Standing trees must be regarded as part and parcel of the land in which they are rooted and from which they draw their support. The word ‘land’, in the ordinary legal sense, comprehends everything of a fixed and permanent nature and therefore embraces growing trees. 48 All 498 95 IC 150 = 24 ALJ 583 = 1926 All 689. BUILDING Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes that what is a ‘building’ must always be a question of degree and circumstances: its “ordinary and usual meaning is, a block of brick or stone work, covered in by a roof” ( per Esher M.R., Moir v. Williams [1892] 1 Q.B. 264). The ordinary and natural meaning of the word ‘building’ includes the fabric and the ground on which it stands ( Victoria City v. Bishop of Vancouver Island [1921] A.C. 384, at p. 390). Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes that ‘building’ is a structure designed for habitation, shelter, storage, trade, manufacture, religion, business, education and the like. A ‘building’ is also a structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observes that ‘building’ is a house, out-house, garage or any other structure which cannot be erected without the ground on which it is to stand; the expression ‘building’ includes, the fabric of which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls stand and the ground within those walls. ( per D.G. Gouse & Co. v. State of Kerala , AIR 1980 SC 271 [Kerala Building Tax Act

18 (1975) S. 2(3)]) DICTIONARY MEANING OF LAND AND BUILDING ‘ Building ’ is something with a roof and walls, such as a house or factory. ( Collins Dictionary of the English Language , First Edition, 1979) ‘ Land ’ refers to the solid part of the surface of the earth, as distinct from seas, lakes, etc. ( Collins Dictionary of the English Language , First Edition, 1979) All other English dictionaries convey a more or less similar meaning, namely, as understood in common parlance – an enclosed space used for human use and dwelling. 24. A cardinal principle of interpretation of a Legislative Entry in any of the Lists of the Seventh Schedule is to treat the words and expressions therein as inclusive in meaning and give the same all possible flexibility instead of restricting such meaning to the perceptions contemporaneous with the times when the Constitution was framed. The Constitution, an organic document, has to be allowed a natural growth by such a process of interpretation. Interpretation of a Legislative Entry has to grow and keep up with the pace of times. 25. We may now see how judicial opinion has dealt with the question. In Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others 10 this Court had occasion to consider the scope and 10 (1975) 2 SCC 175

19 ambit of the provisions contained in Entry 49 List II in the context of the provisions of the very same Act (as applicable to Bombay). Sufficient illumination and elucidation flows from such consideration which is available in para 44 of the report which may be very conveniently extracted below. “ 44. Mr. Tarkunde on behalf of the petitioner Company has urged that under Entry 49 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State Legislature is empowered to enact a law relating to taxes on lands and buildings. It is submitted that the State Legislature has no competence under the above entry to enact a law for levying tax in respect of the area occupied by the underground supply lines. The word “land”, according to the learned counsel, denotes the surface of the land and not the underground strata. We are unable to accede to the above submission. Entry 49 of List II contemplates a levy of tax on lands and buildings or both as units. Such tax is directly imposed on lands and buildings and bears a definite relation to it. Section 129 makes provision for the levy of property tax on buildings and lands. Section 139 merely specifies the persons who would be primarily responsible for the payment of that tax. The word “land” includes not only the face of the earth, but everything under or over it, and has in its legal signification an indefinite extent upward and downward, giving rise to the maxim, Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum (see p. 163, 73 Corpus Juris Secondum ). According to Broom’s Legal Maxims , 10th Edn., p. 259, not only has land in its legal signification an indefinite extent upwards, but in law it extends also downwards, so that whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth by the common law belongs to the owner of the surface (not merely the surface, but all the land down to the centre of the earth and up to the heavens) and hence the word “land” which is nomen generalissimum , includes, not only the face of the earth, but everything under it or over it.” 26. In Goodricke Group Ltd. and Others vs. State of W.B.

21 indicated by us, namely, that to test the vires of the provisions of the statute in question the scope and expanse of the words ‘land’ and ‘building’ has to be understood in the context of the provisions of the Legislative Entry (Entry 49 List II) and not the Statute relatable to the Entry. However, what would be of significance is to take into account the principles of interpretation which were followed by this Court in coming to its conclusions with regard to the true meaning and scope of the expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ contained in the statute. As already observed by us principles of interpretation of the ordinary statute are not foreign to the principles of interpretation of the constitutional provisions. Paragraph 18 of the report in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) may now be noticed. 18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 14 interpreting Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court held that the section was enacted in the second half of the last century, but its meaning and content cannot remain static. The interpretation of every statutory provision must keep pace with changing concepts and the values and it must, to the extent to which its language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments through judicial interpretation so as to accord with the requirements of the fast changing society which is undergoing rapid social and economic transformation. The language of a statutory provision is not a static vehicle of ideas and concepts and as ideas and 14 1981 Supp SCC 87

22 concepts change, as they are bound to do in any country like ours with the establishment of a democratic structure based on egalitarian values and aggressive developmental strategies, so must the meaning and content of the statutory provision undergo a change. It is elementary that law does not operate in a vacuum. It is not an antique to be taken down, dusted, admired and put back on the shelf, but rather it is a powerful instrument fashioned by society for the purpose of adjusting conflicts and tensions which arise by reason of clash between conflicting interests. It is, therefore, intended to serve a social purpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking into account the social, economic and political setting in which it is intended to operate. It is here that a judge is called upon to perform a creative function. He has to inject flesh and blood in the dry skeleton provided by the legislature and by a process of dynamic interpretation, invest it with a meaning which will harmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and values and make it an effective instrument for delivering justice. The discussions that had preceded on the financial relations between the Union and the States would suggest a constitutional scheme wherein the federating States of the Indian Union are not destined to remain financially weak despite a situation where the Union undoubtedly has the upper hand by an allocation of the more lucrative subjects of taxation under the Seventh Schedule. Constitutionality of the Gujarat Act, in the above light, must be answered in favour of the State. 28. Coming specifically to the expression “building” appearing in Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule in view of the settled principles that would be applicable to find out the true and

23 correct meaning of the said expression it will be difficult to confine the meaning of the expression “building” to a residential building as commonly understood or a structure raised for the purpose of habitation. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. 15 a tax on a building housing a factory has been understood to be a tax on building and not on the factory or its plant and machinery. A general word like ‘building’ must be construed to reasonably extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters and the common parlance test adopted by the High Court to hold the meaning of levy of tax on building and machinery does not appear to be right keeping in mind the established and accepted principles of interpretation of a constitutional provision or a Legislative Entry. A dynamic, rather than a pedantic view has to be preferred if the constitutional document is to meet the challenges of a fast developing world throwing new frontiers of challenge and an ever changing social order. 29. The regulatory power of the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchyats in the matter of installation, location and 15 AIR 1975 SC 2037 = (1975) 2 SCC 274

24 operation of ‘Mobile Towers’ even before the specific incorporation of Mobile Towers in the Gujarat Act by the 2011 Amendment and such control under the Bombay Act at all points of time would also be a valuable input to accord a reasonable extension of such power and control by understanding the power of taxation on ‘Mobile Towers’ to be vested in the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. 30. The measure of the levy, though may not be determinative of the nature of the tax, cannot also be altogether ignored in the light of the views expressed by this Court in Goodricke (supra). Under both the Acts read with the relevant Rules, tax on Mobile Towers is levied on the yield from the land and building calculated in terms of the rateable value of the land and building. Also the incidence of the tax is not on the use of the plant and machinery in the Mobile Tower; rather it is on the use of the land or building, as may be, for purpose of the mobile tower. That the tax is imposed on the “person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers” (Section 145A of the Gujarat Act) merely indicates that it is the occupier and not the owner of the land and building who is liable to pay

25 the tax. Such a liability to pay the tax by the occupier instead of the owner is an accepted facet of the tax payable on land and building under Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule. 31. Viewed in the light of the above discussion, if the definition of “land” and “building” contained in the Gujarat Act is to be understood, we do not find any reason as to why, though in common parlance and in everyday life, a mobile tower is certainly not a building, it would also cease to be a building for the purposes of Entry 49 List II so as to deny the State Legislature the power to levy a tax thereon. Such a law can trace its source to the provisions Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 32. Though several other decisions of this Court and also of different High Courts have been placed before us we do not consider it necessary to refer to or to enter into any discussion of the propositions laid down in the said decisions as the views expressed in all the aforesaid cases pertain to the meaning of the expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ as appearing in the definition clause of the statutes in question. 33. We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the Gujarat

26 High Court and answer the appeals arising from the order of the Bombay High Court; transferred cases and the writ petitions accordingly. However, we leave it open, so far as the cellular operators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to agitate the issue with regard to the retrospective operation of the assessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently, and in the light of the above all the appeals, writ petitions and the transferred cases are disposed of. ……………… .....................,J. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ……………… .....................,J. ( PRAFULLA C. PANT ) NEW DELHI DECEMBER 16, 2016.

1 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA [FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NO. 5364/2013 C.A. NO. 5365/2013 C.A. NO. 6385-6387/2013 C.A. NO. 6737-6738/2013 C.A. NO. 6739/2013 C.A. NO. 6836-6926/2013 C.A. NO. 7865-7894/2013 C.A. NO. 8114/2013 C.A. NO. 8115/2013 C.A. NO. 8116/2013 C.A. NO. 8117/2013 C.A. NO.12209/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 362/2014 C.A. NO. 2854-2855/2014 C.A. NO.12211/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 12567/2014 C.A. NO.12212/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 21521/2014 C.A. NO.12213/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 22653/2014 C.A. NO.12214-12215/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 29803-29804/2014

2 C.A. NO.12216/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 29765/2014 C.A. NO.12217/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 31442/2014 C.A. NO.12218/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 31986/2014 C.A. NO.12219/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 3550/2015 C.A. NO.12220/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 24053/2014 C.A. NO.12221/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 6149/2015 C.A. NO.12222/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 8705/2015 C.A. NO.12223/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9004/2015 C.A. NO.12224/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9104/2015 C.A. NO.12225/2016 @ SLP(C) NO.37142/2016 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 4938/2015 C.A. NO.12226/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9233/2015 C.A. NO.12227/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 8698/2015 C.A. NO.12228/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9620/2015 C.A. NO.12229/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 10288/2015 C.A. NO.12230/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9827/2015 C.A. NO.12231/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9994/2015 C.A. NO. 12232 /2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 11479/2015 W.P.(C) NO. 216/2015 C.A. NO.12233/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 15175/2015 C.A. NO. 5348/2015 W.P.(C) NO. 611/2015 W.P.(C) NO. 577/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 108/2015 C.A. NO.12234/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 28473/2015

3 T.C.(C) NO. 128/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 130/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 129/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 131/2015 C.A. NO.12235/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 1457/2016 C.A. NO.12236/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 12563/2016 Date : 16/12/2016 These cases were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For parties(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Vishal Balecha, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Charanjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AOR Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AOR Mr Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.

4 Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR for M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mrs. Jayashree, Adv. Ms. Paromita Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. for M/s. J. S. Wad & Co., AOR Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. for M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., AOR Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,AOR Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv. Mr. K.N. Rai, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel, AOR

5 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant . Delay condoned. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. All the appeals, writ petitions and the transferred cases are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

2 SLP(C) No. 24053/2014), C.A. No.12219/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3550/2015), C.A. No.12221/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 6149/2015), C.A. No. 12222/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 8705/2015), C.A. No.12223/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9004/2015), C.A. No.12224/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9104/2015), C.A. No.12225/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.37142/2016 arising out of SLP.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015), C.A. No.12226/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9233/2015), C.A. No.12227/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8698/2015), C.A. No.12228/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9620/2015), C.A. No. 12229/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.10288/2015), C.A. No. 12230/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9827/2015), C.A. No.12231/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9994/2015), C.A. No.12232/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11479/2015), C.A. No.12233/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 15175/2015), C.A. No.12234/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28473/2015), C.A. No.12235/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 1457/2016), C.A. No. 12236/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12563/2016), C.A. No. 5348/2015, W.P.(C) No.216/2015, W.P.(C) No.611/2015, W.P.(C) No.577/2015, T.C.(C) No.108/2015, T.C.(C) No. 128/2015, T.C.(C) No. 129/2015, T.C.(C) No. 130/2015 and T.C.(C) No. 131/2015

3 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. This group of cases may be conveniently arranged in four different categories. The first are the appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 24/25.04.2013 passed by the Gujarat High Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat Act”) as ultra vires the Constitution and on that basis interdicting the levy of property tax on “mobile towers”. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, however, took the view that the Cabin in a mobile tower in which BTS system, details of which are noticed below, is located, would be a building and, therefore, exigible to tax under the Gujarat Act. The State Government and the different

4 Municipal Corporations have challenged the first part of the order of the High Court whereas the Cellular operators have challenged the later part. 3. The Bombay High Court which was in seisin of a somewhat similar challenge, by the order under challenge, has taken the view that the writ petitions challenging the levy of property tax on mobile towers should not be entertained and the aggrieved writ petitioners therein (cellular operators) should be left with the option of exhausting the alternate remedies provided by the Act. This would be the third category of cases. In this regard, it must be noticed that in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the charging section does not specifically contemplate levy of taxes on mobile towers as in the Gujarat Act. The impugned levy, nevertheless, was imposed on the reasoning that mobile towers are buildings as defined in the Act. At this stage, it must also be noticed that the Bombay Provincial Municipal

5 Corporations Act, 1949 was applicable to the State of Gujarat also until the year 2011 when by the Gujarat Short Titles (Amendment) Act, 2011 the word ‘Gujarat’ has been inserted in place of the word ‘Bombay’. 4. The fourth and fifth categories of cases would be the writ petitions raising identical issues which have been transferred from the Bombay High Court to this Court and the writ petitions filed before this Court by the cellular operators under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a similar challenge as in the writ petitions filed before the High Court. 5. As the elaborate arguments advanced in the course of the prolonged hearing have centered around the provisions of the Gujarat Act, it may be convenient to take up the Gujarat cases in the first instance. The answer to the issues arising therein would, in any way, effectively decide the issues arising in the Bombay cases also as well as in the transferred cases and the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

6 6. The relevant provisions of the Gujarat Act defining the expressions “building”, “land” and “mobile tower” are as follows: “ Section 2(5) “building” includes a house, out-house, stable, shed, hut and other enclosure or structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever whether used as a human dwelling or otherwise, and also includes verandahs, fixed platforms, plinths, doorsteps, walls including compound walls and fencing and the like. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 2(30) “land” includes land which is being built upon or is built upon or covered with water, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by legislative enactment over any street. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 2(34AA) “Mobile tower” means a temporary or permanent structure, equipment or instrument erected or installed on land or upon any part of the building or premises for providing telecommunication services.”

7 7. Section 127(1) of the Gujarat Act, the charging section, is in the following terms: “ 127. Taxes to be imposed under this Act .- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the Corporation shall impose the following taxes, namely:- (a) Property taxes either under section 129 or under section 141AA. (b) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals. (c) a tax on mobile towers: Provided that xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. Section 129 of the Gujarat Act deals with different components of the property tax which can be levied under the Act. Briefly put the said components are water tax; conservancy and sewerage tax; general tax of not less than 12% but not exceeding 30% of the rateable value etc. 9. Section 141AA deals with the rate at which water tax, conservancy tax and sewerage tax are to be imposed. Section

8 141B of the Gujarat Act provides for the rate at which the general tax is leviable. 10. Section 145A (inserted by the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011) provides for tax on mobile towers at rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government. Such tax which is levied on mobile towers is to be collected from persons engaged in providing telecommunication services through service towers. Section 145A is in the following terms. “ 145A Tax on mobile towers .- (1) A tax at the rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government in this behalf from time to time shall be levied on mobile towers from the person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers. (2) The Corporation shall from year to year, in accordance with Section 99, determine the rates at which the tax shall be levied."

9 11. By the aforesaid Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011 similar provisions for levy of tax on mobile towers have been inserted in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and also the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. 12. The short contention of the cellular operators advanced before the High Court is that Section 127(1)(c) read with Section 145A of the Gujarat Act are legislatively incompetent as mobile towers are beyond the scope of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which is in the following terms. “ 49. Taxes on lands and buildings .” 13. The High Court thought it proper to accept the said contention and on that basis to hold that levy of tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Act is ultra vires the Constitution except insofar as the Cabin that houses the BTS system is concerned.

10 14. Two significant aspects connected to the issues arising may be taken note of at the outset. The meaning of any Legislative Entry e.g. “Taxes on lands and buildings” (Entry 49 of List II) should not be understood by reference to the definition of the very same expressions appearing in a statute traceable to the particular Legislative Entry. In the present case, though the Gujarat Act defines the expressions “land” and “building”, as rightly held by the High Court, it would be self defeating to understand the meaning and scope of Entry 49 of List II by reference to the definition clauses in the Gujarat Act. Definitions contained in the statute may at times be broad and expansive; beyond the natural meaning of the words or may even contain deeming provisions. Though the wide meaning that may be ascribed to a particular expression by the definition in a statute will have to be given effect to, if the statute is otherwise found to be valid, it will, indeed, be a contradiction in terms to test the validity of the statute on the

11 touchstone of it being within the Legislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in the statute. 15. The second aspect, mentioned above, is one concerning the permissible operation of two different statutes relatable to two different Entries in List I or II or even in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This has been acknowledged by the High Court, in the impugned Order, by accepting that even if a mobile tower is a part of the apparatus pertaining to “telegraphs” covered by Entry 31 of List I, yet, the Gujarat Act could still co-exist as a statute levying a tax on lands and buildings so long and if only mobile towers can come within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid expressions “land and building” in Entry 49 of List II. The endeavour, therefore, must be to trace out the true meaning of the expressions “land and building” appearing against Entry 49 of List II by a correct application of the parameters and principles governing the interpretation of a Constitutional

12 provision specially an Entry in any of the legislative fields under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 16. Certain accepted and settled principles of Constitutional interpretation may now be taken note of. It will not be necessary to enter into any detailed deliberations and debate in this regard in view of the undisturbed precedents on which such principles have come to rest. Broadly and illustratively some of the principles which have been culled out from the decisions of this Court are enumerated hereinbelow. (i) In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Legislative Entry, a broad, liberal and expansive interpretation is to be preferred as the meaning of an Entry is always inclusive. [ Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 ] (ii) Principles of interpretation of a statute are not foreign and altogether irrelevant for the purposes of interpreting a constitutional 1 (1990) 1 SCC 109 Para 67

13 provision and/or a specific Legislative Entry. [ Good Year India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2 ] (iii) A Constitution is an organic document that must grow and live with the times. [ State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd . 3 ] (iv) The spirit of the Constitution, the constitutional goals; and the constitutional philosophy must guide the broad and liberal interpretation of a Legislative Entry. [ State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd . 4 ] (v) The dictionary meaning and the common parlance test can also be adopted. [ Trutuf Safety Glass Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 5 ] (vi) Words and expressions in a constitutional provision or Legislative Entry should not be given an unnatural meaning. [ India Cement vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6 ] 2 AIR 1990 SC 781 Para 17 3 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 50 4 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 31 5 (2007) 7 SCC 242 Para 13 6 (1990) 1 SCC 12 Para 18

14 (vii) If a general word is used in a constitutional Entry, it must be construed as to extend all ancillary and subsidiary matters that can be reasonably included. [ Jagannath Baksh Singh vs. State of U.P. 7 ; Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. & Ors. vs. U.O.I. 8 .] The abovesaid principles which are firmly entrenched as principles of Constitutional interpretation must be borne in mind while proceeding further in the case. 17. In re. The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 9 , a Bench of nine Judges of this Court has observed that, “ Neither the Union nor the States can claim unlimited rights as regards the area of taxation. The right has been hedged in by considerations of respective powers and responsibilities of the Union in relation to the States, and those of the States in relation to citizens inter se or in relation to the Union. Part XII of the Constitution relates to Finances. At the very 7 AIR 1962 SC 1563 Para 10 8 (1989) 3 SCC 698 Para 14 9 1964 (3) SCR 787

15 outset Article 265 lays down that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” That authority has to be found in the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule subject to the provisions of Part XI which deals with relations between the Union and the States, particularly Chapter I thereof relating to legislative relations and distribution of legislative powers with special reference to Article 246.” 18. Article 246 is in the following terms: (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”). (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”). (3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List”). (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India

16 not included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List” 19. Though Article 246 has often been understood to be laying down the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, it must be qualified that such supremacy, if any, is extremely limited and very subtle. This has to be said when the federal structure of the Indian Union has been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution. Both, the Central and the State legislatures, are competent to enact laws in any matters in their respective Lists i.e. List I and List II. Conflict or encroachments must be ironed out by the Courts and only on a failure to do so the provisions of Article 246 will apply. Insofar as the common List i.e. List III is concerned, any repugnancy in law making by the Union and State Legislatures is dealt with by Article 254 which gives primacy to the Parliamentary law over the State law subject to the provisions of clause (2) of Article 254 of the

17 Constitution which again is subject to a proviso which may indicate some amount of Parliamentary supremacy. 20. The fields of taxation on which the Union Parliament and State legislatures are competent to enact legislations to meet the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution are clearly indicated in the respective Lists. While there can be no encroachment either way, it is possible that in a given situation though there may be some similarity between the taxes levied by a Central and a State enactment, both can co-exist having regard to the subject of the levy. A tax on income derived from land and a tax on the land itself wherein the income or earning therefrom forms the basis of the rates of the levy of tax is one such example. The above has been illustrated only to answer the arguments advanced before us on view expressed, in the order under challenge, by the High Court that even if it is assumed that the cellular operators are right in contending that mobile towers are covered by the field

18 “telegraphs” (Entry 31 of List I), it cannot be said that if mobile towers can come within the fold of Entry 49 of List II, such a legislation would be legislatively incompetent. 21. The Constitutional scheme with respect to financial relations between the Union and the State is dealt with by Part XII of the Constitution. The scheme discernible contemplates an equitable distribution of revenues between the Centre and the States. Though the Union and each of the federating units have their respective consolidated funds, the financial arrangements and adjustments that are to be found in the different provisions of Part XII of the Constitution would indicate an attempt at equitable distribution of revenues between the Union and the federating units even though such revenue may be derived from taxes and duties imposed by the Union and collected by it or through the agencies of the States. A perusal of the legislative entries relating to taxes imposable by the Central and the State legislatures do indicate

19 that the larger share of the revenue goes to the Union because of the very nature of the taxes leviable by the Union Parliament which would stand credited to the consolidated fund of the Union. The allocation of revenue heads/taxation power in the States certainly shows a disequilibrium which, however, is sought to be balanced by the constitutional scheme aforementioned, namely, equitable distribution of revenues between the Union and the States even though such revenues may be derived from taxes and duties imposed by the Union and collected by it. This aspect of the Constitutional scheme which has been echoed in para 50 of the decision in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (supra) has to be kept in mind as the discussions unfold. 22. We may now see what a Mobile Tower is and consists of. In technical terms a Mobile Tower is called a “Base Transceiver Station.” It involves the making of structure consisting of the following:

20 a. A pre-fabricated shelter made of insulating PUF material made of fibres. b. Electronic Panel. c. Base Transceiver Station (BTS) and other radio transmission and reception equipment. d. A diesel generator set. e. Six poles of 6 to 9 meters length each made of hollow steel galvanized pipes. A mobile tower is constructed either on vacant land or on the terrace of existing buildings on the basis of agreements with the owners of such properties. 23. To answer the question as to whether such mobile towers can come within the fold of ‘land and building’ appearing in Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule it will be useful to take notice of the meanings of the two expressions as appearing in the leading judicial and English dictionaries. A comprehensive list of the different meanings expressed in different works so far as the two expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ are concerned are set out below.

21 LAND Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines that ‘land’, or ‘lands’, not only means the surface of the ground, but also everything (except gold or silver mines) on or over or under it, for Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Co. Litt. 4 a; Touch. 91; 2 Bl. Com. 18; Lord Coke calls the earth “the suburbs of heaven”). Black’s Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) defines that ‘ land’ means an immovable and indestructible three-dimensional area consisting of a portion of the earth’s surface, the space above and below the surface, and everything growing on or permanently affixed to it. The lexicographer further observes, “In its legal significance, ‘land’ is not restricted to the earth’s surface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is it confined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds such things as gases and liquids. A definition of ‘land’ along the lines of ‘a mass of physical matter occupying space’ also is not sufficient, for an owner of land may remove part or all of that physical matter, as nevertheless retain as part of his ‘land’ the space that remains. Ultimately, as a juristic concept, ‘land’ is simply an area of three-dimensional space, its position being identified by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth’s surface. ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space, although, as we shall see, the owner of that space may well own those fixed contents. Land is immovable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable, it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible. The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.” Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2 nd Edition, 1988). P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observes that the word ‘land’ is a comprehensive term, including standing trees, buildings, fences, stones, and

22 waters, as well as the earth we stand on. Standing trees must be regarded as part and parcel of the land in which they are rooted and from which they draw their support. The word ‘land’, in the ordinary legal sense, comprehends everything of a fixed and permanent nature and therefore embraces growing trees. 48 All 498 95 IC 150 = 24 ALJ 583 = 1926 All 689. BUILDING Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes that what is a ‘building’ must always be a question of degree and circumstances: its “ordinary and usual meaning is, a block of brick or stone work, covered in by a roof” ( per Esher M.R., Moir v. Williams [1892] 1 Q.B. 264). The ordinary and natural meaning of the word ‘building’ includes the fabric and the ground on which it stands ( Victoria City v. Bishop of Vancouver Island [1921] A.C. 384, at p. 390). Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes that ‘building’ is a structure designed for habitation, shelter, storage, trade, manufacture, religion, business, education and the like. A ‘building’ is also a structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observes that ‘building’ is a house, out-house, garage or any other structure which cannot be erected without the ground on which it is to stand; the expression ‘building’ includes, the fabric of which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls stand and the ground within those walls. ( per D.G. Gouse & Co. v. State of Kerala , AIR 1980 SC 271 [Kerala Building Tax Act (1975) S. 2(3)]) DICTIONARY MEANING OF LAND AND BUILDING

23 ‘ Building ’ is something with a roof and walls, such as a house or factory. ( Collins Dictionary of the English Language , First Edition, 1979) ‘ Land ’ refers to the solid part of the surface of the earth, as distinct from seas, lakes, etc. ( Collins Dictionary of the English Language , First Edition, 1979) All other English dictionaries convey a more or less similar meaning, namely, as understood in common parlance – an enclosed space used for human use and dwelling. 24. A cardinal principle of interpretation of a Legislative Entry in any of the Lists of the Seventh Schedule is to treat the words and expressions therein as inclusive in meaning and give the same all possible flexibility instead of restricting such meaning to the perceptions contemporaneous with the times when the Constitution was framed. The Constitution, an organic document, has to be allowed a natural growth by such a process of interpretation. Interpretation of a Legislative Entry has to grow and keep up with the pace of times.

24 25. We may now see how judicial opinion has dealt with the question. In Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others 10 this Court had occasion to consider the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in Entry 49 List II in the context of the provisions of the very same Act (as applicable to Bombay). Sufficient illumination and elucidation flows from such consideration which is available in para 44 of the report which may be very conveniently extracted below. “ 44. Mr. Tarkunde on behalf of the petitioner Company has urged that under Entry 49 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State Legislature is empowered to enact a law relating to taxes on lands and buildings. It is submitted that the State Legislature has no competence under the above entry to enact a law for levying tax in respect of the area occupied by the underground supply lines. The word “land”, according to the learned counsel, denotes the surface of the land and not the underground strata. We are unable to accede to the above submission. Entry 49 of List II contemplates a levy of tax on lands and buildings or both as units. Such tax is directly imposed on lands and buildings and bears a definite relation to it. Section 129 makes provision for the levy of property tax on buildings and lands. Section 139 merely specifies the persons who would be primarily responsible for the payment of that tax. The word “land” includes not only the face of the 10 (1975) 2 SCC 175

25 earth, but everything under or over it, and has in its legal signification an indefinite extent upward and downward, giving rise to the maxim, Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum (see p. 163, 73 Corpus Juris Secondum ). According to Broom’s Legal Maxims , 10th Edn., p. 259, not only has land in its legal signification an indefinite extent upwards, but in law it extends also downwards, so that whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth by the common law belongs to the owner of the surface (not merely the surface, but all the land down to the centre of the earth and up to the heavens) and hence the word “land” which is nomen generalissimum , includes, not only the face of the earth, but everything under it or over it.” 26. In Goodricke Group Ltd. and Others vs. State of W.B. and Others 11 cess imposed on green tea (leaves) by weight was held to be a tax on land and not on the produce. In an earlier decision in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee vs. Local Board of Barpeta 12 a levy on holding a market was held to be essentially a levy on land and, therefore, authorized by Entry 49 List II though the levy was imposed only on the days when the market was held. This Court, in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee (supra) had inter alia held that, “ It follows therefore, that the use to which the land is put can be taken into account in imposing a tax on it within the meaning of entry 49 of List II, for the annual value of land 11 (1995) 1 Supp SCC 707 12 AIR1965 SC 1561

26 which can certainly be taken into account in imposing a tax for the purpose of this entry would necessarily depend upon the use to which the land is put. It is in the light of this settled proposition that we have to examine the scheme of S. 62 of the Act, which imposes the tax under challenge.” 27. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 13 the definitions of ‘land’ and ‘building’ in Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 were dealt with and considered by this Court and a broad and wide meaning of the said expressions was favoured. However, we may skip over the said part of the report in view of what has been earlier indicated by us, namely, that to test the vires of the provisions of the statute in question the scope and expanse of the words ‘land’ and ‘building’ has to be understood in the context of the provisions of the Legislative Entry (Entry 49 List II) and not the Statute relatable to the Entry. However, what would be of significance is to take into account the principles of interpretation which were followed by this Court in coming to its conclusions with regard to the true 13 AIR 1991 SC 686

27 meaning and scope of the expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ contained in the statute. As already observed by us principles of interpretation of the ordinary statute are not foreign to the principles of interpretation of the constitutional provisions. Paragraph 18 of the report in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) may now be noticed. 18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 14 interpreting Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court held that the section was enacted in the second half of the last century, but its meaning and content cannot remain static. The interpretation of every statutory provision must keep pace with changing concepts and the values and it must, to the extent to which its language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments through judicial interpretation so as to accord with the requirements of the fast changing society which is undergoing rapid social and economic transformation. The language of a statutory provision is not a static vehicle of ideas and concepts and as ideas and concepts change, as they are bound to do in any country like ours with the establishment of a democratic structure based on egalitarian values and aggressive developmental strategies, so must the meaning and content of the statutory provision undergo a change. It is elementary that law does not operate in a vacuum. It is not an antique to be taken down, dusted, admired and put back on the shelf, but rather it is a powerful instrument fashioned by society for the purpose of adjusting conflicts and tensions which arise by reason of clash between conflicting interests. It is, therefore, intended to serve a social purpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking into account the social, economic and political setting in which it is intended to operate. It is 14 1981 Supp SCC 87

28 here that a judge is called upon to perform a creative function. He has to inject flesh and blood in the dry skeleton provided by the legislature and by a process of dynamic interpretation, invest it with a meaning which will harmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and values and make it an effective instrument for delivering justice. The discussions that had preceded on the financial relations between the Union and the States would suggest a constitutional scheme wherein the federating States of the Indian Union are not destined to remain financially weak despite a situation where the Union undoubtedly has the upper hand by an allocation of the more lucrative subjects of taxation under the Seventh Schedule. Constitutionality of the Gujarat Act, in the above light, must be answered in favour of the State. 28. Coming specifically to the expression “building” appearing in Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule in view of the settled principles that would be applicable to find out the true and correct meaning of the said expression it will be difficult to confine the meaning of the expression “building” to

29 a residential building as commonly understood or a structure raised for the purpose of habitation. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. 15 a tax on a building housing a factory has been understood to be a tax on building and not on the factory or its plant and machinery. A general word like ‘building’ must be construed to reasonably extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters and the common parlance test adopted by the High Court to hold the meaning of levy of tax on building and machinery does not appear to be right keeping in mind the established and accepted principles of interpretation of a constitutional provision or a Legislative Entry. A dynamic, rather than a pedantic view has to be preferred if the constitutional document is to meet the challenges of a fast developing world throwing new frontiers of challenge and an ever changing social order. 15 AIR 1975 SC 2037 = (1975) 2 SCC 274

30 29. The regulatory power of the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchyats in the matter of installation, location and operation of ‘Mobile Towers’ even before the specific incorporation of Mobile Towers in the Gujarat Act by the 2011 Amendment and such control under the Bombay Act at all points of time would also be a valuable input to accord a reasonable extension of such power and control by understanding the power of taxation on ‘Mobile Towers’ to be vested in the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. 30. The measure of the levy, though may not be determinative of the nature of the tax, cannot also be altogether ignored in the light of the views expressed by this Court in Goodricke (supra). Under both the Acts read with the relevant Rules, tax on Mobile Towers is levied on the yield from the land and building calculated in terms of the rateable value of the land and building. Also the incidence of the tax is

31 not on the use of the plant and machinery in the Mobile Tower; rather it is on the use of the land or building, as may be, for purpose of the mobile tower. That the tax is imposed on the “person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers” (Section 145A of the Gujarat Act) merely indicates that it is the occupier and not the owner of the land and building who is liable to pay the tax. Such a liability to pay the tax by the occupier instead of the owner is an accepted facet of the tax payable on land and building under Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule. 31. Viewed in the light of the above discussion, if the definition of “land” and “building” contained in the Gujarat Act is to be understood, we do not find any reason as to why, though in common parlance and in everyday life, a mobile tower is certainly not a building, it would also cease to be a building for the purposes of Entry 49 List II so as to deny the State Legislature the power to levy a tax thereon. Such a law

32 can trace its source to the provisions Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 32. Though several other decisions of this Court and also of different High Courts have been placed before us we do not consider it necessary to refer to or to enter into any discussion of the propositions laid down in the said decisions as the views expressed in all the aforesaid cases pertain to the meaning of the expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ as appearing in the definition clause of the statutes in question. 33. We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court and answer the appeals arising from the order of the Bombay High Court; transferred cases and the writ petitions accordingly. However, we leave it open, so far as the cellular operators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to agitate the issue with regard to the retrospective operation of the assessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently,

33 and in the light of the above all the appeals, writ petitions and the transferred cases are disposed of. ……………… .....................,J. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ……………… .....................,J. ( PRAFULLA C. PANT ) NEW DELHI DECEMBER 16, 2016.

|i1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363 OF 2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(s)VERSUSGTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(s)WITHC.A. No. 5364/2013, C.A. No. 5365/2013, C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013, C.A. Nos. 6737-6738/2013, C.A. No.6739/2013, C.A. Nos. 6836-6926/2013, C.A. Nos.7865-7894/2013, C.A. No. 8114/2013, C.A. No.8115/2013, C.A. No. 8116/2013, C.A. No. 8117/2013,C.A. No.12209/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 362/2014, C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014, C.A. No.12211/2016 (arising out ofSLP(C) No. 12567/2014), C.A. No.12212/2016(arising out of SLP(C) No. 21521/2014), C.A.No.12213/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.22653/2014), C.A. Nos. 12214-12215/2016(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29803-29804/2014), C.A.No. 12216/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.29765/2014), C.A. No. 12217/2016 (arising out ofSLP(C) No. 31442/2014), C.A. No.12218/2016 (arisingout of SLP(C) No. 31986/2014), C.A. No.12220/2016(arising out of SLP(C) No. 24053/2014), C.A.No.12219/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3550/2015),C.A. No.12221/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.6149/2015), C.A. No. 12222/2016 (arising out ofSLP(C) No. 8705/2015), C.A. No.12223/2016 (arisingout of SLP(C) No. 9004/2015), C.A. No.12224/2016(arising out of SLP(C) No. 9104/2015), C.A.No.12225/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.37142/2016arising out of SLP.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015),C.A. No.12226/2016 (arising out of SLP(C)No.9233/2015), C.A. No.12227/2016 (arising out of2SLP(C) No.8698/2015), C.A. No.12228/2016(arising out of SLP(C) No.9620/2015), C.A. No.12229/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.10288/2015),C.A. No. 12230/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9827/2015), C.A. No.12231/2016 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 9994/2015), C.A. No.12232/2016 (arising out ofSLP(C) No.11479/2015), C.A. No.12233/2016(arising out of SLP(C) No. 15175/2015), C.A.No.12234/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28473/2015),C.A. No.12235/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.1457/2016), C.A. No. 12236/2016 (arising out ofSLP(C) No. 12563/2016), C.A. No. 5348/2015, W.P.(C)No.216/2015, W.P.(C) No.611/2015, W.P.(C)No.577/2015, T.C.(C) No.108/2015, T.C.(C) No.128/2015, T.C.(C) No. 129/2015, T.C.(C) No. 130/2015and T.C.(C) No. 131/2015 J U D G M E N TRANJAN GOGOI, J.Delay condoned. Leave granted in all the special leavepetitions.2. This group of cases may be conveniently arranged in fourdifferent categories. The first are the appeals arising from thejudgment and order dated 24/25.04.2013 passed by the GujaratHigh Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat ProvincialMunicipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as â¬ StheGujarat Actâ¬ \235) as ultra vires the Constitution and on that basis3interdicting the levy of property tax on â¬ Smobile towersâ¬ \235. The HighCourt, by the impugned judgment, however, took the view thatthe Cabin in a mobile tower in which BTS system, details of

which are noticed below, is located, would be a building and,therefore, exigible to tax under the Gujarat Act. The StateGovernment and the different Municipal Corporations havechallenged the first part of the order of the High Court whereasthe Cellular operators have challenged the later part.3. The Bombay High Court which was in seisin of a somewhatsimilar challenge, by the order under challenge, has taken theview that the writ petitions challenging the levy of property tax onmobile towers should not be entertained and the aggrieved writpetitioners therein (cellular operators) should be left with theoption of exhausting the alternate remedies provided by the Act.This would be the third category of cases. In this regard, it mustbe noticed that in the Bombay Provincial Municipal CorporationsAct, 1949, the charging section does not specifically contemplatelevy of taxes on mobile towers as in the Gujarat Act. Theimpugned levy, nevertheless, was imposed on the reasoning thatmobile towers are buildings as defined in the Act. At this stage,4it must also be noticed that the Bombay Provincial MunicipalCorporations Act, 1949 was applicable to the State of Gujaratalso until the year 2011 when by the Gujarat Short Titles(Amendment) Act, 2011 the word â¬ ÜGujaratâ¬ "! has been inserted inplace of the word â¬ ÜBombayâ¬ "!.4. The fourth and fifth categories of cases would be the writpetitions raising identical issues which have been transferredfrom the Bombay High Court to this Court and the writ petitionsfiled before this Court by the cellular operators under Article 32of the Constitution raising a similar challenge as in the writpetitions filed before the High Court.5. As the elaborate arguments advanced in the course of theprolonged hearing have centered around the provisions of theGujarat Act, it may be convenient to take up the Gujarat cases inthe first instance. The answer to the issues arising therein would,in any way, effectively decide the issues arising in the Bombaycases also as well as in the transferred cases and the writpetitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.6. The relevant provisions of the Gujarat Act defining theexpressions â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235, â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 and â¬ Smobile towerâ¬ \235 are as follows:5â¬ S Section 2(5) â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235 includes a house, out-house,stable, shed, hut and other enclosure or structurewhether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or anyother material whatever whether used as a humandwelling or otherwise, and also includes verandahs,fixed platforms, plinths, doorsteps, walls includingcompound walls and fencing and the like.xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxSection 2(30) â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 includes land which is beingbuilt upon or is built upon or covered with water,benefits to arise out of land, things attached to theearth or permanently fastened to anything attached tothe earth and rights created by legislative enactmentover any street.xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxSection 2(34AA) â¬ SMobile towerâ¬ \235 means a temporary orpermanent structure, equipment or instrument erectedor installed on land or upon any part of the buildingor premises for providing telecommunication services.â¬ \2357. Section 127(1) of the Gujarat Act, the charging section, is inthe following terms:â¬ S 127. Taxes to be imposed under this Act .-(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Corporation shallimpose the following taxes, namely:-(a) Property taxes either under section 129 or undersection 141AA.(b) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals.(c) a tax on mobile towers:

Provided that xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx8. Section 129 of the Gujarat Act deals with differentcomponents of the property tax which can be levied under theAct. Briefly put the said components are water tax; conservancy6and sewerage tax; general tax of not less than 12% but notexceeding 30% of the rateable value etc.9. Section 141AA deals with the rate at which water tax,conservancy tax and sewerage tax are to be imposed. Section141B of the Gujarat Act provides for the rate at which the generaltax is leviable.10. Section 145A (inserted by the Gujarat Local AuthoritiesLaws (Amendment) Act, 2011) provides for tax on mobile towersat rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by theState Government. Such tax which is levied on mobile towers isto be collected from persons engaged in providingtelecommunication services through service towers. Section 145Ais in the following terms.â¬ S 145A Tax on mobile towers .- (1) A tax at the rates not exceeding those prescribedby order in writing by the State Government in thisbehalf from time to time shall be levied on mobiletowers from the person engaged in providingtelecommunication services through such mobiletowers.(2) The Corporation shall from year to year, inaccordance with Section 99, determine the rates atwhich the tax shall be levied."711. By the aforesaid Gujarat Local Authorities Laws(Amendment) Act, 2011 similar provisions for levy of tax onmobile towers have been inserted in the Gujarat MunicipalitiesAct, 1963 and also the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. 12. The short contention of the cellular operators advancedbefore the High Court is that Section 127(1)(c) read with Section145A of the Gujarat Act are legislatively incompetent as mobiletowers are beyond the scope of Entry 49 of List II of the SeventhSchedule to the Constitution which is in the following terms. â¬ S 49. Taxes on lands and buildings .â¬ \23513. The High Court thought it proper to accept the saidcontention and on that basis to hold that levy of tax on mobiletowers under the Gujarat Act is ultra vires the Constitutionexcept insofar as the Cabin that houses the BTS system isconcerned.14. Two significant aspects connected to the issues arising maybe taken note of at the outset. The meaning of any LegislativeEntry e.g. â¬ STaxes on lands and buildingsâ¬ \235 (Entry 49 of List II)should not be understood by reference to the definition of thevery same expressions appearing in a statute traceable to the8particular Legislative Entry. In the present case, though theGujarat Act defines the expressions â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 and â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235, asrightly held by the High Court, it would be self defeating tounderstand the meaning and scope of Entry 49 of List II byreference to the definition clauses in the Gujarat Act. Definitionscontained in the statute may at times be broad and expansive;beyond the natural meaning of the words or may even containdeeming provisions. Though the wide meaning that may beascribed to a particular expression by the definition in a statutewill have to be given effect to, if the statute is otherwise found tobe valid, it will, indeed, be a contradiction in terms to test thevalidity of the statute on the touchstone of it being within theLegislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in thestatute.15. The second aspect, mentioned above, is one concerning the

permissible operation of two different statutes relatable to twodifferent Entries in List I or II or even in List III of the SeventhSchedule to the Constitution. This has been acknowledged by theHigh Court, in the impugned Order, by accepting that even if amobile tower is a part of the apparatus pertaining to â¬ Stelegraphsâ¬ \2359covered by Entry 31 of List I, yet, the Gujarat Act could stillco-exist as a statute levying a tax on lands and buildings so longand if only mobile towers can come within the scope and ambit ofthe aforesaid expressions â¬ Sland and buildingâ¬ \235 in Entry 49 of ListII. The endeavour, therefore, must be to trace out the truemeaning of the expressions â¬ Sland and buildingâ¬ \235 appearingagainst Entry 49 of List II by a correct application of theparameters and principles governing the interpretation of aConstitutional provision specially an Entry in any of thelegislative fields under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.16. Certain accepted and settled principles of Constitutionalinterpretation may now be taken note of. It will not be necessaryto enter into any detailed deliberations and debate in this regardin view of the undisturbed precedents on which such principleshave come to rest. Broadly and illustratively some of theprinciples which have been culled out from the decisions of thisCourt are enumerated hereinbelow.(i) In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution,particularly the Legislative Entry, a broad, liberaland expansive interpretation is to be preferred as10the meaning of an Entry is always inclusive.[ Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State ofUttar Pradesh 1](ii) Principles of interpretation of a statute are notforeign and altogether irrelevant for the purposesof interpreting a constitutional provision and/or aspecific Legislative Entry. [ Good Year India Ltd.vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2](iii) A Constitution is an organic document that mustgrow and live with the times. [ State of WestBengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd . 3] (iv) The spirit of the Constitution, the constitutionalgoals; and the constitutional philosophy mustguide the broad and liberal interpretation of aLegislative Entry. [ State of West Bengal vs.Kesoram Industries Ltd . 4] (v) The dictionary meaning and the common parlancetest can also be adopted. [ Trutuf Safety GlassIndustries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax,U.P. 5](vi) Words and expressions in a constitutionalprovision or Legislative Entry should not be given1 (1990) 1 SCC 109 Para 672 AIR 1990 SC 781 Para 173 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 504 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Para 315 (2007) 7 SCC 242 Para 1311an unnatural meaning. [ India Cement vs. Stateof Tamil Nadu 6](vii) If a general word is used in a constitutional Entry,

it must be construed as to extend all ancillary andsubsidiary matters that can be reasonablyincluded. [ Jagannath Baksh Singh vs. Stateof U.P. 7; Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. &Ors. vs. U.O.I. 8.]The abovesaid principles which are firmly entrenched asprinciples of Constitutional interpretation must be borne in mindwhile proceeding further in the case.17. In re. The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea CustomsAct, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act,1944 9 , a Bench of nine Judges of this Court has observed that,â¬ S Neither the Union nor the States can claim unlimited rights asregards the area of taxation. The right has been hedged in byconsiderations of respective powers and responsibilities of theUnion in relation to the States, and those of the States inrelation to citizens inter se or in relation to the Union. Part XIIof the Constitution relates to Finances. At the very outsetArticle 265 lays down that â¬ SNo tax shall be levied or collectedexcept by authority of law.â¬ \235 That authority has to be found inthe three Lists in the Seventh Schedule subject to theprovisions of Part XI which deals with relations between theUnion and the States, particularly Chapter I thereof relating to6 (1990) 1 SCC 12 Para 187 AIR 1962 SC 1563 Para 108 (1989) 3 SCC 698 Para 149 1964 (3) SCR 78712legislative relations and distribution of legislative powers withspecial reference to Article 246.â¬ \235 18. Article 246 is in the following terms:(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3),Parliament has exclusive power to make laws withrespect to any of the matters enumerated in List I inthe Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred toas the â¬ SUnion Listâ¬ \235).(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament,and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any Statealso, have power to make laws with respect to any ofthe matters enumerated in List III in the SeventhSchedule (in this Constitution referred to as theâ¬ SConcurrent Listâ¬ \235).(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of anyState has exclusive power to make laws for such Stateor any part thereof with respect to any of the mattersenumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in thisConstitution referred to as the â¬ SState Listâ¬ \235).(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect toany matter for any part of the territory of India notincluded (in a State) notwithstanding that such matteris a matter enumerated in the State Listâ¬ \23519. Though Article 246 has often been understood to be layingdown the principle of Parliamentary supremacy, it must bequalified that such supremacy, if any, is extremely limited andvery subtle. This has to be said when the federal structure of theIndian Union has been recognised as a basic feature of theConstitution. Both, the Central and the State legislatures, arecompetent to enact laws in any matters in their respective Lists13i.e. List I and List II. Conflict or encroachments must be ironedout by the Courts and only on a failure to do so the provisions ofArticle 246 will apply. Insofar as the common List i.e. List III isconcerned, any repugnancy in law making by the Union andState Legislatures is dealt with by Article 254 which givesprimacy to the Parliamentary law over the State law subject to

the provisions of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitutionwhich again is subject to a proviso which may indicate someamount of Parliamentary supremacy. 20. The fields of taxation on which the Union Parliament andState legislatures are competent to enact legislations to meet theconstitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution areclearly indicated in the respective Lists. While there can be noencroachment either way, it is possible that in a given situationthough there may be some similarity between the taxes levied bya Central and a State enactment, both can co-exist having regardto the subject of the levy. A tax on income derived from land anda tax on the land itself wherein the income or earning therefromforms the basis of the rates of the levy of tax is one suchexample. The above has been illustrated only to answer the14arguments advanced before us on view expressed, in the orderunder challenge, by the High Court that even if it is assumedthat the cellular operators are right in contending that mobiletowers are covered by the field â¬ Stelegraphsâ¬ \235 (Entry 31 of List I), itcannot be said that if mobile towers can come within the fold ofEntry 49 of List II, such a legislation would be legislativelyincompetent. 21. The Constitutional scheme with respect to financialrelations between the Union and the State is dealt with by PartXII of the Constitution. The scheme discernible contemplates anequitable distribution of revenues between the Centre and theStates. Though the Union and each of the federating units havetheir respective consolidated funds, the financial arrangementsand adjustments that are to be found in the different provisionsof Part XII of the Constitution would indicate an attempt atequitable distribution of revenues between the Union and thefederating units even though such revenue may be derived fromtaxes and duties imposed by the Union and collected by it orthrough the agencies of the States. A perusal of the legislativeentries relating to taxes imposable by the Central and the State15legislatures do indicate that the larger share of the revenue goesto the Union because of the very nature of the taxes leviable bythe Union Parliament which would stand credited to theconsolidated fund of the Union. The allocation of revenueheads/taxation power in the States certainly shows adisequilibrium which, however, is sought to be balanced by theconstitutional scheme aforementioned, namely, equitabledistribution of revenues between the Union and the States eventhough such revenues may be derived from taxes and dutiesimposed by the Union and collected by it. This aspect of theConstitutional scheme which has been echoed in para 50 of thedecision in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.,(supra) has to be kept in mind as the discussions unfold.22. We may now see what a Mobile Tower is and consists of. Intechnical terms a Mobile Tower is called a â¬ SBase TransceiverStation.â¬ \235 It involves the making of structure consisting of thefollowing:a. A pre-fabricated shelter made of insulatingPUF material made of fibres.b. Electronic Panel.c. Base Transceiver Station (BTS) and other radiotransmission and reception equipment.16d. A diesel generator set.e. Six poles of 6 to 9 meters length each made ofhollow steel galvanized pipes.A mobile tower is constructed either on vacant land or on theterrace of existing buildings on the basis of agreements with theowners of such properties.23. To answer the question as to whether such mobile towers

can come within the fold of â¬ Üland and buildingâ¬ "! appearing inEntry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule it will be useful to takenotice of the meanings of the two expressions as appearing in theleading judicial and English dictionaries. A comprehensive list ofthe different meanings expressed in different works so far as thetwo expressions â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! and â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! are concerned are set outbelow.LANDStroudâ¬ "!s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines that â¬ Ülandâ¬ "!,or â¬ Ülandsâ¬ "!, not only means the surface of the ground, but alsoeverything (except gold or silver mines) on or over or under it,for Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Co.Litt. 4 a; Touch. 91; 2 Bl. Com. 18; Lord Coke calls the earthâ¬ Sthe suburbs of heavenâ¬ \235).Blackâ¬ "!s Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) defines that â¬ Ü landâ¬ "!means an immovable and indestructible three-dimensional areaconsisting of a portion of the earthâ¬ "!s surface, the space aboveand below the surface, and everything growing on orpermanently affixed to it. The lexicographer further observes,â¬ SIn its legal significance, â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! is not restricted to the earthâ¬ "!ssurface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is itconfined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds suchthings as gases and liquids. A definition of â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! along the lines17of â¬ Üa mass of physical matter occupying spaceâ¬ "! also is notsufficient, for an owner of land may remove part or all of thatphysical matter, as nevertheless retain as part of his â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! thespace that remains. Ultimately, as a juristic concept, â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! issimply an area of three-dimensional space, its position beingidentified by natural or imaginary points located by reference tothe earthâ¬ "!s surface. â¬ ÜLandâ¬ "! is not the fixed contents of thatspace, although, as we shall see, the owner of that space maywell own those fixed contents. Land is immovable, as distinctfrom chattels, which are moveable, it is also, in its legalsignificance, indestructible. The contents of the space may bephysically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself,and so the â¬ Ülandâ¬ "!, remains immutable.â¬ \235 Peter Butt, Land Law 9(2 nd Edition, 1988).P. Ramanatha Aiyarâ¬ "!s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observesthat the word â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! is a comprehensive term, includingstanding trees, buildings, fences, stones, and waters, as well asthe earth we stand on. Standing trees must be regarded as partand parcel of the land in which they are rooted and from whichthey draw their support. The word â¬ Ülandâ¬ "!, in the ordinary legalsense, comprehends everything of a fixed and permanent natureand therefore embraces growing trees. 48 All 498 95 IC 150 =24 ALJ 583 = 1926 All 689.BUILDINGStroudâ¬ "!s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes thatwhat is a â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! must always be a question of degree andcircumstances: its â¬ Sordinary and usual meaning is, a block ofbrick or stone work, covered in by a roofâ¬ \235 ( per Esher M.R., Moirv. Williams [1892] 1 Q.B. 264). The ordinary and naturalmeaning of the word â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! includes the fabric and theground on which it stands ( Victoria City v. Bishop of VancouverIsland [1921] A.C. 384, at p. 390).Blackâ¬ "!s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) observes that â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "!is a structure designed for habitation, shelter, storage, trade,manufacture, religion, business, education and the like. Aâ¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! is also a structure or edifice enclosing a space withinits walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof.P. Ramanatha Aiyarâ¬ "!s Law Lexicon (Second Edition) observesthat â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! is a house, out-house, garage or any otherstructure which cannot be erected without the ground on whichit is to stand; the expression â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! includes, the fabric of

which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls standand the ground within those walls. ( per D.G. Gouse & Co. v.State of Kerala , AIR 1980 SC 271 [Kerala Building Tax Act18(1975) S. 2(3)])DICTIONARY MEANING OF LAND AND BUILDINGâ¬ Ü Building â¬ "! is something with a roof and walls, such as a houseor factory. ( Collins Dictionary of the English Language , FirstEdition, 1979)â¬ Ü Land â¬ "! refers to the solid part of the surface of the earth, asdistinct from seas, lakes, etc. ( Collins Dictionary of theEnglish Language , First Edition, 1979)All other English dictionaries convey a more or less similarmeaning, namely, as understood in common parlance â¬ anenclosed space used for human use and dwelling.24. A cardinal principle of interpretation of a Legislative Entryin any of the Lists of the Seventh Schedule is to treat the wordsand expressions therein as inclusive in meaning and give thesame all possible flexibility instead of restricting such meaning tothe perceptions contemporaneous with the times when theConstitution was framed. The Constitution, an organicdocument, has to be allowed a natural growth by such a processof interpretation. Interpretation of a Legislative Entry has togrow and keep up with the pace of times.25. We may now see how judicial opinion has dealt with thequestion. In Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat andOthers 10 this Court had occasion to consider the scope and10 (1975) 2 SCC 17519ambit of the provisions contained in Entry 49 List II in thecontext of the provisions of the very same Act (as applicable toBombay). Sufficient illumination and elucidation flows fromsuch consideration which is available in para 44 of the reportwhich may be very conveniently extracted below.â¬ S 44. Mr. Tarkunde on behalf of the petitioner Company hasurged that under Entry 49 of the State List in the SeventhSchedule to the Constitution, the State Legislature isempowered to enact a law relating to taxes on lands andbuildings. It is submitted that the State Legislature has nocompetence under the above entry to enact a law for levying taxin respect of the area occupied by the underground supplylines. The word â¬ Slandâ¬ \235, according to the learned counsel,denotes the surface of the land and not the underground strata.We are unable to accede to the above submission. Entry 49 ofList II contemplates a levy of tax on lands and buildings or bothas units. Such tax is directly imposed on lands and buildingsand bears a definite relation to it. Section 129 makes provisionfor the levy of property tax on buildings and lands. Section 139merely specifies the persons who would be primarily responsiblefor the payment of that tax. The word â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 includes not onlythe face of the earth, but everything under or over it, and has inits legal signification an indefinite extent upward anddownward, giving rise to the maxim, Cujus est solum ejus estusque ad coelum (see p. 163, 73 Corpus Juris Secondum ).According to Broomâ¬ "!s Legal Maxims , 10th Edn., p. 259, not onlyhas land in its legal signification an indefinite extent upwards,but in law it extends also downwards, so that whatever is in adirect line between the surface and the centre of the earth bythe common law belongs to the owner of the surface (not merelythe surface, but all the land down to the centre of the earth andup to the heavens) and hence the word â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 which is nomengeneralissimum , includes, not only the face of the earth, buteverything under it or over it.â¬ \23526. In Goodricke Group Ltd. and Others vs. State of W.B.

20and Others 11 cess imposed on green tea (leaves) by weight washeld to be a tax on land and not on the produce. In an earlierdecision in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee vs. Local Board ofBarpeta 12 a levy on holding a market was held to be essentiallya levy on land and, therefore, authorized by Entry 49 List IIthough the levy was imposed only on the days when the marketwas held. This Court, in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee (supra) hadinter alia held that,â¬ S It follows therefore, that the use to which the land is put canbe taken into account in imposing a tax on it within themeaning of entry 49 of List II, for the annual value of landwhich can certainly be taken into account in imposing a tax forthe purpose of this entry would necessarily depend upon theuse to which the land is put. It is in the light of this settledproposition that we have to examine the scheme of S. 62 of theAct, which imposes the tax under challenge.â¬ \235 27. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 13 thedefinitions of â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! and â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! in Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of theBombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 were dealtwith and considered by this Court and a broad and wide meaningof the said expressions was favoured. However, we may skipover the said part of the report in view of what has been earlier11 (1995) 1 Supp SCC 70712 AIR1965 SC 156113 AIR 1991 SC 68621indicated by us, namely, that to test the vires of the provisions ofthe statute in question the scope and expanse of the words â¬ Ülandâ¬ "!and â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! has to be understood in the context of theprovisions of the Legislative Entry (Entry 49 List II) and not theStatute relatable to the Entry. However, what would be ofsignificance is to take into account the principles ofinterpretation which were followed by this Court in coming to itsconclusions with regard to the true meaning and scope of theexpressions â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! and â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! contained in the statute. Asalready observed by us principles of interpretation of the ordinarystatute are not foreign to the principles of interpretation of theconstitutional provisions. Paragraph 18 of the report inMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) may nowbe noticed.18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 14 interpreting Section 123 ofthe Indian Evidence Act, this Court held that the section wasenacted in the second half of the last century, but its meaningand content cannot remain static. The interpretation of everystatutory provision must keep pace with changing concepts andthe values and it must, to the extent to which its languagepermits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments throughjudicial interpretation so as to accord with the requirements ofthe fast changing society which is undergoing rapid social andeconomic transformation. The language of a statutory provisionis not a static vehicle of ideas and concepts and as ideas and14 1981 Supp SCC 8722concepts change, as they are bound to do in any country likeours with the establishment of a democratic structure based onegalitarian values and aggressive developmental strategies, somust the meaning and content of the statutory provisionundergo a change. It is elementary that law does not operate ina vacuum. It is not an antique to be taken down, dusted,admired and put back on the shelf, but rather it is a powerfulinstrument fashioned by society for the purpose of adjusting

conflicts and tensions which arise by reason of clash betweenconflicting interests. It is, therefore, intended to serve a socialpurpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking intoaccount the social, economic and political setting in which it isintended to operate. It is here that a judge is called upon toperform a creative function. He has to inject flesh and blood inthe dry skeleton provided by the legislature and by a process ofdynamic interpretation, invest it with a meaning which willharmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and values andmake it an effective instrument for delivering justice.The discussions that had preceded on the financial relationsbetween the Union and the States would suggest a constitutionalscheme wherein the federating States of the Indian Union are notdestined to remain financially weak despite a situation where theUnion undoubtedly has the upper hand by an allocation of themore lucrative subjects of taxation under the Seventh Schedule.Constitutionality of the Gujarat Act, in the above light, must beanswered in favour of the State. 28. Coming specifically to the expression â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235 appearingin Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule in view of the settledprinciples that would be applicable to find out the true and23correct meaning of the said expression it will be difficult toconfine the meaning of the expression â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235 to a residentialbuilding as commonly understood or a structure raised for thepurpose of habitation. In Government of Andhra Pradesh andOthers vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. 15a tax on a buildinghousing a factory has been understood to be a tax on buildingand not on the factory or its plant and machinery. A generalword like â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! must be construed to reasonably extend to allancillary and subsidiary matters and the common parlance testadopted by the High Court to hold the meaning of levy of tax onbuilding and machinery does not appear to be right keeping inmind the established and accepted principles of interpretation ofa constitutional provision or a Legislative Entry. A dynamic,rather than a pedantic view has to be preferred if theconstitutional document is to meet the challenges of a fastdeveloping world throwing new frontiers of challenge and an everchanging social order. 29. The regulatory power of the Corporations, Municipalitiesand Panchyats in the matter of installation, location and15 AIR 1975 SC 2037 = (1975) 2 SCC 27424operation of â¬ ÜMobile Towersâ¬ "! even before the specific incorporationof Mobile Towers in the Gujarat Act by the 2011 Amendment andsuch control under the Bombay Act at all points of time wouldalso be a valuable input to accord a reasonable extension of suchpower and control by understanding the power of taxation onâ¬ ÜMobile Towersâ¬ "! to be vested in the State Legislature under Entry49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.30. The measure of the levy, though may not be determinativeof the nature of the tax, cannot also be altogether ignored in thelight of the views expressed by this Court in Goodricke (supra).Under both the Acts read with the relevant Rules, tax on MobileTowers is levied on the yield from the land and buildingcalculated in terms of the rateable value of the land and building.Also the incidence of the tax is not on the use of the plant andmachinery in the Mobile Tower; rather it is on the use of the landor building, as may be, for purpose of the mobile tower. That thetax is imposed on the â¬ Sperson engaged in providingtelecommunication services through such mobile towersâ¬ \235 (Section145A of the Gujarat Act) merely indicates that it is the occupierand not the owner of the land and building who is liable to pay25the tax. Such a liability to pay the tax by the occupier instead of

the owner is an accepted facet of the tax payable on land andbuilding under Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule. 31. Viewed in the light of the above discussion, if the definitionof â¬ Slandâ¬ \235 and â¬ Sbuildingâ¬ \235 contained in the Gujarat Act is to beunderstood, we do not find any reason as to why, though incommon parlance and in everyday life, a mobile tower is certainlynot a building, it would also cease to be a building for thepurposes of Entry 49 List II so as to deny the State Legislaturethe power to levy a tax thereon. Such a law can trace its sourceto the provisions Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to theConstitution. 32. Though several other decisions of this Court and also ofdifferent High Courts have been placed before us we do notconsider it necessary to refer to or to enter into any discussion ofthe propositions laid down in the said decisions as the viewsexpressed in all the aforesaid cases pertain to the meaning of theexpressions â¬ Ülandâ¬ "! and â¬ Übuildingâ¬ "! as appearing in the definitionclause of the statutes in question.33. We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the Gujarat26High Court and answer the appeals arising from the order of theBombay High Court; transferred cases and the writ petitionsaccordingly. However, we leave it open, so far as the cellularoperators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to agitate theissue with regard to the retrospective operation of theassessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof before theappropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently, and in the lightof the above all the appeals, writ petitions and the transferredcases are disposed of.â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦ .....................,J.( RANJAN GOGOI )â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦ .....................,J.( PRAFULLA C. PANT )NEW DELHIDECEMBER 16, 2016.1ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA[FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)WITHC.A. NO. 5364/2013C.A. NO. 5365/2013C.A. NO. 6385-6387/2013C.A. NO. 6737-6738/2013C.A. NO. 6739/2013C.A. NO. 6836-6926/2013C.A. NO. 7865-7894/2013C.A. NO. 8114/2013C.A. NO. 8115/2013C.A. NO. 8116/2013C.A. NO. 8117/2013C.A. NO.12209/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 362/2014C.A. NO. 2854-2855/2014C.A. NO.12211/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 12567/2014C.A. NO.12212/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 21521/2014C.A. NO.12213/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 22653/2014C.A. NO.12214-12215/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 29803-29804/20142C.A. NO.12216/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 29765/2014C.A. NO.12217/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 31442/2014

C.A. NO.12218/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 31986/2014C.A. NO.12219/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 3550/2015C.A. NO.12220/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 24053/2014C.A. NO.12221/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 6149/2015C.A. NO.12222/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 8705/2015C.A. NO.12223/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9004/2015C.A. NO.12224/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9104/2015C.A. NO.12225/2016 @ SLP(C) NO.37142/2016 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO.4938/2015C.A. NO.12226/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9233/2015C.A. NO.12227/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 8698/2015C.A. NO.12228/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9620/2015C.A. NO.12229/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 10288/2015C.A. NO.12230/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9827/2015C.A. NO.12231/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 9994/2015C.A. NO. 12232 /2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 11479/2015W.P.(C) NO. 216/2015C.A. NO.12233/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 15175/2015C.A. NO. 5348/2015W.P.(C) NO. 611/2015W.P.(C) NO. 577/2015T.C.(C) NO. 108/2015C.A. NO.12234/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 28473/20153T.C.(C) NO. 128/2015T.C.(C) NO. 130/2015T.C.(C) NO. 129/2015T.C.(C) NO. 131/2015C.A. NO.12235/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 1457/2016C.A. NO.12236/2016 @ SLP(C) NO. 12563/2016Date : 16/12/2016 These cases were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.For parties(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AORMr. Mohit Paul, AORMr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv.Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Adv.Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv.Mrs. Sumita Ray, AORMr. E. C. Agrawala, AORMr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Mrs. Gauri Subramanium, Adv.Mr. Ishan Das, Adv.Mr. Vishal Balecha, Adv.Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.Mr. Puneet Taneja, AORMr. Kunal Vajani, Adv.Mr. Charanjivi Sharma, Adv.Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AORMr. Vivek A. Vashi, AORMr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv.Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AORMr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AORMr Pavan Kumar, AORMr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.4Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AORfor M/s. Parekh & Co., AORMr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AORMr. V. N. Raghupathy, AORMr. D. M. Nargolkar, AORMr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AORMr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Mrs. Jayashree, Adv.Ms. Paromita Majumdar, Adv.

Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv.for M/s. J. S. Wad & Co., AORMr. Suhas Kadam, Adv.for M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., AORMs. Aparna Jha, AORMr. Arvind S. Avhad, AORMr. Arpit Rai, Adv.Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,AORMr. Ejaz Maqbool, AORMr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR.Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AORMr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.Mr. K.N. Rai, AORMr. Amol Chitale, Adv.Ms. Pragya Baghel, AOR5Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounced thejudgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'bleMr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant . Delay condoned. Leave granted in all the specialleave petitions.All the appeals, writ petitions and the transferredcases are disposed of in terms of the signed reportablejudgment.[VINOD LAKHINA]COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI]COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No.17294/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/07/2004 in WP No. 6079/1982 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS MUKHTIYAR SINGH Respondent(s) (office report for directions) Date : 07/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Adv. Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for, two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry in the office report dated 20 th September, 2016. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) SR.P.A. COURT MASTER

ÎITEM NO.30 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No.17294/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/07/2004in WP No. 6079/1982 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad)STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUSMUKHTIYAR SINGH Respondent(s)(office report for directions)Date : 07/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR [IN CHAMBERS]For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Adv. Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RAs prayed for, two weeks' time is granted to learnedcounsel for the petitioner to cure the defects pointedout by the Registry in the office report dated 20 thSeptember, 2016. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) SR.P.A. COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No. 17294/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/07/2004 in WP No. 6079/1982 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS MUKHTIYAR SINGH Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 05/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.R. Shamshad, adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List in the first week of November to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Sharda Kapoor ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, deletion of proforma respondents, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief, directions, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)

2 C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)

3 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9233/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9620/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, for permission to place addl. documents on record, Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9994/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 577/2015 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 108/2015 (With Office Report)

4 SLP(C) No. 28473/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 128/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 130/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 129/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 131/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1457/2016 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12563/2016 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, permission to file additional documents, Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 03/08/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Diksha Jhingan,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. K.N. Rai, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gauri Subramanim, Adv.

5 Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Mr. Aman Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Anush Raajan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv. Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv. Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kulshreshtha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kaul, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv. Mr. Rishab Gupta, Adv. Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghnath, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Ms. Dharita Malkan, Adv. Mr. Jitendr Malkan, Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv.

6 Mr. Gopal Jain Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rukhmini S.Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Ms. Promita Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co. Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.

7 Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Guliani, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. Written submissions, if any, may be filed within one week. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

\224?1ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents)WITHC.A. No. 5364/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013(With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, deletion of proformarespondents, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8114/2013(With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief, directions, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8115/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8116/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)2C.A. No. 8117/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 12567/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015

(With Interim Relief and Office Report)3 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9233/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9620/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, for permission to place addl.documents on record, Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9994/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 216/2015(With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report)W.P.(C) No. 611/2015(With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 577/2015(With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 108/2015(With Office Report)4 SLP(C) No. 28473/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 128/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 130/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 129/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 131/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1457/2016(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment, permission to file additional documents, exemption fromfiling O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12563/2016(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, permission to file additional documents, Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 03/08/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Preetesh Kapoor,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv.Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv.Ms. Diksha Jhingan,Adv.Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv.Mr. K.N. Rai, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Ms. Gauri Subramanim, Adv.5Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.Mr. Ishan Das, Adv.Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.Mr. Aman Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv.Mr. Anush Raajan, Adv.Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv.Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv.Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv.Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.Mr. Ajit Kulshreshtha, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv.Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat, Adv.Mr. Rohit Kaul, Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv.Mr. Rishab Gupta, Adv.Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.Mr. Dhananjay Bhaskar, Adv.Mr. Ravi Raghnath, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv.Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv.Ms. Dharita Malkan, Adv.Mr. Jitendr Malkan, Adv.Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv.6Mr. Gopal Jain Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Rukhmini S.Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.

Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv.Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv.Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Ms. Promita Majumdar, Adv.Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.7Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.Ms. Pinki Anand, ASGMs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv.Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv.Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv.Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv.Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Adv.Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Nikhil Guliani, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard the learned counsels for the partiesat length.Hearing concluded.Judgment reserved.Written submissions, if any, may be filedwithin one week.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

1 ITEM NO.101(PH) COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, deletion of proforma respondents, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief, directions, Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013

2 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015

3 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9233/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9620/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, for permission to place addl. documents on record, Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9994/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With Office Report)

4 W.P.(C) No. 577/2015 (With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 108/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 28473/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 128/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 130/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 129/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 131/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1457/2016 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12563/2016 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, permission to file additional documents, Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 28/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Ms. Diksha Jhingan,Adv.

5 Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gauri Sbramanim, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Ms. Jai Shree Viswanathan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv. Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv. Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shaily Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukharjee, Adv. Ms. S. Mallik, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Rishab Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.

6 Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Ms. Dharita Malkan, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rukhmini S.Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Ms. Promita Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co. Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.

7 Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Nagar, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Guliani, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard-in-part. For further hearing, list these matters on 3 rd August, 2016. (Neetu Khajuria) Court Master (Asha Soni) Court Master

R<1ITEM NO.101(PH) COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents)WITHC.A. No. 5364/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013(With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, deletion of proformarespondents, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8114/2013(With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief, directions, Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8115/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8116/20132(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8117/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 12567/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/20153

(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9233/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9620/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, for permission to place addl.documents on record, Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9994/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 216/2015(With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing O.T., Interim Relief and Office Report)W.P.(C) No. 611/2015(With Office Report)4 W.P.(C) No. 577/2015(With Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 108/2015(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 28473/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 128/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 130/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 129/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 131/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1457/2016(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment, permission to file additional documents, exemption fromfiling O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12563/2016(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, permission to file additional documents, Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 28/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Preetesh Kapoor,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv.Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.Ms. Diksha Jhingan,Adv.5Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Ms. Gauri Sbramanim, Adv.Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.Mr. Ishan Das, Adv.Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv.Ms. Jai Shree Viswanathan, Adv.Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv.Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv.Mr. K.Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv.Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.Ms. Shaily Bhasin, Adv.Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv.Ms. Sadapurna Mukharjee, Adv. Ms. S. Mallik, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.Mr. Rishab Gupta, Adv.Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.Mr. Lakshmeesh Kamath, Adv.Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.6 Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv.Ms. Dharita Malkan, Adv.Mr. Gopal Jain Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. Stephenie Sonawane, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Mr. Rukhmini S.Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv.Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. K.B. Gwen, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Ms. Promita Majumdar, Adv.Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.7Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGMs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.Mr. S.S. Nagar, Adv.Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv.Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv.Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv.Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Adv.Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Nikhil Guliani, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard-in-part.For further hearing, list these matters on 3 rdAugust, 2016.(Neetu Khajuria)Court Master (Asha Soni)Court Master

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR DELETION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENTS) WITH C.A. NO. 5364/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 5365/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 6385-6387/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 6737-6738/2013 (WITH OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION) C.A. NO. 6739/2013 (WITH OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION) C.A. NO. 6836-6926/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DELETION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENTS AND AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 7865-7894/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8114/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND VACATING INTERIM RELIEF AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8115/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8116/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Page No. 1 of 6

C.A. NO. 8117/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 362/2014 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 2854-2855/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 12567/2014 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 21521/2014 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 22653/2014 SLP(C) NO. 29803-29804/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 29765/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 31442/2014 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 31986/2014 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 3550/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 24053/2014 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 6149/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 8705/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9004/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9104/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Page No. 2 of 6

S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 4938/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9233/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 8698/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9620/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 10288/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9827/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 9994/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 11479/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) W.P.(C) NO. 216/2015 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 15175/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 5348/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) W.P.(C) NO. 611/2015 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) W.P.(C) NO. 577/2015 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) T.C.(C) NO. 108/2015 OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 28473/2015 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Page No. 3 of 6

T.C.(C) NO. 128/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 130/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 129/2015 T.C.(C) NO. 131/2015 SLP(C) NO. 1457/2016 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(C) NO. 12563/2016 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 27/07/2016 These cases were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For parties (s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Ms. Soumi Kundu, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Page No. 4 of 6

Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr./Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AOR Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AOR Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek V. Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. Stephanie Sonawane, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. Gwen K.B., Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Page No. 5 of 6

Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mrs. Paromita Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co., AOR for Suhas Kadam, Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. R.S. Nagar, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List the matters for further hearing tomorrow i.e. 28 th July, 2016. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER Page No. 6 of 6

x9 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA/X/XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR DELETION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENTS) WITH C.A. NO. 5364/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 5365/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 6385-6387/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 6737-6738/2013 (WITH OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION) C.A. NO. 6739/2013 (WITH OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION) C.A. NO. 6836-6926/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DELETION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENTS AND AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 7865-7894/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8114/2013 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND VACATING INTERIM RELIEF AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8115/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 8116/2013 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVINOD LAKHINADate: 2016.07.2812:53:34 ISTReason: Page No.1 of 6C.A. NO. 8117/2013(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 362/2014(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND OFFICE REPORT)C.A. NO. 2854-2855/2014(WITH OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 12567/2014(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)

SLP(C) NO. 21521/2014(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 22653/2014SLP(C) NO. 29803-29804/2014(WITH OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 29765/2014(WITH OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 31442/2014(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 31986/2014(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 3550/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 24053/2014(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 6149/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 8705/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9004/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9104/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Page No.2 of 6S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 4938/2015(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9233/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 8698/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9620/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 10288/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9827/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 9994/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 11479/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)W.P.(C) NO. 216/2015(WITH OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 15175/2015

(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)C.A. NO. 5348/2015(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ANDEXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)W.P.(C) NO. 611/2015(WITH OFFICE REPORT)W.P.(C) NO. 577/2015(WITH OFFICE REPORT)T.C.(C) NO. 108/2015OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 28473/2015(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Page No.3 of 6T.C.(C) NO. 128/2015T.C.(C) NO. 130/2015T.C.(C) NO. 129/2015T.C.(C) NO. 131/2015SLP(C) NO. 1457/2016(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNEDJUDGMENT AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND EXEMPTIONFROM FILING O.T. AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)SLP(C) NO. 12563/2016(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ANDINTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)Date : 27/07/2016 These cases were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor parties (s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Ms. Soumi Kundu, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ishan Das, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR

Page No.4 of 6Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr./Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv.Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AORMr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AORMr. Nar Hari Singh, AORMr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv.Mr Pavan Kumar, AORMr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv.Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AORMr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Shamik Bhat, Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv.Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AORMr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AORMr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv.Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek V. Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. Stephanie Sonawane, Adv.Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv.for M/s. Parekh & Co., AORMr. V. N. Raghupathy, AORMr. D. M. Nargolkar, AORMr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. Gwen K.B., Adv.Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Page No.5 of 6 Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mrs. Paromita Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Jaya Khanna, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co., AOR for Suhas Kadam, Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.

Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. R.S. Nagar, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR Mr. C. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List the matters for further hearing tomorrow i.e.28th July, 2016. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Page No.6 of 6

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 12231/2016 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS -II (AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO), MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and condonation of delay in filing appeal) Date : 22/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. Ms. Hari Priya, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram S. Nankani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. (Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master [Signed order is placed on the file] 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO...... of 2016 (@ CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 12231/2016) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS -II (AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO), MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) O R D E R Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The civil appeals are dismissed. .......................J. [Madan B. Lokur] .......................J. [R.K. Agrawal] NEW DELHI; JULY 22, 2016.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMARDate: 2016.07.2516:49:38 ISTReason: 1ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). 12231/2016COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS -II(AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO), MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS

M/S ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and condonation ofdelay in filing appeal)Date : 22/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWALFor Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. Ms. Hari Priya, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram S. Nankani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.(Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master [Signed order is placed on the file] 2

MATTER FOR 13.07.2016 COURT NO.7 ITEM NO.109 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 216, 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ETC. ....PETITIONERS -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE- REPORT W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is certified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. " It is submitted that there are 13 respondent and notice has been issued to all the 13 respondents by registered A.D. M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have filed vakalatnama and counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 to 12. A.D. Card duly signed has been received on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 but no one has entered appearance so far. Respondent no. 13 has been served with notice as per tracking report of postal authorties but no one has entered appearance so far. Service of notice is complete. W.P.(C) NO. 577 & 611 OF 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation are already represented by their respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this Court and so is the State of Maharashtra. Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents by ordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. ..2/- Systém 3

-2- List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while the Assessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitioner and raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be made without the leave of this Court. " W.P.(C) NO. 577 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 13 respondents. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 6, 9 to 13 though served with notice. It is further submitted that Mr. Deepak M. Nargolkar, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 7 (copy of the same is being circulated herewith). Service of notice is complete. W.P.(C) NO. 611 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 10 respondents. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 10 though served with notice. Service of notice is complete. The writ petitions along with applications above-mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 12th day of July, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taheja, Advocate Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 12563/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28/03/2016 IN CWP NO. 9144/2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ANR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S) [WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT] Date : 04/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. Gwen K.B., Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kenjale, Adv. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the Special Leave Petition along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6149 of 2015 after the service is complete. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 12563 OF 2016 WITH INTERIM RELIEF GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6 th May, 2016, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Applications for exemption from filing official translation and from filing certified copy of the judgment are allowed. Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.6149 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the special leave petition. Issue notice on the prayer for de-sealing of the property, i.e. Mobile Tower site located at Gut. No.332, Hissa No.1A/1, Ambika Nagar, Indapur,TalukaIndapur,District Pune,Maharashtra,returnable in four weeks. ” Accordingly, notice on SLP as well as notice on the prayer for interim relief was issued to all the 15 respondents through registered post on 25 th May, 2016. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate has on 14 th June, 2016 filed vakalatmana and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. Neither A/D card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back in respect of all the other respondent so far. Service of notice is not complete in respect of Respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 to 15. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate Mr Abha R. Sharma, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PB4

úITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 12563/2016(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28/03/2016IN CWP NO. 9144/2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ANR PETITIONER(S) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)[WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT]Date : 04/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.Ms. Gwen K.B., Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv.Mr. Prashant Kenjale, Adv.Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingO R D E RList the Special Leave Petition along with SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No.6149 of 2015 after the service iscomplete. [VINOD LAKHINA]COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI]COURT MASTER

SEC. IIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 9827 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NOS. 19849 of 2015 AND 2421 & 2422 OF 2016 (Application for exemption from filing official translation and permission to file additional documents and official translation) SANGITA KUMARI ...PETITIONER VERSUS RAM SHUKHIT SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 11 th December, 2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “ In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned for one week to enable him to file translated copy of the relevant paper. ” It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner has filed additional document alongwith an application for permission to file the same and exemption from filing official translation which have been registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2421 and 2422 of 2016. Copy of the said application has been placed with the main paper book. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED this the 11 th Day of May, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C2/hs

MATTER FOR 11.05.2016 COURT NO.7 ITEM NO.106 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 216, 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ETC. ....PETITIONERS -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE- REPORT W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is certified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. " It is submitted that there are 13 respondent and notice has been issued to all the 13 respondents by registered A.D. M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have filed vakalatnama and counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 to 12. A.D. Card duly signed has been received on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 but no one has entered appearance so far. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover has been received in respect of respondent No. 13 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent No. 13. W.P.(C) NO. 577 & 611 OF 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation are already represented by their respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this Court and so is the State of Maharashtra. Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents by ordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. ..2/- Systém 3

-2- List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while the Assessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitioner and raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be made without the leave of this Court. " W.P.(C) NO. 577 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 13 respondents. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 but he has not filed counter affidavit so far. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 6, 9, 11 though served with notice. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 10, 12 & 13 so far. Counsel for the petitioner has not filed affidavit of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 10, 12 & 13 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 10, 12 & 13. W.P.(C) NO. 611 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 10 respondents. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 though served with notice. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. Counsel for the petitioner has not filed affidavit of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. It is lastly submitted that the matters above-mentioned were listed before the Court of Registrar on 18.01.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 6, despite due service. Fresh steps to be taken for service of respondent No.13 within four weeks. Registry to submit report regarding other respondents. ..3/- -3- Systém 3

W.P. C) No. 577/2015 Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for filing counter affidavit. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not filed the counter affidavit, despite last opportunity having been granted. As such, further opportunity is declined. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.3, 6, 9 and 11 despite due service. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner for filing affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.10, 12 and 13. W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 Respondent No.1 is common in this petition and W.P. (C)No.577/2015. As such, the Ld. Counsel to file vakalatnama in this petition also within four weeks. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner to file affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 10. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 7, despite due service. List again on 29.3.2016. “ As the main matter is on board, hence the writ petitions above-mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 10th day of May, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taheja, Advocate Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

1 ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12563/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/03/2016 in CWP No. 9144/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing O.T., permission to file additional documents, interim relief and office report) Date : 06/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for exemption from filing official translation and from filing certified copy of the judgment are allowed. Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.6149 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra

2 Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the special leave petition. Issue notice on the prayer for de-sealing of the property, i.e. Mobile Tower site located at Gut. No.332, Hissa No.1A/1, Ambika Nagar, Indapur, TalukaIndapur, District Pune, Maharashtra, returnable in four weeks. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Asha Soni) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 12563 OF 2016 GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. ....PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned judgment and final Order dated 28 th March, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CWP No. 9144 of 2015. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP (C) No. 8536 of 2016 entitled “ GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANR. vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.” between same parties arising from similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th March, 2016 when the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the same. (Copy of order dated 30 th March, 2016 is enclosed herewith for reference). It is also submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that SLP (C) No. 6149 of 2015 entitled “ GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS” referred to as Annexure P25 which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd February, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of order dated 23 rd February, 2015 is annexed as annexure P25 at page no. 105 of the paper books). The matter abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY , 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

\206 1 ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12563/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/03/2016 in CWP No. 9144/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing O.T., permission to file additional documents, interim relief and office report) Date : 06/05/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for exemption from filing official translation and from filing certified copy of the judgment are allowed. Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.6149 of 2015.Signature Not Verified In the meantime, it is clarified that, as anDigitally signed byNEETU KHAJURIADate: 2016.05.0712:31:41 ISTReason: interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra 2Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand onthe petitioners. However, such demand shall not beenforced against the petitioner during the pendencyof the special leave petition. Issue notice on the prayer for de-sealing ofthe property, i.e. Mobile Tower site located at

Gut. No.332, Hissa No.1A/1, Ambika Nagar, Indapur,TalukaIndapur, District Pune, Maharashtra,returnable in four weeks. (Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni) Sr.P.A. Court Master

ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K. ARUL Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015 VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 577/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 29/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Chinmay P Sharma, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R WP(C) NO.216/2015 Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 12 have not filed counter affidavit. Service on respondent nos. 4 to 6 is complete but none has entered appearance.

-2- Item No.53 Fresh steps have not been taken in respect of respondent no.13 despite order dt.18.1.2016. Be taken within two weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. WP(C) NO.577/2015 Respondent nos. 1,2,4 and 5 have failed to file counter affidavit despite last opportunity granted on 18.1.2016. Further opportunity is hereby declined. Opportunity to respondent nos.7 and 8 to file counter affidavit has been declined. Service of respondent nos. 3,6,9 and 11 is complete but none has entered appearance. Affidavit of dasti in respect of respondent nos. 10,12 and 13 has not been filed despite last opportunity given on 18.1.2016. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. WP(C) NO.611/2015 Service on respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 is complete but none has entered appearance. Affidavit of dasti in respect of respondent nos. 2,3 and 8 to 10 has not been filed despite last opportunity given on 18.1.2016. Be filed within two weeks time. List again on 13.7.2016. (DR. K. ARUL) Registrar

,ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K. ARUL Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSNASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHW.P.(C) No. 611/2015(With Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 577/2015(With Office Report) Date : 29/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Chinmay P Sharma, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RWP(C) NO.216/2015Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 12 have not filedcounter affidavit.Service on respondent nos. 4 to 6 is complete butnone has entered appearance.-2-Item No.53Fresh steps have not been taken in respect ofrespondent no.13 despite order dt.18.1.2016. Be takenwithin two weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. WP(C) NO.577/2015Respondent nos. 1,2,4 and 5 have failed to filecounter affidavit despite last opportunity granted on18.1.2016. Further opportunity is hereby declined.Opportunity to respondent nos.7 and 8 to file counteraffidavit has been declined.Service of respondent nos. 3,6,9 and 11 is completebut none has entered appearance.Affidavit of dasti in respect of respondent nos.10,12 and 13 has not been filed despite last opportunitygiven on 18.1.2016. Let the matter be placed before theHon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions.WP(C) NO.611/2015Service on respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 is completebut none has entered appearance.Affidavit of dasti in respect of respondent nos. 2,3and 8 to 10 has not been filed despite last opportunitygiven on 18.1.2016. Be filed within two weeks time.List again on 13.7.2016. (DR. K. ARUL) Registrar

î ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No(s). 17294/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/07/2004 in WP No. 6079/1982 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS MUKHTIYAR SINGH Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 08/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal,Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma,Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted four weeks' time to rectify the defects pointed out by the registry. (SAPNA BISHT) (INDU POKHRIYAL) SR.P.A. COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySAPNA BISHTDate: 2016.03.0816:16:03 ISTReason:

MATTER FOR 02.03.2016 COURT NO.7 ITEM NO.109 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 216, 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ETC. ....PETITIONERS -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE- REPORT W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is certified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. " It is submitted that there are 13 respondent and notice has been issued to all the 13 respondents by registered A.D. M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 to 12. A.D. Card duly signed has been received on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 but no one has entered appearance so far. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover has been received in respect of respondent No. 13 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent No. 13. W.P.(C) NO. 577 & 611 OF 2015 The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation are already represented by their respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this Court and so is the State of Maharashtra. Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents by ordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. ..2/- Systém 3

-2- List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while the Assessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitioner and raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be made without the leave of this Court. " W.P.(C) NO. 577 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 13 respondents. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 but he has not filed counter affidavit so far. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 6, 9, 11 though served with notice. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 10, 12 & 13 so far. Counsel for the petitioner has not filed affidavit of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 10, 12 & 13 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 10, 12 & 13. W.P.(C) NO. 611 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 10 respondents. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 though served with notice. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. Counsel for the petitioner has not filed affidavit of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10 so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. It is lastly submitted that the matters above-mentioned were listed before the Court of Registrar on 18.01.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 6, despite due service. Fresh steps to be taken for service of respondent No.13 within four weeks. Registry to submit report regarding other respondents. ..3/- Systém 3

-3- W.P. C) No. 577/2015 Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for filing counter affidavit. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not filed the counter affidavit, despite last opportunity having been granted. As such, further opportunity is declined. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.3, 6, 9 and 11 despite due service. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner for filing affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.10, 12 and 13. W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 Respondent No.1 is common in this petition and W.P. (C)No.577/2015. As such, the Ld. Counsel to file vakalatnama in this petition also within four weeks. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner to file affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 10. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 7, despite due service. List again on 29.3.2016. “ As the main matter is on board, hence the writ petitions above-mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taheja, Advocate Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Advocate M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

Weekly List on 7 Court No. 7 Item No. 19 SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 638587, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 786594, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013 & 285455 OF 2014, 5348 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NOS. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 536063, 68366926 6839 & 6914 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of proforma Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NOS. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 OF 2013 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014, 3550 OF 2015, 24053 OF 2014, 6149, 8705, 9004, 9104 OF 2015, CC NO. 4938 OF 2015, SLP NO. 9233, 8698, 9620, 10288, 9827, 9994, 11479, 15175, 28473 OF 2015 & 1457 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN SLP NO. 362 OF 2014 (Application for direction) AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANT VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 31 st July, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “ List before the Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is not a Member.” It is submitted that Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate has on 8 th May, 2015 filed Affidavit on behalf of Union of India, CBEC in CA No. 536063 of 2011. Copy of the same is included in the respective paper books.

Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is filed. CA No. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is filed. CA No. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. No. 2 but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 9 is filed. CA No. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Service complete. CA No. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Service Complete. CA No. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service Complete. CA No.6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6737/13 4 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 to 3 awaited.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks no. 4 CA No. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited. CA No. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Service complete. CA No. 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3 is filed. CA No. 6837/13 2 do Service is complete. CA No. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. CA No. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 3 is filed. CA No. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service Complete. CA No. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. CA No. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. CA No. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. CA No. 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. CA No. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 8114/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service Complete. CA No. 8115/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete CA No. 8116/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete CA No. 8117/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete SLP(C) No. 362/14 4 Resp. 1 to 3 are represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4. Application for direction is filed and registered as I.A. No. 2. CA No. 2854/14 4 Resp. no. 1 represented through Counsel Service Complete

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks 2855/14 9 Resp. no. 1, 3 & 5 are represented through Counsel Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 12567/14 3 All are represented through Counsel. Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 21521/14 4 Resp. 1 to 3 & 4 are represented through Counsel. Service is complete. SLP(C) No. 22653/14 2 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented. Service Complete. SLP(C) Nos. 29803/14 29804/14 2 4 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is represented. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are represented. Service is complete. Service is complete. SLP(C) No. 29765/14 3 Respondent No. 1 to 3 are represented Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 31442/14 4 Respondent No. 1 to 3 are represented Service is not Complete in r/o Respondent No. 4. SLP(C) No. 31986/14 3 Respondent No. 1 to 3 are represented Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 3550/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 24053/14 3 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are represented. Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 6149/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 8705/15 4 Service is not complete in r/o Resp. Nos. 14 SLP(C) No. 9004/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 9104/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No...CC 4938/15 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Fresh matter. SLP(C) No. 9233/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks SLP(C) No. 8698/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 9620/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 10288/15 3 Resp No. 2 & 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 SLP(C) No. 9827/15 3 Resp No. 2 & 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 SLP(C) No. 9994/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 11479/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 15175/15 4 Resp Nos. 2 to 4 are represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 CA No. 5348/15 3 Resp. 2 is represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. Nos. 1 & 3 SLP(C) No. 28473/15 4 Resp Nos. 1, 2 , 3 represented through Cuonsel. Servcie is complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 1457/16 2 Service is complete by mode of speed post It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of proforma respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.)

It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 18,18,638/ Rs. 18,59,320/ 01092016 5364/13 Rs.10,26,254/ Rs. 4,31,790.82p 22092016 29012017 5365/13 Rs. 86,11,729/ Rs. 74,82,275.65p 22092016 29012017 6386/13 Rs. 30,58,996/ Rs. 27,83,457.15p 22092016 29012017 6387/13 Rs. 25,42,758/ Rs. 35,08,878.50p 22092016 29012017 7865/13 Rs. 2,75,007/ Rs. 1,55,047.43p 22092016 29012017 7866/13 Rs. 2,23,073/ Rs. 1,40,747.70p 22092016 29012017 7867/13 Rs. 1,46,202/ Rs. 50,030/ 22092016 29012017 7868/13 Rs. 1,43,078/ Rs. 1,34,329.81p 22092016 29012017 7869/13 Rs. 1,07,118/ Rs. 1,50,157.37p 22092016 29012017 7870/13 Rs. 1,64,165/ Rs. 1,52,632.44p 22092016 29012017 7871/13 Rs. 1,30,098/ Rs. 1,25,142.22p 22092016 29012017 7872/13 Rs. 2,22,598/ Rs. 1,93,128.41/ 22092016 29012017 7873/13 Rs. 94,214/ Rs. 1,42,251.98p 22092016 29012017 7874/13 Rs. 1,62,091/ Rs. 15,599/ 22092016 29012017 7875/13 Rs. 1,80,216/ Rs. 1,30,537.34p 22092016 29012017 7876/13 Rs. 1,49,847/ Rs. 1,89,562.93p 22092016 29012017

7877/13 Rs. 2,32,841/ Rs.95,210.46p (FDR844A) 22092016 29012017 7878/13 Rs.93,107.09p (FDR844B) 29012017 7879/13 Rs. 72,613/ Rs. 82,528.01p (FDR845A) 22092016 29012017 7880/13 Rs. 1,27,418.79p (FDR845B) 29012017 7881/13 Rs. 2,09,198/ Rs. 1,82,068.74p 22092016 29012017 7882/13 Rs. 2,00,909/ Rs. 2,64,687.45p 22092016 29012017 7883/13 Rs. 1,81,184/ Rs. 2,24,056.45p 22092016 29012017 7886/13 Rs. 1,62,800/ Rs. 1,10,266.72p 22092016 29012017 7887/13 Rs. 1,62,680/ Rs. 1,55,,166.71p 22092016 29012017 7888/13 Rs. 1,62,048/ Rs. 84,806.65p 22092016 29012017 7889/13 Rs. 1,49,785/ Rs. 1,46,448.23p 22092016 29012017 7891/13 Rs. 2,00,405/ Rs. 1,20,475.88p 22092016 29012017 7893/13 Rs. 1,35,566/ Rs.1,95,121.97/(FDR854A) 22092016 29012017 7894/15 Rs. 1,39,753.62p (FDR854B) 29012017 285455/14 Rs. 7,19,895/ Rs. 12,56,617/ Rs. 4,33,775.65/ 1632016 1632016 2942016 The matters alongwith applications abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate

Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1457/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/11/2015 in WP No. 557/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report) Date : 08/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Mr. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Ms. Natasha, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The issue raised in this case pertains to the property tax to be levied on mobile towers. It is reported that the connected matters are posted before another Bench. Post this matter before the same Bench where the rest of the matters are listed. Interim order shall continue till further orders. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Renu Diwan) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 1457 OF 2016 IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND ANR. ....PETITIONERS VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th January, 2016, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Issue notice, returnable on 08.02.2016. Tag with SLP (C) 24053 of 2014 and SLP (C) 22653 of 2014 and all the connected matters relating to the liability for levy of property tax on mobile (cellular) towers. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be no coercive steps pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court.” Accordingly, notice was issued to both the respondents through speed post on 30 th January, 2016 and as per track report of the India Post, the same was delivered on both the respondent on 3 rd February, 2016 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Service of notice is complete in respect of both the respondents. It is also submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that pursuant to abovementioned Court's Order, instant matter has been tagged with SLP Nos. 24053 and 22653 of 2014 and all the connected matters. The matter abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

lITEM NO.54 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1457/2016(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/11/2015in WP No. 557/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUSPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to fileadditional documents and interim relief and office report)Date : 08/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Mr. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Ms. Natasha, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The issue raised in this case pertains to the property taxto be levied on mobile towers.It is reported that the connected matters are posted beforeanother Bench. Post this matter before the same Bench where the rest of thematters are listed. Interim order shall continue till further orders. (Jayant Kumar Arora)Sr. P.A. (Renu Diwan)Court Master

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1457/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/11/2015 in WP No. 557/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) with I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 (application for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 27/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Anush Rajaan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice, returnable on 08.02.2016. Tag with SLP (C) 24053 of 2014 and SLP (C) 22653 of 2014 and all the connected matters relating to the liability for levy of property tax on mobile (cellular) towers. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be no coercive steps pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Renu Diwan) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 1457 OF 2016 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for permission to file Additional documents) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for exemption from filing O.T.) IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and final Order dated 16 th November, 2015 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 557 of 2015. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24053 of 2014 entitiled “IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED vs SANGLIMIRAJ KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.” arising out of similar issue which was listed before Hon'ble Court on 1 st December, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. ( Copy of the Order dated 1 st December, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the Petitioner has on 19 th January, 2016 filed an Application for Permission to file Additional documents and Application for exemption from filing O.T. and the same has been registered as IA No. 2 and 3 respectively. Copy of the applications are being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. It is also submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has also filed Additional documents and some of the pages (Page No. 141 to 144) are not legible as their print is very dim. Copy of the same is being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The matter alongwith applications above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR BS5

h ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1457/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/11/2015 in WP No. 557/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) with I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 (application for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 27/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. Ms. Parinaz Vakil, Adv. Mr. Anush Rajaan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice, returnable on 08.02.2016. Tag with SLP (C) 24053 of 2014 and SLP (C) 22653 of 2014 and all the connected matters relating to the liability for levy of property tax on mobile (cellular) towers.Signature Not Verified Till the next date of hearing, there shall be no coerciveDigitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2016.01.28 steps pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court.16:44:39 ISTReason: (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master

Item No.43 -2- W.P.(C) No. 577/2015 Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for filing counter affidavit. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not filed the counter affidavit, despite last opportunity having been granted. As such, further opportunity is declined. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.3, 6, 9 and 11 despite due service. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner for filing affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.10, 12 and 13. W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 Respondent No.1 is common in this petition and W.P.(C) No.577/2015. As such, the Ld. Counsel to file vakalatnama in this petition also within four weeks. Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the petitioner to file affidavit with proof of dasti service with regard to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 10. Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 7, despite due service. List again on 29.3.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALWrit Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUSNASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHW.P.(C) No. 611/2015(With Office Report)W.P.(C) No. 577/2015(With Office Report) Date : 18/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmay Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nirnimesh Dube,Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Arya, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. Mr.D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RW.P.(C) No. 216/2015Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 6, despite dueservice.Fresh steps to be taken for service of respondent No.13within four weeks.Registry to submit report regarding other respondents.Item No.43 -2-W.P.(C) No. 577/2015Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted torespondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for filing counter affidavit.Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not filed the counteraffidavit, despite last opportunity having been granted. Assuch, further opportunity is declined.Nobody appears for respondent Nos.3, 6, 9 and 11 despitedue service.Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to thepetitioner for filing affidavit with proof of dasti servicewith regard to respondent Nos.10, 12 and 13.W.P.(C) No. 611/2015Respondent No.1 is common in this petition and W.P.(C)No.577/2015. As such, the Ld. Counsel to file vakalatnama inthis petition also within four weeks. Four weeks' time, aslast opportunity, is granted to the petitioner to fileaffidavit with proof of dasti service with regard torespondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 10.Nobody appears for respondent Nos.4 to 7, despite dueservice.List again on 29.3.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 577/2015 CEHNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 15/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Mr Siddhartha Arya, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R WP(C) NO.577/2015 Among 13 respondents herein, vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 has already been filed. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks time. Counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is also awaited. Be filed within four weeks time as last opportunity.

-2- Item No.45 Service upon respondent nos. 3,6 and 9 is complete but none has entered appearance. For respondent nos. 10 to 13, affidavit as proof of dasti service is still awaited. Be filed within four weeks time. WP(C) NO.611/2015 Among 10 respondents herein, service upon respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 is complete but none has entered appearance. However, the ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 of the connected petition has appeared for respondent no.1 in this petition as well. Vakalatnama be filed within four weeks time and counter affidavit within four weeks thereafter. For respondent nos. 2,3 and 8 to 10, affidavit as proof of dasti service is yet to be filed. Be filed within four weeks time. List again on 18.1.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

MATTER FOR 15.10.2015 R-COURT NO.1 ITEM NO.45 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) M/S. CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ....PETITIONER -VERSUS- SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ....RESPONDENT OFFICE- REPORT The writ petitions above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: " Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation are already represented by their respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this Court and so is the State of Maharashtra. Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents by ordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while the Assessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitioner and raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be made without the leave of this Court. " W.P.(C) NO. 577 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 13 respondents through registered A.D. on 11.09.2015 and dasti notice was handed over to the counsel for the petitioer on 04.09.2015. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but she has not filed counter affidavit so far. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 but he has not filed counter affidavit so far. A.D. cards, duly signed, have been recieved back in respect of respondent nos. 3, 6 and 9 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 10-13. Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of dasti service so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 10 to 13. ..2/- Systém 3

-2- W.P.(C) NO. 611 OF 2015 It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all 10 respondents through registered A.D. on 11.09.2015 and dasti notice was handed over to the counsel for the petitioer on 04.09.2015. A.D. cards, duly signed, have been recieved back in respect of respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received back in respect of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of dasti service so far. Service of notice is not complete on respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 to 10. The writ petitions above-mentioned are listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar with this office report. Dated this the 14th day of October, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

\206 ITEM NO.45 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 577/2015 CEHNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH W.P.(C) No. 611/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 15/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Mr Siddhartha Arya, Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R WP(C) NO.577/2015 Among 13 respondents herein, vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 has already been filed. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks time.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.10.1517:52:48 ISTReason: Counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is also awaited. Be filed within four weeks time as last opportunity. -2-Item No.45 Service upon respondent nos. 3,6 and 9 is complete but

none has entered appearance. For respondent nos. 10 to 13, affidavit as proof ofdasti service is still awaited. Be filed within four weekstime.WP(C) NO.611/2015 Among 10 respondents herein, service upon respondentnos. 1 and 4 to 7 is complete but none has enteredappearance. However, the ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 of theconnected petition has appeared for respondent no.1 in thispetition as well. Vakalatnama be filed within four weekstime and counter affidavit within four weeks thereafter. For respondent nos. 2,3 and 8 to 10, affidavit asproof of dasti service is yet to be filed. Be filed withinfour weeks time. List again on 18.1.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS. 28473 OF 2015 GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ....PETITIONER VERSUS THE DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29 th Septmber, 2015 of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in CA No. 12113 of 2015 in W.P. No. 5490 of 2013. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition No. 12567 of 2014 entitled “ CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs THANE MUNICIPAL CORP. & ORS. ” arising out of idential question of law referred to on Page 'B' of list of dates, which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th June, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of order dated 30 th June, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter above mentioned was mentioned before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st October, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to passed the following order: “List the matter on 5 th October, 2015 before an appropriate Bench.” The matter abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

® ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28473/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/09/2015 in CA No. 12113/2015,29/09/2015 in WP No. 5490/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Aurangabad) GTL INFRASTRUSTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 05/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Issue notice. Pending further orders from this Court, we direct that the towers sealed by the respondent-Corporation shall be de-sealed without insisting upon payment of the amount determined towards property tax in relation to the said towers. Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. are disposed off.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by List along with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013 and connectedMahabir SinghDate: 2015.10.05 matters.17:08:26 ISTReason: (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28473/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/09/2015 in CA No. 12113/2015,29/09/2015 in WP No. 5490/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Aurangabad) GTL INFRASTRUSTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01/10/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 5 th October, 2015 before an appropraite Bench. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar (Listing proforma enclosed)

, ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28473/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/09/2015 in CA No. 12113/2015,29/09/2015 in WP No. 5490/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Aurangabad) GTL INFRASTRUSTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01/10/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 5th October, 2015 before an appropraite Bench. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar (Listing proforma enclosed)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2015.10.0117:18:23 ISTReason: , ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28473/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/09/2015 in CA No. 12113/2015,29/09/2015 in WP No. 5490/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Aurangabad) GTL INFRASTRUSTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS

THE DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01/10/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 5th October, 2015 before an appropraite Bench. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar (Listing proforma enclosed)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2015.10.0117:18:23 ISTReason:

1 ITEM NO.12+48 COURT NO.2 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 577/2015 CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) with W.P.(C) No. 611 of 2015 (with appln. For exem. From filing O.T. and office report) Date : 28/08/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent-Corporation are already represented by their respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this Court and so is the State of Maharashtra.

2 Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents by ordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while the Assessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitioner and raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be made without the leave of this Court. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master

MATTER FOR 28.8.2015 COURT NO. 2 ITEM NO. 12 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 577 AND 611 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (APPLICATION FOR EXMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION) M/S. CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ....PETITIONER -VERSUS- SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ....RESPONDENT OFFICE- REPORT The writ petition along with application above-mentioned has been filed by Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner above-named. It is submitted that the matters above-mentioned have been tagged together as both are arising of similar issue. It is submitted that Special Leave Petition No. 12567 of 2014 involving similar issue, was listed before this Hon'ble Court on 30.06.2014, when the Court directed to issue notice (Copy of order dated 30.06.2014 is enclosed herewith). The matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court (Main matter is Civil Appeal no. 5360-5363/2013). The writ petition along with application above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 27th day of August, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Systém 3

\236 1 ITEM NO.12+48 COURT NO.2 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 577/2015 CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI, MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) with W.P.(C) No. 611 of 2015 (with appln. For exem. From filing O.T. and office report) Date : 28/08/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2015. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that theSignature Not Verified respondent-Corporation are already represented by theirDigitally signed byShashi SareenDate: 2015.09.01 respective counsel in a batch of connected matters pending in this08:49:00 ISTReason: Court and so is the State of Maharashtra. 2 Notice shall, therefore, issue to the respondents byordinary process and also dasti to be served upon learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Corporations in the connected matters. List along with the connected matters for final hearing. Pending further orders, we direct that while theAssessing Officers concerned shall be free to assess the petitionerand raise demands, no recovery based on such demands shall be madewithout the leave of this Court.(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master

ITEM NO.119(MM) COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln. For deletion of proforma respts.) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and appln.(s) for directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)

-2- C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9233/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)

-3- SLP(C) No. 9620/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9994/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 216/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 31/07/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv.

-4- Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. Mr Pavan Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG. Mr. Kiran Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Karan Seth,Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahra,Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. Ms. Rukhmini S.Bobde,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh,Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran,Adv. Ms. S.Lakshmi Iyer,Adv.for M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Adv. UPON being mentioned by the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List before the Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is not a Member. (SUMAN WADHWA) AR-cum-PS (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER

¤0 ITEM NO.119(MM) COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln. For deletion of proforma respts.) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and appln.(s) for directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2015.07.31 C.A. No. 8117/201316:55:45 ISTReason: (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) -2- C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)

SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9233/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) -3- SLP(C) No. 9620/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) forexemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and InterimRelief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9994/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) andInterim Relief and Office Report)

W.P.(C) No. 216/2015(With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 15175/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates andInterim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5348/2015(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) forpermission to file additional documents and Interim Relief andOffice Report)Date : 31/07/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Appellant(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. -4- Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. Mr Pavan Kumar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG. Mr. Kiran Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Karan Seth,Adv. Mr. D.S.Mahra,Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv. Ms. Rukhmini S.Bobde,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh,Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran,Adv. Ms. S.Lakshmi Iyer,Adv.for M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv.

Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Adv. UPON being mentioned by the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List before the Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is not a Member. (SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

MATTER FOR 30.07.2015 COURT NO. ITEM NO. SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 216 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 (APPLICATION FOR STAY) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ...PETITIONER -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE – REPORT T he Writ Petition alongwith applications above-mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013.” It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all the 13 respondents through Regd. A.D. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 10 to 12. A.D. card duly signed has been received on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received in respect of Respondent No.13. It is further submitted that certified copy of the said order has also been issued to all the concerned authorities for information, necessary action and compliance. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent No.13. The Writ petition alongwith applications above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 & 285455 OF 2014, 5348 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NOS. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 536063, 68366926 6839 & 6914 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of proforma Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NOS. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 OF 2013 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014, 3550 & 6149 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NO...CC 4938 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NOS. 9004, 9233, 8705, 8698, 9104, 9620 10288, 9827, 9994, 11479 &15175 OF 2015 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANT VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Let the matter be listed on 29.07.2015. Pleadings shall be completed from all angles by that time.” It is submitted that Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate has on 8 th May, 2015 filed Affidavit on behalf of Union of India, CBEC in CA No. 536063 of 2011. Copy of the same is included in the respective paper books.

Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is filed. CA No. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is filed. CA No. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. No. 2 but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 9 is filed. CA No. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. nos. 1 & 2 is received from High Court. Service complete. CA No. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 5 received from High Court. Service Complete. CA No. 6737/13 4 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 to 3 awaited. CA No. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) CA No. 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 9 is filed. CA No. 6837/13 2 do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. CA No. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. CA No. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received but Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. CA No. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 3 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. CA No. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. CA No. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. CA No. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. CA No. 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. CA No. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. CA No. 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 has been received from High Court. But Application for deletion the name of proforma on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. CA No. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 has been received. Service Complete. CA No. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. CA No. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 has been received. Service Complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks CA No. CA No. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. CA No. 285455/14 11 Resp. no. 1, 5, 6 and 8 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o of all respondent has been received. Service Complete. CA No. 8115/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete CA No. 8116/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete CA No. 8117/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service is complete CA No. 8114/13 2 Both are represented through Counsel Service Complete. CA No. 5348/15 3 Resp. 2 is represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. Nos. 1 & 3 SLP(C) No. 362/14 4 Resp. 1 to 3 are represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 12567/14 3 All are represented through Counsel. Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 21521/14 4 Resp. 1 to 3 are represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 22653/14 2 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented. Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 24053/14 3 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are represented. Service Complete. SLP(C) Nos. 29803/14 29804/14 2 4 Respondent No. 2 is represented. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 2 SLP(C) No. 29765/14 3 Respondent No. 1 to 3 are represented Service Complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit/Remarks SLP(C) No. 31442/14 4 Respondent No. 1 to 4 are represented Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 31986/14 3 Respondent No. 1 to 3 are represented Service Complete. SLP(C) No. 3550/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 6149/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No...CC 4938/15 FRESH MATTER TAGGED WITH CA Nos. 638887 OF 2013 SLP(C) No. 9004/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 9233/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 8705/15 4 Service is not complete in r/o Resp. Nos. 14 SLP(C) No. 8698/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 9104/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 9620/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 10288/15 3 Resp No. 2 & 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 SLP(C) No. 9827/15 3 Resp No. 2 & 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1 SLP(C) No. 9994/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 11479/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 4 SLP(C) No. 15175/15 4 Resp Nos. 2 to 4 are represented through Counsel. Service is not complete in r/o Resp. No. 1

It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of proforma respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 4,01,946,82/ 22092015 29012016 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 69,66,960.65p 22092015 29012016 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 25,91,065.15p 22092015 29012016 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 32,66,344.50p 22092015 29012016 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,44,331.43p 22092015 29012016 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,30,740.70p 22092015 29012016 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 46,656/ 22092015 29012016 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,25,045.81p 22092015 29012016 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,39,779.37p 22092015 29012016

7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ Rs. 1,42,083.44p 22092015 29012016 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ Rs. 1,16,493.22p 22092015 29012016 7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ Rs. 1,79,780.41/ 22092015 29012016 7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ Rs. 1,32,419.98p 22092015 29012016 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ Rs. 14,547/ 22092015 29012016 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ Rs. 1,21,515.34p 22092015 29012016 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ Rs. 1,76,460.93p 22092015 29012016 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ Rs.88,630.46p (FDR844B) 22092015 29012016 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ Rs. 76,824/(FDR845A) 22092015 29012016 7880/13 Rs. 1,18,612.79p (FDR845B) 29012016 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ Rs. 1,69,484.74p 22092015 29012016 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ Rs. 2,46,393.45p 22092015 29012016 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ Rs. 2,08,570.45p 22092015 29012016 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ Rs. 1,02,645.72p 22092015 29012016 7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ Rs. 1,44,,442.71 22092015 29012016 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ Rs. 78,944.65p 22092015 29012016 7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ Rs. 1,366,326.23p 22092015 29012016 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ Rs. 1,12,149.88p 22092015 29012016 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ Rs.1,81,636.97/(FDR854A) 22092015 29012016 9894/15 Rs. 1,30,094.62p (FDR854B) 29012016

285455/14 Rs. 7,19,895/ Rs. 12,56,617/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1632016 1632016 2942016 The matters alongwith applications abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

MATTER FOR 29.07.2015 COURT NO. ITEM NO. SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 216 OF 2015 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 (APPLICATION FOR STAY) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ...PETITIONER -VERSUS- NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE – REPORT T he Writ Petition alongwith applications above-mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013.” It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause notice was issued to all the 13 respondents through Regd. A.D. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Ms. Aparna Jha, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 10 to 12. A.D. card duly signed has been received on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover has been received in respect of Respondent No.13. It is further submitted that certified copy of the said order has also been issued to all the concerned authorities for information, necessary action and compliance. Service of notice is not complete on Respondent No.13. The Writ petition alongwith applications above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17294/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/06/2015 in WP No. 5708/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad) RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Lakshmesh Kamath, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the appeals. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ä ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17294/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/06/2015 in WP No. 5708/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad) RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Lakshmesh Kamath, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforcedSignature Not Verified against the appellants during the pendency of the appeals.Digitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.07.1016:48:54 ISTReason: (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.75 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15175/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/05/2015 in WP No. 1159/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file lengthy list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 15/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

ð ITEM NO.75 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15175/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/05/2015 in WP No. 1159/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file lengthy list of dates and interim relief and office report) Date : 15/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.05.2011:55:24 ISTReason: (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.809 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15175/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/05/2015 in WP No. 1159/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14/05/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter before an appropriate Bench on 15 th May, 2015. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar (Listing proforma enclosed)

R ITEM NO.809 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15175/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/05/2015 in WP No. 1159/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14/05/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter before an appropriate Bench on 15th May, 2015. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar (Listing proforma enclosed)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2015.05.1417:33:37 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.5 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015 VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and stay and office report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharasthra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ì ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.5 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 216/2015 VIOM NETWORKS LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and stay and office report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharasthra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.2718:10:49 ISTReason:

CORRECTED ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and deletion of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013

2 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 6149/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8705/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9004/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9104/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)

3 SLP(C) No. 9233/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 8698/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9620/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10288/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9827/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9994/2015 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11479/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 23/04/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R.,Adv.

4 Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG Ms.Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. R.S. Nagar, Adv. Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Ms. Prity Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let the matter be listed on 29.07.2015. Pleadings shall be completed from all angles by that time. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

H- CORRECTED ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and deletion of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013Signature Not Verified (With Interim Relief and Office Report)Digitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.2718:00:25 IST C.A. No. 8116/2013Reason: (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 2(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 362/2014(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014(With Office Report)

SLP(C) No. 12567/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 22653/2014SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 31442/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 31986/2014(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 3550/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 24053/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 6149/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 8705/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9004/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9104/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) 3SLP(C) No. 9233/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 8698/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9620/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 10288/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9827/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 9994/2015(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 11479/2015(With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s)and Interim Relief and Office Report)Date : 23/04/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R.,Adv. 4 Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG Ms.Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. R.S. Nagar, Adv. Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad,Adv. Ms. Prity Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let the matter be listed on 29.07.2015. Pleadings shall be completed from all angles by that time. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 21/04/2015 This petition was MENTIONED today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As an interim measure, it is directed that the respondents shall not enforce the demand of tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 against the petitioners, during the pendency of this petition. (VINOD KR.JHA) (H.S. PARASHER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Mentioning proforma is enclosed herewith)

º ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 21/04/2015 This petition was MENTIONED today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As an interim measure, it is directed that the respondents shall not enforce the demand of tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 against the petitioners, during the pendency of this petition. (VINOD KR.JHA) (H.S. PARASHER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Mentioning proforma is enclosed herewith)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod KumarDate: 2015.04.2314:36:34 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to submit additional document(s) and interim relief and office report) Date : 20/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.362 of 2014. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 11479 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for permission to file additional documents) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for exemption from filing official translations) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for exemption from filing official translations) VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED ....PETITIONER VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. ....RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned is filed against the impugned interim order dated 30th March, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 3191 of 2015. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the S.L.P. No. 362 of 2014 entitled “ VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. vs KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS.” as both are arising from similar issue is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 02 nd January, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the order dated 02 nd January, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference). The matter alongwith applications above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mr.Puneet Taneja, Advocate ac3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ì ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to submit additional document(s) and interim relief and office report) Date : 20/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.2414:35:38 ISTReason:

â ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to submit additional document(s) and interim relief and office report) Date : 20/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.362 of 2014.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.04.25 (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)11:00:55 ISTReason: Court Master Court Master

â ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11479/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2015 in WP No. 3191/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to submit additional document(s) and interim relief and office report) Date : 20/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No.362 of 2014.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.04.20 (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)16:14:56 ISTReason: Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 & 285455 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68396914, 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014, 3550 & 6149 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NOS. 9004, 9233, 8705, 8698, 9104, 9620 & 9827 OF 2015 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. ETC. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738, 6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS.362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of Union of India prays for two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015. SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. ”

The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 17 th February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “ List the matter on 26.03.2015. ” I t is submitted that pursuant to above Court's Order dated 15 th January, 2015 Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate has on 9 th March, 2015 filed Vakalatnama/Memo of appearance on behalf of Union of India and also filed Counter affidavit on 26 th March, 2015 in C.A. Nos. 68366926 of 2013. It is further submitted that pursuant to above Court's Order 15 th January, 2015 Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate has filed proof of paper books on Ms. Pinki Anand in SLP(C) No. 31986 of 2014. Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 1 is received and in r/o Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 and 3 awaited.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit respondent No. 2 is filed. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 is awaited. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o all respondents. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. 285455/13 11 Resp. no. 1,5,6 and 8 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o of all respondent has been received. 8115/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8116/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8117/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8114/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received. 362/14 4 Resp. no. 1 to 3 are represented & Counter affidavit filed. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 12567/14 3 All are represented through counsel. 21521/14 4 Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 22653/14 2 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented. 24053/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 are represented. 29803804/14 5 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are represented. 29765/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 31442/14 4 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 31986/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 3550/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 SLP(C) NO. 6149 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. ”

Accordingly, Notice to all the four Respondent was issued on 14 th March, 2015 through Registered Post. M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have on 26 th March, 2015 filed Vakalatnama & appearance on behalf of all the Respondents. Service of Notice is complete. SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013” It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that pursuant to above Order instant matter has been tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 63856387 of 2013. SLP(C) NOS. 9004, 9233, 8705, 8698 & 9104 OF 2015 The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 25 th March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363 of 2013. In meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharastra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petitions. ” It is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has on 30 th March, 2015 filed spare copies and accordingly stay Order and notice was issued in all the above mentioned matters through Registered post on 30 th March, 2015. Service of notice is awaited. SLP(C) NO. 9620 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) No. 8698 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an ad interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the special leave petition.”

It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that notice issued on 7 th April, 2015 to all the four Respondents through Registered Post. Service of notice is awaited. SLP(C) NO. 9827 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal no. 8114 of 2013.” It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that notice issued on 8 th April, 2015 to all the three Respondents through Registered Post. Service of notice is awaited. It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Counsel for the petitioner has on 29 th November, 2014 filed a letter dated 28 th November, 2014 stating therein that the all connected matters are tagged together and are being heard with the lead matter bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 53605363 of 2013. Copy of the letter is already included in the Paper books. It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile

advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 4,01,946,82/ 22092015 29012016 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 69,66,960.65p 22092015 29012016 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 25,91,065.15p 22092015 29012016 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 32,66,344.50p 22092015 29012016 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,44,331.43p 22092015 29012016 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,30,740.70p 22092015 29012016 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 46,656/ 22092015 29012016 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,25,045.81p 22092015 29012016 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,39,779.37p 22092015 29012016 7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ Rs. 1,42,083.44p 22092015 29012016 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ Rs. 1,16,493.22p 22092015 29012016 7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ Rs. 1,79,780.41/ 22092015 29012016 7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ Rs. 1,32,419.98p 22092015 29012016 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ Rs. 14,547/ 22092015 29012016 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ Rs. 1,21,515.34p 22092015 29012016

Case No. Amount Date of maturity 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ Rs. 1,76,460.93p 22092015 29012016 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ Rs.88,630.46p (FDR844B) 22092015 29012016 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ Rs. 76,824/(FDR845A) 22092015 29012016 7880/13 Rs. 1,18,612.79p (FDR845B) 29012016 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ Rs. 1,69,484.74p 22092015 29012016 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ Rs. 2,46,393.45p 22092015 29012016 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ Rs. 2,08,570.45p 22092015 29012016 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ Rs. 1,02,645.72p 22092015 29012016 7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ Rs. 1,44,,442.71 22092015 29012016 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ Rs. 78,944.65p 22092015 29012016 7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ Rs. 1,366,326.23p 22092015 29012016 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ Rs. 1,12,149.88p 22092015 29012016 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ Rs.1,81,636.97/(FDR854A) 22092015 29012016 9894/15 Rs. 1,30,094.62p (FDR854B) 29012016 285455/14 Rs. 7,19,895/ Rs. 12,56,617/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1632016 1632016 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate

M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9994/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/03/2015 in WP No. 2561/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C) No.10288/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date: 10/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS. 9994 & 10288 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for permission to file Additional documents.) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. ...PETITIONER VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT SLP(C) No. 9994 OF 2015 It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned interim Order dated 12 th March, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P No. 2561 of 2015. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition No. 362 of 2014 @CC No. 21650 of 2013 entitled “VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. vs KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP. & ORS.” arising from similar issue is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2 nd January, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 2 nd January, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition No. 9827 of 2015 entitled “VIOM NETWORKS LTD. vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.” arising from similar issue is also pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th March, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 30 th March, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) SLP(C) No. 10288 OF 2015 It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 27 th Februaury, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 2138 of 2015

It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with SLP(C) 9994 of 2015 entitled “VIOM NETWORKS LTD. VS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.” as both are arising from similar issue and are filed by same petitioner. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of urgency. Copy of the same is being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The matters alongwith application above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Puneet Taneja , Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

P ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9994/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/03/2015 in WP No. 2561/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C) No.10288/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date: 10/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013.Chetan KumarDate: 2015.04.1017:15:09 ISTReason: (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.602 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9827/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/02/2015 in WP No. 2124/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. Documents on record and interim relief) Date : 01/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal no.8114 of 2013. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

& ITEM NO.602 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9827/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/02/2015 in WP No. 2124/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM NETWORKS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. Documents on record and interim relief) Date : 01/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal no.8114 of 2013.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.0915:34:49 ISTReason: (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 & 285455 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68396914, 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014, 3550 & 6149 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 AND SLP(C) NOS. 9004, 9233, 8705, 8698 & 9104 OF 2015 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. ETC. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738, 6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS.362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of Union of India prays for two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015. SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. ”

Accordingly, Notice to all the four Respondent was issued on 14 th March, 2015 through Registered Post. M/s. Lemax Lawyers & Co., Advocates have on 26 th March, 2015 filed Vakalatnama & appearance on behalf of all the Respondents. Service of Notice is complete. SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013” It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that pursuant to above Order instant matter has been tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 63856387 of 2013. SLP(C) NOS. 9004, 9233, 8705, 8698 & 9104 OF 2015 The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 25 th March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363 of 2013. In meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharastra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petitions. ” It is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has on 30 th March, 2015 filed spare copies and accordingly stay Order and notice was issued in all the above mentioned matters through Registered post on 30 th March, 2015. Service of notice is awaited. It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Counsel for the petitioner has on 29 th November, 2014 filed a letter dated 28 th November, 2014 stating therein that the all connected matters are tagged together and are being heard with the lead matter bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 53605363 of 2013. Copy of the letter is already included in the Paper books. It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and

68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 4,01,946,82/ 22092015 29012016 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 69,66,960.65p 22092015 29012016 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 25,91,065.15p 22092015 29012016 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 32,66,344.50p 22092015 29012016 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,44,331.43p 22092015 29012016 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,30,740.70p 22092015 29012016 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 46,656/ 22092015 29012016 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,25,045.81p 22092015 29012016 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,39,779.37p 22092015 29012016

285455/14 Rs. 7,19,895/ Rs. 12,56,617/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1632016 1632016 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.71 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9620/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 in CWP No. 2300/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 30/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with SLP (C) No.8698 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an ad interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the special leave petition. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

è ITEM NO.71 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9620/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 in CWP No. 2300/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 30/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with SLP (C) No.8698 of 2015. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an ad interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.0119:15:14 IST (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)Reason: Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.803 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9620/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 in CWP No. 2300/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 30.03.2015 before an appropriate Bench. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar

¤ ITEM NO.803 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9620/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 in CWP No. 2300/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 30.03.2015 before an appropriate Bench. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.03.2716:26:28 ISTReason:

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 & 285455 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68396914, 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014, 3550 & 6149 OF 2015, AND SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. ETC. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738, 6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS.362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of Union of India prays for two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015. SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. ”

The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 17 th February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “ List the matter on 26.03.2015. ” it is submitted that pursuant to above Court's Order dated 15 th January, 2015 Mr. D. S. Mehra, Advocate has on 9 th March, 2015 filed Vakalatnama/Memo of appearance on behalf of Union of India in C.A. Nos. 68366926 of 2013 but no Counter affidavit has filed so far.. It is further submitted that pursuant to above Court's Order 15 th January, 2015 Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate has filed proof of paper books on Ms. Pinki Anand in SLP(C) No. 31986 of 2014. Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 1 is received and in r/o Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 and 3 awaited. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 is awaited. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o all respondents. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. 285455/13 11 Resp. no. 1,5,6 and 8 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o of all respondent has been received. 8115/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8116/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8117/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8114/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received. 362/14 4 Resp. no. 1 to 3 are represented & Counter affidavit filed. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 12567/14 3 All are represented through counsel. 21521/14 4 Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 22653/14 2 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 24053/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 are represented. 29803804/14 5 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are represented. 29765/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 31442/14 4 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 31986/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 3550/15 4 Resp No. 1 to 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 SLP(C) NO. 6149 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. ” Accordingly, Notice to all the four Respondent was issued on 14 th March, 2015 through Registered Post. Neither A/D Card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back. Service of Notice is awaited. SLP(C) NO...(CC) 4938 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013”

It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that pursuant to above Order instant matter has been tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 63856387 of 2013. It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Counsel for the petitioner has on 29 th November, 2014 filed a letter dated 28 th November, 2014 stating therein that the all connected matters are tagged together and are being heard with the lead matter bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 53605363 of 2013. Copy of the letter is already included in the Paper books. It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 4,01,946,82/ 22092015 29012016 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 69,66,960.65p 22092015 29012016 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 25,91,065.15p 22092015 29012016

6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 32,66,344.50p 22092015 29012016 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,44,331.43p 22092015 29012016 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,30,740.70p 22092015 29012016 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 46,656/ 22092015 29012016 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,25,045.81p 22092015 29012016 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,39,779.37p 22092015 29012016 7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ Rs. 1,42,083.44p 22092015 29012016 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ Rs. 1,16,493.22p 22092015 29012016 7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ Rs. 1,79,780.41/ 22092015 29012016 7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ Rs. 1,32,419.98p 22092015 29012016 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ Rs. 14,547/ 22092015 29012016 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ Rs. 1,21,515.34p 22092015 29012016 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ Rs. 1,76,460.93p 22092015 29012016 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ Rs.88,630.46p (FDR844B) 22092015 29012016 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ Rs. 76,824/(FDR845A) 22092015 29012016 7880/13 Rs. 1,18,612.79p (FDR845B) 29012016 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ Rs. 1,69,484.74p 22092015 29012016 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ Rs. 2,46,393.45p 22092015 29012016 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ Rs. 2,08,570.45p 22092015 29012016 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ Rs. 1,02,645.72p 22092015 29012016

7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ Rs. 1,44,,442.71 22092015 29012016 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ Rs. 78,944.65p 22092015 29012016 7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ Rs. 1,366,326.23p 22092015 29012016 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ Rs. 1,12,149.88p 22092015 29012016 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ Rs.1,81,636.97/(FDR854A) 22092015 29012016 9894/15 Rs. 1,30,094.62p (FDR854B) 29012016 285455/14 Rs. 7,19,895/ Rs. 12,56,617/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1632016 1632016 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SLP(C) 8698/15 1 ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8698/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/03/2015 in CWP No. 2361/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) ATC TELECOM CORPORATION.PVT. LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C) No.8705/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9004/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9104/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9233/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date: 25/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR

SLP(C) 8698/15 2 For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petitions. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

è SLP(C) 8698/15 1 ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8698/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/03/2015 in CWP No. 2361/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) ATC TELECOM CORPORATION.PVT. LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C) No.8705/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9004/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9104/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.9233/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date: 25/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRASignature Not Verified HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.03.2516:47:46 ISTReason: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AORSLP(C) 8698/15 2For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petitions. (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.802 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8698/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/03/2015 in CWP No. 2361/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) ATC TELECOM CORPORATION.PVT. LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.AND ORS Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 9104 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 8705 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 9004 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 9233 of 2015 Date : 24/03/2015 These petitions were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow, the 25 th March, 2015 before an appropriate Bench in mentioning List. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar

Â ITEM NO.802 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8698/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/03/2015 in CWP No. 2361/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) ATC TELECOM CORPORATION.PVT. LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.AND ORS Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 9104 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 8705 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 9004 of 2015 SLP(C) No. 9233 of 2015 Date : 24/03/2015 These petitions were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Nar Hari Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow, the 25th March, 2015 before an appropriate Bench in mentioning List. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.03.2417:56:54 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC 4938/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/04/2013 in SCA No. 3157/2009,24/04/2013 in SCA No. 3157/2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 23/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. Shakti Naryanan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parashar) Court Master

Listed on : Court. No. : Item No.. : SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. CC 4938 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ....PETITIONER VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final order dated 24 th / 25 th April, 2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 3157 of 2009 and is barred by time by 572 days. The Counsel of the Petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal Nos. 638587 of 2013 @SLP(C) Nos. 2230922311 of 2013 entitled “SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS RALIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS. ” arising from common order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 5 th August, 2013 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. ( Copy of the order dated 5 th August, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference) . The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office Report. DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Pavan Kumar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

\230 ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC 4938/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/04/2013 in SCA No. 3157/2009,24/04/2013 in SCA No. 3157/2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 23/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. Shakti Naryanan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013. (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parashar) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.03.2317:39:38 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6149/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2015 in CWP No. 74/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 23/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sweshmukh, Adv. M r. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 6149 OF 2015 GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ...PETITIONER VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned interim Order dated 6 th January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CWP No. 74 of 2015. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition No. 31986 of 2014 entitled “GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD vs NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS” filed by the same parties arising from similar issue is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice . (Copy of the Order dated 19 th January, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter above mentioned was mentioned before the Hon'ble Court on 20 th February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “List on 23.02.2015 before an appropriate Bench.” The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6149/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2015 in CWP No. 74/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 23/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sweshmukh, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.02.2317:30:41 ISTReason: (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.802 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6149/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2015 in CWP No. 74/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Respondent(s) Date : 20/02/2015 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T. R.,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 23.02.2015 before an appropriate Bench. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar

ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014

2 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3550/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 17/02/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Anush Raajan, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Ms. Natasha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Mr.Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Roy, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv.

3 Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek V. Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D.M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. M/s. J.S. Wad & Co.,Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.,Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on 26.03.2015. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 285455, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68396914, 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765, 31442 & 31986 OF 2014 & 3550 OF 2015 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC ETC ...PETITIONERS VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738, 6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS.362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of Union of India prays for two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015. SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. ”

It is submitted that Counsel for the Union of India has not filed Counter affidavit so far. It is further submitted that Ms. Hematika wahi (Standing Counsel for the State of Gujarat.) has not filed any proof of paper books to Ms. Pinki Anand. Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 1 is received and in r/o Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 and 3 awaited. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 24053/14 3 - Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. Nos. 1 & 2. AD Card duly signed has been Received back in r/o resp. No. 3 29803804/14 5 Respondent No. 1, 4 & 5 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 29765/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 31442/14 4 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 SLP(C) NO. 3550 OF 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th February, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013.” Accordingly, Notice to all the four Respondent was issued on 13 th January, 2015 through Registered Post. Service of Notice is awaited. SLP(C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:

“ Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition. ” Accordingly show Cause Notice was issued to all the three Respondents through Registered A.D. Neither A/D Card nor unserved cover containing show cause Notice has been received back so far. Service of Notice is not complete. It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Counsel for the petitioner has on 29 th November, 2014 filed a letter dated 28 th November, 2014 stating therein that the all connected matters are tagged together and are being heard with the lead matter bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 53605363 of 2013. Copy of the letter is already included in the Paper books. It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy already included in the Paper books.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters:

Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 3,74,086/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 64,84,151/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 24,11,493/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 30,39,987 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,34,330/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,21,682/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 43,22,422/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,16,377/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,30,098/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ Rs. 1,32,235/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ Rs. 1,08,423/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ Rs. 1,67,320/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year)

7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ Rs. 1,23,240/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ Rs. 13,539/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ Rs. 1,13,093/ 22092015 29012015(extended for further period of 1 year) 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ Rs. 1,64,230/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ Rs.82,491/ (FDR844A) Rs.80,665/ (FDR844B) 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ Rs. 71,498/(FDR845A) Rs.1,10,398/(FDR845B) 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ Rs. 1,57,739/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ Rs. 2,29,313/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ Rs. 1,94,122/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ Rs. 95,536/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ Rs. 1,34,,424/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ Rs. 73,474/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year)

7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ Rs. 1,26,884/ 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ Rs. 1,04,373/ 22092015 29012015(extended for further period of 1 year) 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ Rs.1,69,052/(FDR854A) Rs.1,21,082/(FDR854A) 22092015 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 29012015 (extended for further period of 1 year) 285455/14 Rs. 6,68,702/ Rs. 11,67,255/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1532015 1532015 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3550/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/01/2015 in WP No. 1650/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM INFRA NETWORKS MAHARASHTRA LTD. & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 3550 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for permission to file Additional documents) VIOM INFRA NETWORK MAHARASHTRA LTD. & ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 20 th January, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 1650 of 2014. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the SLP(C) No. 362 of 2014 @CC No. 21650 of 2013 entitled “ VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. vs KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS. ” filed by the petitioner herein arising from similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2 nd January, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice . (Copy of the Order dated 2 nd January, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

\212 ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3550/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/01/2015 in WP No. 1650/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM INFRA NETWORKS MAHARASHTRA LTD. & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013.Gulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.02.1116:59:33 ISTReason: (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31986/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2014 in WP No. 5109/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

SECTIONIIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. . ..RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned alongwith other connected matters were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15 th January, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order : “ SLP(C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Sharma learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.1.2015.” It is submitted that pursuant to above mentioned Court's Order, Ms. Bindi G. Dave , Counsel for the petitioner has on 16 th January, 2015 filed proof of service of Copy of petition on Ms. Pinky Anand and Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate for Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. The matter above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31986/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2014 in WP No. 5109/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief and office report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the special leave petition.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2015.01.2017:16:46 ISTReason: (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title and amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014

2 SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31442/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 31986/2014 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24053/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 15/01/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mrs. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Saudamini Sarma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. A.P. Meth, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv.

3 Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Faispil Sherwani, Adv. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738, 6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of Union of India prays for two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015. SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be served on Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 285455, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 & 274275 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68396914, 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents and Amendment of Cause Title) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 24053, 29803804, 29765 & 31442 OF 2014 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC ETC ...PETITIONER VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENT REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20 th November, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “In pursuance of our order dated 18 th November, 2014, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, has appeared and submitted that this batch of matters have been allocated to Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, who shall argue the matter. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays for four weeks' time to file counter affidavit putting forth the stand and stance of the Union of India. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, shall hand over the paper book to Ms. Anand within three days. List the matters on 15 th January, 2015. ” It is submitted that Counsel for the Union of India has not filed Counter affidavit so far. It is further submitted that Ms. Hematika wahi (Standing Counsel for the State of Gujarat.) has not filed any proof of paper books to Ms. Pinki Anand.

Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 1 is received and in r/o Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 and 3 awaited. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. Nos. 2 & 3 are received. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 4 received. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 filed. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 is awaited. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o all respondents. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. 285455/13 11 Resp. no. 1,5,6 and 8 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o of all respondent has been received. 8115/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8116/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8117/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8114/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received.

Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 362/14 4 Resp. no. 1 to 3 are represented & Counter affidavit filed. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 12567/14 3 All are represented through counsel. 21521/14 4 Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 22653/14 2 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented. 24053/14 3 - Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 1,2,3. 29803804/14 5 Respondent No. 1 is represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. nos. 2 to 5 29765/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented 31442/14 4 Resp. No. 1 to 3 represented Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 SLP(C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 25 th November, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several matters pending before this Court. List before an appropriate Bench along with similar matters particulars whereof shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Registry.” It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Ms. Bindi G. Dave, Counsel for the petitioner has on 29 th November, 2014 filed a letter dated 28 th November, 2014 stating therein that the connected matters are all tagged together and are being heard with the lead matter bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 53605363 of 2013. Copy of the letter is being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

It is further submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama. The same are registered as IA No. 274 & 275 of 2014. Copies of the have been placed with the main paper books but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. In this regard he has filed a letter (Copy enclosed.) It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ Rs. 3,74,086/ 22092015 29012015 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ Rs. 64,84,151/ 22092015 29012015 6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ Rs. 24,11,493/ 22092015 29012015 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ Rs. 30,39,987 22092015 29012015 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ Rs. 1,34,330/ 22092015 29012015 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ Rs. 1,21,682/ 22092015 29012015 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ Rs. 43,22,422/ 22092015 29012015 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ Rs. 1,16,377/ 22092015 29012015 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ Rs. 1,30,098/ 22092015 29012015 7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ Rs. 1,32,235/ 22092015 29012015 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ Rs. 1,08,423/ 22092015 29012015

7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ Rs. 1,67,320/ 22092015 29012015 7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ Rs. 1,23,240/ 22092015 29012015 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ Rs. 13,539/ 22092015 29012015 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ Rs. 1,13,093/ 22092015 29012015 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ Rs. 1,64,230/ 22092015 29012015 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ Rs. 82,491/ (FDR844A) Rs. 80,665/ (FDR844B) 22092015 29012015 29012015 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ Rs. 71,498/(FDR845A) Rs. 1,10,398/(FDR845B) 22092015 29012015 29012015 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ Rs. 1,57,739/ 22092015 29012015 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ Rs. 2,29,313/ 22092015 29012015 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ Rs. 1,94,122/ 22092015 29012015 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ Rs. 95,536/ 22092015 29012015 7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ Rs. 1,34,,424/ 22092015 29012015 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ Rs. 73,474/ 22092015 29012015 7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ Rs. 1,26,884/ 22092015 29012015 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ Rs. 1,04,373/ 22092015 29012015 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ Rs. 1,69,052/ (FDR854A) Rs. 1,21,082/ (FDR854A) 22092015 29012015 29012015 285455/14 Rs. 6,68,702/ Rs. 11,67,255/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1532015 1532015 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

º) ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and amendment of cause title and amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and directions and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014Signature Not Verified (With Office Report)Digitally signed by SLP(C) No. 12567/2014Gulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.01.1916:54:32 IST (With Interim Relief and Office Report)Reason: SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 2SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 31442/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 31986/2014

(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedjudgment and exemption from filing O.T. and permission to placeaddl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 24053/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)Date : 15/01/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mrs. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Saudamini Sarma, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. A.P. Meth, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. 3 Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Faispil Sherwani, Adv. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., Adv. M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., Adv. Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363, 5364, 5365, 6385-6387, 6737-6738,6739, 6836-6926, 7865-7894, 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013,CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2854-2855 OF 2014 AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567,21521, 22653, 29803-29804, 29765, 31442 AND 24053 OF 2014 Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General ofUnion of India prays for two weeks time to file the counteraffidavit. Prayers is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weekstherefrom. Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2015.SLP (C) NO. 31986 OF 2014 Let a copy of this petition be served on Ms. Abha R. Shama,learned counsel, who ordinarily represents Nawi Mumbai MunicipalCorporation, Maharashtra. A copy of the petition also be servedon Mrs. Anil Katiyar, who is assisting Mrs. Pinky Anand. List the matter on 19.01.2015. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31986/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2014 in WP No. 5109/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 14/01/2015 This petition was MENTIONED today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Adv. (Mentioned by) Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R On mentioning, the matter is taken on Board. List the matter tomorrow (15.01.2015) along with Civil Appeal No.5360-5363 of 2013. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.C. Parasher) Court Master

ITEM NO.94 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31442/2014 CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 17/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.11.2014 specifically directed that issue of notice must be returnable on 15.1.2015. The office report suggests that spare copies have not been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, as a result of non-filing of the spare copies, notice as well as formal order could not be issued. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the spare copies within two days. If the spare copies are filed, Registry to issue notice immediately, returnable for 15.1.2015 and also to process the matter for listing, as per Hon'ble Court's order dated 28.11.2014. (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

z ITEM NO.94 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. SURAJIT DEY Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31442/2014 CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 17/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.11.2014 specifically directed that issue of notice must be returnable on 15.1.2015. The office report suggests that spare copies have not been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, as a result of non-filing of the spare copies, notice as well as formal order could not be issued. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the spare copies within two days. If the spare copies are filed, Registry to issue notice immediately, returnable for 15.1.2015 and also to process the matterSignature Not Verified for listing, as per Hon'ble Court's order datedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.12.22 28.11.2014.11:49:09 ISTReason: (SURAJIT DEY) Registrar

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS. 3 & 4 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(s).24053/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 10282/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s) (for restoration and c/delay in filing application for restoration and office report) Date : 01/12/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anush Rajaan, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned. The application for restoration is allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000. The amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and be utilised for juvenile justice issues. The special leave petition is restored to its original number. Issue notice in the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the petitions. (NIDHI AHUJA) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

þITEM NO.2 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.NOS. 3 & 4 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(s).24053/2014(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014in WP No. 10282/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUSSANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s)(for restoration and c/delay in filing application for restorationand office report)Date : 01/12/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anush Rajaan, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned. The application for restoration is allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000. The amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and be utilised for juvenile justice issues. The special leave petition is restored to its original number. Issue notice in the special leave petition. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the petitions. (NIDHI AHUJA) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31442/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/09/2014 in WP No. 4803/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 28/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice, returnable on 15 th January, 2015. Tag with C.A. No.8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise the demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during the pendency of the petition. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

SECTIONIIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 31442 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Exemption from filing certified copy of Impugned order) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for Exemption from filing O/T) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. . ..RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and order dated 18 th September, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 4803 of 2014. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition No. 12567 of 2014 entitled “ CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs THANE MUNICIPAL CORP. & ORS. ” filed by petitioner herein involving similar question of law, which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 30 th June, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice ( Copy of the Order dated 30 th June, 2014 has been annexed as Annexure P12 at page Nos. 120 – 121 in the SLP paper books). The matter abovementioned alongwith applications is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy To: Mr. Bindi G. Dave, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

p ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31442/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/09/2014 in WP No. 4803/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 28/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice, returnable on 15th January, 2015. Tag with C.A. No.8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise the demand on the petitioner. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioner during theSignature Not Verified pendency of the petition.Digitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2014.11.2913:35:07 ISTReason: (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31986/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2014 in WP No. 5109/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. For exem. From filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exem. From filing O.T. and permission to place addl. Documents on record and interim relief) Date : 25/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr.Amar Dave, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several similar matters pending before this Court. List before an appropriate Bench along with similar matters particulars whereof shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Registry. (Shashi Sareen) Court Master (Veena Khera) Court Master

ä ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31986/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/08/2014 in WP No. 5109/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. For exem. From filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exem. From filing O.T. and permission to place addl. Documents on record and interim relief) Date : 25/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr.Amar Dave, Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several similar matters pending before this Court. List before an appropriate Bench along with similar matters particulars whereof shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Registry.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byShashi SareenDate: 2014.11.2611:03:48 ALMTReason: (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master

C.A.5360-63/13 1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.5364/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.6737-6738/2013 (With office report for direction) C.A. No.6739/2013 (With office report for direction) C.A. Nos.6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014 (With office report) C.A. No.8115/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No.8116/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No.8117/2013 (With interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.12567/2014 (With interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.21521/2014 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No.8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P(C) No.22653/2014 (With interim relief and office report)

C.A.5360-63/13 2 S.L.P.(C) Nos.29803-29804/2014 (With office report) S.L.P.(C) No.29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/11/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, A.G. Mrs. Pinki Anand, A.S.G. Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. D.N.Ray, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Sadapurna Banarjee, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co.

C.A.5360-63/13 3 Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In pursuance of our order dated 18 th November, 2014, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, has appeared and submitted that this batch of matters have been allocated to Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, who shall argue the matter. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays for four weeks' time to file counter affidavit putting forth the stand and stance of the Union of India. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, shall hand over the paper book to Ms. Anand within three days. List the matters on 15 th January, 2015. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master

\206C.A.5360-63/13 1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) forAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.5364/2013(With interim relief and office report)C.A. No. 5365/2013(With interim relief and office report)C.A. Nos.6737-6738/2013(With office report for direction)C.A. No.6739/2013(With office report for direction)C.A. Nos.6836-6926/2013 amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proformarespondents and interim relief and office report)C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim reliefand office report)C.A. Nos.7865-7894/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim reliefand office report)C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014(With office report)C.A. No.8115/2013(With interim relief and office report)C.A. No.8116/2013(With interim relief and office report)C.A. No.8117/2013(With interim relief and office report)S.L.P.(C) No.362/2014(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)S.L.P.(C) No.12567/2014(With interim relief and office report)S.L.P.(C) No.21521/2014(With interim relief and office report)C.A. No.8114/2013(With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interimrelief and Interim Relief and Office Report)S.L.P(C) No.22653/2014(With interim relief and office report) C.A.5360-63/13

2 S.L.P.(C) Nos.29803-29804/2014(With office report)S.L.P.(C) No.29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/11/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, A.G.Mrs. Pinki Anand, A.S.G.Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AORMs. Jesal, Adv.Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv.Mr. Mohit Paul, AORMr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. D.N.Ray, Adv.Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AORMr. Sadapurna Banarjee, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv.for M/s. Parekh & Co. C.A.5360-63/13 3 Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv.Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv.Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv.M/s. J. S. Wad & Co. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv.Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv.Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingO R D E R In pursuance of our order dated 18th November, 2014,Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, hasappeared and submitted that this batch of matters have beenallocated to Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral, who shall argue the matter. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays for four weeks' time to file counter affidavitputting forth the stand and stance of the Union of India.Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the Stateof Gujarat, shall hand over the paper book to Ms. Anand within three days. List the matters on 15th January, 2015. (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions and vacating interim relief and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014

2 SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 29765/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 18/11/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal, Adv. Mr. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Anush Raajan, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv. Ms. Natasha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vashwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Adv. Mr Pawan Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv.

3 For Respondent(s) Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy P. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Adv. Mr. Syan Ray, Adv. Mr. Ritesh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. For M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. Mr. Vinoy Navare, Adv. Mr. Alha R. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the parties undertake to inform the Attorney General for India. List the matter on 20.11.2014. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

Listed on : 18112014 Item No. : SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 68366926, 638587, 786594, 285455, 8115, 8116, 8117 AND 8114 OF 2013 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 14 AND 183273 IN CIVIL APPEAL 536063 AND 68366926 OF 2013 (Application for deletion the name of performa Respondents) WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 79 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638587 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567, 21521, 22653, 29803804 & 29765 OF 2014 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC ETC ...PETITIONER VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENT REVISED OFFICE REPORT The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th October, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “List the matters after four weeks. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to have all the respondents served. Pleadings be completed in the meantime.” Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service/ Counteraffidavit 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate Certificate of service has been

for Resp. no. 1 received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited. 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 1 is received and in r/o Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1 and 3 awaited. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no's. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 9 are awaited. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service in r/o all the respondents are received (Service complete) 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is awaited. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service Complete. 6839/13 3 Resp. No. 1 through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no 3 is received and Resp. no. 2 is awaited. 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent Service is complete.

represented through counsel 843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through Service is complete.

counsel 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the

name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed.

6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o

resp. no. 2 awaited. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6914/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is received. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 are filed. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6923/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 is filed. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete.

6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Application for deletion the name of performa on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 are filed. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o of 2 and 3 is awaited. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. Original record has also been received. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o all respondents. Original record has also been received. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Service is complete. 285455/13 11 Resp. no. 1,5,6 and 8 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o of all respondent has been received. 8115/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8116/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8117/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8114/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received. SLP No. 362 of 2014 362/14 4 Resp. no. 1 to 3 is represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 12567/14 3 All are represented through counsel.

21521/14 4 Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 are represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 22653/14 2 Respondent No. 2 is represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 1 29803804/14 5 Resp. No. 1 to 5. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the four spare copies instead of five hence, notice could not be issued. 29765/14 3 Resp. No. 1 to 3 Notice issued on 14112014, neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 1 to 3 It is submitted that Ms. Hemantika wahi has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for deletion the name of performa respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5360–63 and 68366926 of 2013. The same are registered as I.A No. 1 to 4 and 183 to 273. Copies of the same have been placed with the main paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate has filed vakalat and appearance on behalf of Vyom Networks Ltd. It is further that M/s Parekh & Co., Advocates has on 5 th November, 2014 filed an application for amendment of Cause title on behalf of Wireless TT Ltd. in C.A No. 6839 & 6914 of 2013 praying therein changing the name of the Respondent/Applicant along with Vakalatnama but he has not taken the no objection from erstwhile advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja. It is lastly submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 16,90,876/ Rs. 17,28,700/ 01092015 5364/13 Rs. 9,54,122/ 22092015 5365/13 Rs. 80,06,434/ 22092015

6386/13 Rs. 28,43,987/ 22092015 6387/13 Rs. 23,64,035/ 22092015 7865/13 Rs. 2,55,679/ 22092015 7866/13 Rs. 2,07,395/ 22092015 7867/13 Rs. 1,35,927/ 22092015 7868/13 Rs. 1,33,022/ 22092015 7869/13 Rs. 99,589/ 22092015 7870/13 Rs. 1,52,626/ 22092015 7871/13 Rs. 1,20,955/ 22092015 7872/13 Rs. 2,06,952/ 22092015 7873/13 Rs. 87,593/ 22092015 7874/13 Rs. 1,50,699/ 22092015 7875/13 Rs. 1,67,550/ 22092015 7876/13 Rs. 1,39,315/ 22092015 7877/13 Rs. 2,16,477/ 22092015 7879/13 Rs. 67,510/ 22092015 7881/13 Rs. 1,94,495/ 22092015 7882/13 Rs. 1,86,788/ 22092015 7883/13 Rs. 1,68,450/ 22092015 7886/13 Rs. 1,51,358/ 22092015 7887/13 Rs. 1,51,247/ 22092015 7888/13 Rs. 1,50,659/ 22092015 7889/13 Rs. 1,39,258/ 22092015 7891/13 Rs. 1,86,320/ 22092015 7893/13 Rs. 1,26,039/ 22092015 285455/14 Rs. 6,68,702/ Rs. 11,67,255/ Rs. 4,03,070/ 1532015 1532015 2942015 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Ö+ C.A.5360-63/13 1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.5364/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.6737-6738/2013 (With office report for direction) C.A. No.6739/2013 (With office report for direction) C.A. Nos.6836-6926/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and appln.(s) for deletion of proforma respondents and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.6385-6387/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.7865-7894/2013 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and interim relief and office report) C.A. Nos.2854-2855/2014 (With office report) C.A. No.8115/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No.8116/2013 (With interim relief and office report) C.A. No.8117/2013 (With interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.12567/2014 (With interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) No.21521/2014 (With interim relief and office report)Signature Not Verified C.A. No.8114/2013Digitally signed byChetan KumarDate: 2014.11.20 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interim19:18:08 ISTReason: relief and Interim Relief and Office Report) S.L.P(C) No.22653/2014 (With interim relief and office report)C.A.5360-63/13 2S.L.P.(C) Nos.29803-29804/2014(With office report)

S.L.P.(C) No.29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date : 20/11/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, A.G. Mrs. Pinki Anand, A.S.G. Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. D.N.Ray, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Sadapurna Banarjee, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, AOR Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co.C.A.5360-63/13 3 Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Jayashree Wad, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. M/s. J. S. Wad & Co. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In pursuance of our order dated 18th November, 2014, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, has appeared and submitted that this batch of matters have been allocated to Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, who shall argue the matter. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays for four weeks' time to file counter affidavit putting forth the stand and stance of the Union of India. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, shall hand over the paper book to Ms. Anand within three days. List the matters on 15th January, 2015. (Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

°1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. SECTION IIIA I N D I A Appellant(s) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for deletion of proforma respondents) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 5365/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013(With Office Report for Direction)C.A. No. 6739/2013(With Office Report for Direction)C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013(With Office Report for Direction)C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013(With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Interim Reliefand Office Report)C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013(With Office Report for Direction)C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014(With Office Report)C.A. No. 8115/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)

C.A. No. 8116/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8117/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 362/2014(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 12567/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8114/2013(With appln.(s) for directions and vacating interim relief andInterim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 2 SLP(C) No. 29803-29804/2014(With Office Report)SLP(C) No. 29765/2014(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 18/11/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv.Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.Ms. Jesal, Adv.Mr. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv.Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv.Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Anush Raajan, Adv.Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Adv.Ms. Natasha, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vashwanathan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv.Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv.Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv.For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Adv.Mr Pawan Kumar, Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. 3 For Respondent(s) Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy P. Sharma, Adv.Mr. Sharad Sharma, Adv.Mr. Syan Ray, Adv.Mr. Ritesh, Adv.Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Adv.Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv.For M/s. J. S. Wad & Co.,Adv. Mr. Vinoy Navare, Adv.Mr. Alha R. Sharma, Adv.Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingO R D E R Learned counsel for the parties undertake to inform the Attorney General for India. List the matter on 20.11.2014. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....CC No. 17000/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 7236/2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 03/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shekar Naphade, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Anush Rajan, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the petitions. (Rajni Mukhi) (Jaswinder Kaur)

Sr. P.A. Court Master

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 16952-16953/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA No. 1337/2010,24/04/2013 in SCA No. 3411/2012,25/04/2013 in SCA No. 1337/2010,25/04/2014 in SCA No. 3411/2012 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 03/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally M. Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms. Sadapoorna Mukherjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 6385-87 of 2013@ SLP(C) Nos. 22309-22311 of 2013. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. CC 1695253 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 12 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. ....PETITIONERS VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned are filed against the final judgment and order dated 24 th April, 2013 & 25 th April, 2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 1337 of 2010 and 3411 of 2012 and are barred by time by 429 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal No. 638587 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition No. 2230922311 of 2013 entitled “SURAT MUNICIPAL CORP. vs RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS.” arising from common order which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 5 th August, 2013, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the order dated 5 th August, 2013 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith applications abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vks4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 17000 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR. ....PETITIONER VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned interim judgment and order dated 21 st April, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 7236 of 2011 and is barred by time by 58 days. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition No. 22653 of 2014 entitled “IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND ANR. vs PUNE MUNICIPAL COPORATION AND ANR.” arising from similar issue which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st September, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the order dated 1 st September, 2014 is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is also submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the Petitioner has on 30 th October, 2014 filed Additional Documents. Copy of the same is being circulated herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER , 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tm4

$ ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....CC No. 17000/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 7236/2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 03/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shekar Naphade, Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Anush Rajan, Adv. Ms. Natasha Bopaiah, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the petitions.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRajni MukhiDate: 2014.11.0316:01:08 ISTReason: (Rajni Mukhi) (Jaswinder Kaur)Sr. P.A. Court Master

Â ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s). 16952-16953/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA No. 1337/2010,24/04/2013 in SCA No. 3411/2012,25/04/2013 in SCA No. 1337/2010,25/04/2014 in SCA No. 3411/2012 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 03/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally M. Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms. Sadapoorna Mukherjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 6385-87 of 2013@ SLP(C) Nos. 22309-22311 of 2013. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI)Signature Not Verified (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTERDigitally signed byDeepak Mansukhani COURT MASTERDate: 2014.11.0317:25:27 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)

-2- SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interim relief and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 09/10/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uday Joshi, Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy P. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh, Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv.

-3- Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters after four weeks. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to have all the respondents served. Pleadings be completed in the meantime. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

þ ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)Signature Not Verified SLP(C) No. 362/2014Digitally signed by (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report)Deepak MansukhaniDate: 2014.10.0917:10:09 ISTReason: SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) -2-SLP(C) No. 21521/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)C.A. No. 8114/2013(With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for vacating interimrelief and Interim Relief and Office Report)SLP(C) No. 22653/2014(With Interim Relief and Office Report)

Date : 09/10/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Prashant Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uday Joshi, Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy P. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh, Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. K. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, Adv. -3- Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters after four weeks. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to have all the respondents served. Pleadings be completed in the meantime.(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24053/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 10282/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 19/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. (NP) For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter has been called twice. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 24053 OF 2014 IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED ....PETITIONER VERSUS SANGLIMIRAJKUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Impugned Judgment and Interim Order dated 21 st April, 2014 passed by Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10282 of 2009. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed application for condonation of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition after curing defects which is barred by time by 9 days and the same has been condoned by Additional Registrar IB. The matter abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Advocate tm3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¼ ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24053/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 10282/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) Date : 19/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. (NP) For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter has been called twice. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMeenakshi KohliDate: 2014.09.2210:35:03 ISTReason:

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions, vacating interim relief, Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014 Date : 03/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

2 For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. Prashant g. Desai,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati,Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary,Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh,Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh,Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin,Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal,Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv. Mr. Shakti Narayanan,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after four weeks. Service and pleadings to be completed in the meanwhile. [O.P. SHARMA] [INDU BALA KAPUR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Listed on : 392014 Court No. : 9 Item No. : SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 536063, 5364, 5365, 673738, 6739, 638587, 285455, 8115, 8116, 8117, 786594, 68366926, 8114 OF 2013 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 3 IN 8114, 8116, 8117 OF 2013 AND INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 2 IN 8115 OF 2013 (Application for Direction) AND SLP (C) NOS. 362, 12567 & 21521 OF 2014 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ...PETITIONER VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT Civil Appeal No. 8114, 8115, 8116 & 8117 of 2013 with SLP No. 362 & 12567 of 2014 The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 21 st August, 2014, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “List all the matters on 3 rd September, 2014 alongwith Civil Appeal No. 5360-63 of 2013.” Service position of each matter is placed below: Case No. Nos. of respondent Through counsel Certificate of service 5360/13 3 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. 5361/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service has been received in r/o R2. Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 3 to 5 is awaited.

-2- 5362/13 2 M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates for respondent no. 1 Certificate of service is awaited in r/o Resp. Nos. 2. 5363/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 to 9 is awaited. 5364/13 3 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 3 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 3 received. 5365/13 5 Mr. A. P. Medh, Advocate for Resp. no. 1 Certificate of service in r/o Resp. no. 2 & 5 received. 6737/13 4 Certificate of service awiated. 6738/13 9 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Resp. no. 2. Mr. P. J. Malkan, Advocate for Resp. no. 5. Ms. Hemantika wahi, Advocate for Resp. no. 6. Certificate of service awiated in r/o Resp. no. 1, 3, 4 & 7 to 9. 6739/13 10 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for resp. no. 2 Certificate of service received in r/o resp. no. 1 to 10. 6836/13 3 Resp. no. 1 represented through counsel. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 awaited. 6837/13 2 Do Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 is awaited. 6838/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel 6839/13 3 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 3 has been received and certificate of service in r/o 1 & 2 is awaited 6840/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6841/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6842/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

-3- 6843/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6844/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6845/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6846/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6847/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6848/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6849/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6850/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6851/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6852/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6853/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6854/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6855/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6856/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

-4- 6857/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6858/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6859/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6860/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6861/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6862/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6863/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6864/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6865/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6866/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6867/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6868/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6869/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete.

-5- 6870/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6871/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6872/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6873/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6874/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6875/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6876/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6877/13 1 Sole respondent represented through counsel Service is complete. 6878/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6879/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6880/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6881/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6882/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6883/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6884/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6885/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited.

-6- 6886/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6887/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6888/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6889/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6890/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6891/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6892/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6893/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6894/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6895/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6896/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6897/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6898/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6899/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6900/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6901/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6902/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6903/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6904/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited.

-7- 6905/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6906/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6907/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6908/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 awaited. 6909/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6910/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6911/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6912/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6913/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6914/13 1 Certificate of service is awaited. 6915/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented. Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6916/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6917/13 4 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 to 4 awaited. 6918/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6919/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6920/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represetned Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 awaited. 6921/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6922/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 awaited.

-8- 6923/13 2 Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 1 & 2 awaited. 6924/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6925/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Service is complete. 6926/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 awaited. 6385/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 & 3 received. Original record has also been received. 6386/13 1 Sole respondent is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is received. Original record has also been received. 6387/13 3 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o all respondents. Original record has also been received. 786594/13 2 common respondent Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received. Original record has also been received. 2854/13 4 Certificate of service is awaited. 2855/13 9 Resp. no. 5 is represented through counsel. Certificate of service is awaited. 8115/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8116/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8117/13 2 Respondents are represented Service is complete 8114/13 2 Resp. no. 1 is represented Certificate of service in r/o resp. no. 2 received.

9 SLP No. 362 of 2014 362/14 4 Resp. no. 1 to 3 is represented. Neither AD card nor unserved cover containing notice has been received back in r/o resp. no. 4 12567/14 3 All are represented through counsel. 21521/14 4 Notice issued on 22.08.2014. Service is awaited. 22653/14 2 Listed on 1.9.2014. Order and notice not issued since counsel has not filed copy of petition and affidavit of valuation and court fees. It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of various Court's Order counsel has deposited the amount as FDR in the following matters: Case No. Amount Date of maturity 536063/13 Two FDR Rs. 15,74,488/ Rs. 16,09,709/ 3182014 5364/13 Rs. 8,88,435/ 2192014 5365/13 Rs. 74,55,235/ 2192014 6386/13 Rs. 26,48,193/ 2192014 6387/13 Rs. 22,01,284/ 2192014 7865/13 Rs. 2,38,077/ 2192014 7866/13 Rs. 1,93,117/ 2192014 7867/13 Rs. 1,26,569/ 2192014 7868/13 Rs. 1,23,864/ 2192014 7869/13 Rs. 92,734/ 2192014 7870/13 Rs. 1,42,118/ 2192014 7871/13 Rs. 1,12,628/ 2192014 7872/13 Rs. 1,92,705/ 2192014

-10- 7873/13 Rs. 81,562/ 2192014 7874/13 Rs. 1,40,324/ 2192014 7875/13 Rs. 1,56,015/ 2192014 7876/13 Rs. 1,29,723/ 2192014 7877/13 Rs. 2,01,575/ 2192014 7879/13 Rs. 62,861/ 2192014 7881/13 Rs. 1,81,106/ 2192014 7882/13 Rs. 1,73,929/ 2192014 7883/13 Rs. 1,56,852/ 2192014 7886/13 Rs. 1,40,939/ 2192014 7887/13 Rs. 1,40,834/ 2192014 7888/13 Rs. 1,40,287/ 2192014 7889/13 Rs. 1,29,671/ 2192014 7891/13 Rs. 1,73,493/ 2192014 7893/13 Rs. 1,17,363/ 2192014 The matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Advocate M/s Paresh & Co., Advocate Mr. Mohit Paul, Advocate Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocate Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vks4

Ð 1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5360-5363/2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5365/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6737-6738/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6739/2013 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 6836-6926/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6385-6387/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 2854-2855/2014 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21521/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8114/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions, vacating interim relief, Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22653/2014Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byOm Parkash SharmaDate: 2014.09.06 Date : 03/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.13:51:13 ISTReason: CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI 2For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Preetesh Kapur,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Jesal,Adv. Mr. Prashant g. Desai,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati,Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit,Adv. Mr. D.N. Ray,Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary,Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh,Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh,Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co.,Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin,Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal,Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar,Adv. Mr. Shakti Narayanan,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after four weeks. Service and pleadings to becompleted in the meanwhile.[O.P. SHARMA] [INDU BALA KAPUR]COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22653/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 7327/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL COPORATION AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 01/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the petitions. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

b ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22653/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21/04/2014 in WP No. 7327/2009 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL COPORATION AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and interim relief) Date : 01/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek A. Vashi,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 8114 of 2013. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the petitions. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMeenakshi KohliDate: 2014.09.0212:31:28 ISTReason:

1 ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 92-182/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 6836-6926/2013 STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ORS ETC. Respondent(s) (for amendment of cause title) WITH I.A. No. 61-90/2014 in C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (For amendment of cause title) Date : 25/08/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhijat P. Medh ,Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala ,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja ,Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. ,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. Nos.92-182 of 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013 and I.A. Nos.61-90 of

2 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7865-7894 of 2013 seeking amendment of the cause title to implead the transferee company by virtue of the scheme of amalgamation passed by the Court in the Company Petition No. 14 of 2012 and in connected company application no. 14 of 2012 along with Company Application (M) Nos.140, 141, 142 and 143 of 2011. As per the aforesaid amalgamation scheme, all three companies have been amalgamated with the transferee company i.e. Indus Tower Limited. The same shall be substituted in place of Bharti Infratel Ltd. Amended cause title is filed. The same shall be taken on record. (VINOD KUMAR) (H.S.PARASHER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Ô 1 ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 92-182/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 6836-6926/2013 STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant(s) VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ORS ETC. Respondent(s) (for amendment of cause title) WITH I.A. No. 61-90/2014 in C.A. No. 7865-7894/2013 (For amendment of cause title) Date : 25/08/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhijat P. Medh ,Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala ,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja ,Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. ,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. M/s. Parekh & Co. ,Adv.Signature Not Verified UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingDigitally signed by O R D E RVinod KumarDate: 2014.08.3009:57:26 ISTReason: Heard learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. Nos.92-182 of 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013 and I.A. Nos.61-90 of 22014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7865-7894 of 2013 seeking amendment ofthe cause title to implead the transferee company by virtue of thescheme of amalgamation passed by the Court in the Company PetitionNo. 14 of 2012 and in connected company application no. 14 of 2012along with Company Application (M) Nos.140, 141, 142 and 143 of

2011. As per the aforesaid amalgamation scheme, all three companieshave been amalgamated with the transferee company i.e. Indus TowerLimited. The same shall be substituted in place of BhartiInfratel Ltd. Amended cause title is filed. The same shall betaken on record. (VINOD KUMAR) (H.S.PARASHER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 8114/2013 RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and vacating interim relief and interim relief and office report) WITH C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 21/08/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin,Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala ,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh,Adv. Mr. Sajan Ray,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja ,Adv. Mr. Amar Dave,Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare,Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma ,Adv.

2 Mr. V. N. Raghupathy ,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List all the matters on 3 rd September, 2014 alongwith Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013. [O.P. SHARMA] [INDU BALA KAPUR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\200 1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 8114/2013 RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and vacating interim relief and interim relief and office report) WITH C.A. No. 8115/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8116/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 8117/2013 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 362/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 12567/2014 (With appln.(s) for Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 21/08/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin,Adv. Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala ,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ritesh Singh,Adv. Mr. Sajan Ray,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja ,Adv. Mr. Amar Dave,Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi,Adv.Signature Not Verified Ms. Bindi Girish Dave ,Adv.Digitally signed byOm Parkash SharmaDate: 2014.08.28 For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare,Adv.11:58:46 ISTReason: Mr. Satyajeet Kumar,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma ,Adv. 2 Mr. V. N. Raghupathy ,Adv. Mr. D. M. Nargolkar ,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List all the matters on 3rd September, 2014 alongwithCivil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013.[O.P. SHARMA] [INDU BALA KAPUR]COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

z ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21521/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/04/2014 in WP No. 4635/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VIOM INFRA NETWORKS MAHARASHTRA LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12/08/2014 This petition was taken up in mentioning today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sharad Sharma,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. Issue notice. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the petitioners. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners during the pendency of the petition. Tag with C.A. No.8114/2013. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNarendra PrasadDate: 2014.08.1217:15:54 ISTReason:

\ ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12567/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/04/2014 in WP 979/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay) CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THANE MUNICIPAL CORP. & ORS. Respondents(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 30/06/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Adv. Mr. Amit Sethi,Adv. Mr. Aman Gandhi,Adv. Ms. Bindi Girish Dave,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Post along with C.A. No.8114/2013 @ SLP(C) No.21641/2013. The same interim order granted by this Court on 09.09.2013 in C.A. No.8114/2013 @ SLP(C) No.21641/2013 will hold good in this special leave petition as well. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNarendra PrasadDate: 2014.07.0118:05:49 ISTReason:

:ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA 3-4/2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2854-2855 OF 2014SURAT MUNICIPAL CORP.ETC. Appellant (s) VERSUSTOWER VISION INDIA P.LTD.& ORS. Respondent(s)( for directions and office report )Date: 11/04/2014 These IAs were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPHFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Mohit Paul, learned counsel for the appellants submits that an amount of Rs. 4,03,070/- has already been deposited by the appellants on 3.9.2013. If that be so, the order dated 24.2.2014 with regard to deposit of amount be treated to have been complied with. I.A. Nos. 3-4 of 2014 stand disposed of accordingly. (Pardeep Kumar) (Renu Diwan) AR-cum-PS Court Master

NITEM NO.32 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8114 OF 2013RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and vacating interim relief and with prayerfor interim relief and office report ))WITH SLP(C) NO. 362 of 2014(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)Civil Appeal NO. 8115 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Civil Appeal NO. 8116 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Civil Appeal NO. 8117 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Date: 26/02/2014 These Appeals and Petition were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv. Ms. Shelly Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.SLP 362/2014 Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. -2-CA 8114/13 Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.CA 8116/13 and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr.Adv.CA 8117/13 Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List all the matters on 9th April, 2014 at the top of the Board. S.L.P.(C) No. 362 of 2014 List on 9th April, 2014. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the appeals. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master

¼ITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).362/2014With I.A. No. 2 of 2014(From the judgement and order dated 07/05/2013 in WP No.11216/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUSKALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and office report ))Date: 25/02/2014 This Petition was called on for mentioning today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.M. Nargolkar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter on 26th February, 2014 along with C ivil Appeal No. 8114 of 2013. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master

&ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 386-387/2014(From the judgement and order dated 24/25-04-2013 in SCA No.1681/2013 andSCA No.3787/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)SURAT MUNICIPAL CORP.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTOWER VISION INDIA P.LTD.& ORS. Respondent(s) With I.A. No. 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 24/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed subject to appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeals. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeals. Connect with Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363 of 2013.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renuka Sadana) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

èITEM NO.MM-5 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).362/2014(From the judgement and order dated 07/05/2013 in WP No.11216/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUSKALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and office report)Date: 19/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sajan Roy,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.M. Nargolkar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List along with I.A.No.3 in C.A. No. 8114 of 2013. [ Madhu Bala ] [ Savita Sainani ] Court Master Assistant Registrar

RITEM NO.4 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSIA 2/2014 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).362/2014(From the judgement and order dated 07/05/2013 in WP No.11216/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUSKALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS. Respondent(s)(for directions and office report)Date: 07/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.M. Nargolkar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed, four weeks' time is allowed for filing counter affidavit. List thereafter. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Indu Bala Kapur) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

¢ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 386-387/2014(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA No.1681/2013,SCANo.3787/2013 dated 25/04/2013 in SCA No.1681/2013,SCA No.3787/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)SURAT MUNICIPAL CORP.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTOWER VISION INDIA P.LTD.& ORS. Respondent(s)With IA 1-2 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 20/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R A letter has been circulated by the advocate-on-record for the petitioners praying for time on the ground of personal difficulty of the senior counsel. List the matter after four weeks.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||AR-cum-PS | |Court Master |

P!ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6737-6738 OF 2013BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL COR. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)WITHC.A.No.6739/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)C.A.No.5364/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)C.A.No.5365/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)C.A.No.6836-6926/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)C.A.No.6385-6387/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)C.A.No.7865-7894/2013(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION)Date: 17/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Appellant(s) Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. LokeshK. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Sumita Ray,Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. R.S. Bodbe, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. for M/s Parekh & CO. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Gorav Srivstava, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv.

Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal Nos. 5364 of 2013, 5365 of 2013, 6385-6387 of 2013 and 7865-7894 of 2013 42 demand drafts given by Mr. Rohit Paul, advocate for the appellants, whose validity has expired be returned by the Registry to the concerned advocate immediately. Advocate-on-record for the appellants is directed to deposit the amount within 10 days from today. If the amount is not deposited within ten days from today, the stay order shall stand discharged. Civil Appeal Nos. 5364 of 2013, 5365 of 2013, 6385-6387 of 2013 and 7865-7894 of 2013 According to Office Report for Directions dated 16th day of January, 2014, excess amount of Rs. 4,03,070/- deposited by Mr. Mohit Paul, advocate for the appellants, has been kept in non interest bearing account. Let excess amount of Rs. 4,03,070/- be refunded to the concerned advocate. Civil Appeal Nos. 6737-6738 of 2013 and 6739 of 2013 The oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants for extension of time for compliance of the order dated 12.08.2013 is rejected. The conditional stay order passed by the Court is, accordingly, discharged. Civil Appeal Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013 Interlocutory Application Nos. 1 to 91 of 2014 for extension of time to deposit the amount is rejected. The conditional stay order passed by the Court is, accordingly, discharged. Office Report for Directions is ordered accordingly.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

üITEM NO.36 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8114 OF 2013RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief and officereport) WITHCivil Appeal NO. 8115 of 2013(With appln(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief and officereport)Civil Appeal NO. 8116 of 2013(With appln(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief and officereport)Civil Appeal NO. 8117 of 2013(With appln(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief and officereport)Date: 13/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIFor Appellant(s) Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.For Respondent(s)CA 8114/13 Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.CA 8115/13 Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv.CA 8116/13 & Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.CA 8117/13 Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of letter, circulated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013, the matters are adjourned by four weeks for filing reply to the application. |(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(INDU BALA KAPUR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

\206ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5364 OF 2013SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant (s) VERSUSGTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)[office report for direction)I.A. No. 1 (appln. for directions)withCA No. 5365 of 2013[office report for direction)I.A. NO. 2 for directionsCA Nos. 6737-6738 of 2013[office report for direction)CA No.6739 of 2013[office report for direction)CA Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013[office report for direction)CA Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013[office report for direction)I.A. Nos. 4-6 (appln. for directions)CA Nos. 7865-7894 of 2013[office report for direction)I.A.Nos. 31-60 (appln. for directions)Date: 02/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.CA 6737-6738 Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv. Mr. Lokesh K. Choudhary, Adv. for Ms. Sumita Ray, Adv.CA 6836-6926 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, AdvFor Respondent(s) Ms. R.S. Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. for M/S. Parekh & Co. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Ms. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. Mr. Chinmony Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv. Mr. Puneet Tajena, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. for Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No. 1 in CA No. 5364/2013, I.A. No. 2 in CA 5365 of 2013, I.A. Nos. 4-6 in CA Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013 and I.A. Nos. 31-60 in CA Nos. 7865-7894 of 2013: Registry is directed to accept the amount from the appellant in compliance of the orders dated 9.7.2013, 5.8.2013 and 6.9.2013 if it is made within one week from today. I.A. No. 1 in CA No. 5364/2013, I.A. No. 2 in CA 5365 of 2013, I.A. Nos. 4-6 in CA Nos. 6385-6387 of 2013 and I.A. Nos. 31-60 in CA Nos. 7865-7894 of 2013 stand disposed of. Other directions will be issued after one week. List this group of matters after one week. |(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||AR-cum-PS | |Court Master |

\234ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 21650/2013(From the judgement and order dated 07/05/2013 in WP No.11216/ 2011 of theHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)VIOM IFRA NETWORKS MHARASHTRA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUSKALYAN DOMBIVALI MUN.CORP.& ORS. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 02/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sayan Ray,Adv. Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8114 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.21641/2013. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER

ï»¿ Listed On: 16/12/2013 Court: Item No.: SECTION III-A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs. 3 AND 2 (Application for direction) IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8114, 8115, 8116 AND 8117 OF 2013 RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The Interlocutary applications in the matters above-mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 18th November, 2013, with Office Report dated 16th November, 2013 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- â€œThese matters are adjourned for four weeks.â€� It is submitted that Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate has on 13th December, 2013 filed Reply in the I.A. No. 3 on behalf of the Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 8117 of 2013. The applications above-mentioned are listed before Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Advocate Mr. Deepak M. Nargolkar, Advocate Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rch

fITEM NO.43 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8114 OF 2013RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and prayer for interim relief and officereport )WITH Civil Appeal NO. 8115 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Civil Appeal NO. 8116 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Civil Appeal NO. 8117 of 2013(With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Date: 16/12/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Appellant(s) Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Viraj Kadam, Adv. for Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr.Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.

Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. ...2/- -2- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for respondents, these matters are adjourned for four weeks. In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master

¸ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8114 OF 2013RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for prayer for interim relief and office report ))With C.A. No. 8115 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)C.A. No. 8116 of 2013(With prayer for interim and office report)C.A. No. 8117 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 18/11/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Appellant(s) Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Ms. Sagun Parasar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. Mr. Vinay navare, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These matters are adjourned for four weeks.

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master

\ITEM NO.68 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. No.3 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21641/2013(From the judgment and order dated 30/04/2013 in WP No.2435/2012 of theHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(For directions and office report) WITHI.A. No.2 in SLP(C) NO. 21750 of 2013(For directions and office report)I.A. No.3 in SLP(C) NO. 22091 of 2013(For directions and office report)I.A. No.3 in SLP(C) NO. 22089 of 2013(For directions and office report)Date: 09/09/2013 These cases were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.For Respondent(s)r-1 in Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.SLP(C) 22091/13 & Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv.22089/13 Ms. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv.-on-record UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5360-5363 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19675-19678/2013]. In the meantime, it is clarified that, as an interim measure, the respondents may determine the tax on the mobile towers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the appellants. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the appellants during the pendency of the appeals. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel, for Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate-on-record accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.22091 of 2013 and 22089 of 2013 and prays for four weeks' time to file counter

affidavit and reply to the applications for directions. Let counter affidavit and reply to the applications on behalf of the said respondents be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. Post the matters for interim relief on 18th November, 2013.|(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(INDU BALA KAPUR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

\214ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).25707-25736/2013(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA Nos. 677-706 of 2010of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPN. Petitioner(s) VERSUSBHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND ANR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment andprayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 06/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, Adv. Mr. M. Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. for M/S. Parekh & Co.. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed subject to the appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeals. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeals. Connect with Civil Appeal Nos. 6836-6926 of 2013. |(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

8ITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. NO......... in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).21641/2013(From the judgement and order dated 30/04/2013 in WP No.2435/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file additionaldocuments and prayer for interim relief ))WITH I.A. NO...... in SLP(C) NO. 21750 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)I.A. No...... in SLP(C) NO. 22089 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)I.A. No...... in SLP(C) NO. 22091 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 05/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for mentioning today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv. (Mentioned by) For Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. UPON being mentioned, the Court made the following O R D E R List on Monday, the 9th September, 2013.

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master

:ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21641/2013(From the judgement and order dated 30/04/2013 in WP No.2435/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file additionaldocuments and prayer for interim relief)WITH SLP(C) NO. 21750 of 2013(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interimrelief)SLP(C) NO. 22089 of 2013(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.and prayer for interim relief)SLP(C) NO. 22091 of 2013(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.and prayer for interim relief)Date: 29/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable in two weeks. Mr. Vinay Navare, advocate appears on caveat and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 in SLP(C) Nos.22091/2013 and 22089/2013. Let notice be issued to other respondents. ...2/- "2: Dasti, in addition, is permitted. [ Usha Bhardwaj ] [Indu Bala Kapur ] A.R-cum-P.S. Court Master

tITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).25707-25736/2013(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA No.677/2010,SCANo.678/2010,SCA No.679/2010,SCA No.680/2010,SCA No.681/2010,SCANo.682/2010,SCA No.683/2010,SCA No.684/2010,SCA No.685/2010,SCANo.686/2010,SCA No.687/2010,SCA No.688/2010,SCA No.689/2010,SCANo.690/2010,SCA No.691/2010,SCA No.692/2010,SCA No.693/2010,SCANo.694/2010,SCA No.695/2010,SCA No.696/2010,SCA No.697/2010,SCANo.698/2010,SCA No.699/2010,SCA No.700/2010,SCA No.701/2010,SCANo.702/2010,SCA No.703/2010,SCA No.704/2010,SCA No.705/2010,SCA No.706/2010dated 25/04/2013 in SCA No.677/2010,SCA No.678/2010,SCA No.679/2010,SCA No.680/2010,SCA No.681/2010,SCA No.682/2010,SCA No.683/2010,SCA No.684/2010,SCA No.685/2010,SCA No.686/2010,SCA No.687/2010,SCA No.688/2010,SCA No.689/2010,SCA No.690/2010,SCA No.691/2010,SCA No.692/2010,SCA No.693/2010,SCA No.694/2010,SCA No.695/2010,SCA No.696/2010,SCA No.697/2010,SCA No.698/2010,SCA No.699/2010, SCA No.700/2010, SCA No.701/2010, SCA No.702/2010,SCA No.703/2010,SCA No.704/2010,SCA No.705/2010,SCA No.706/2010 ofThe HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPN. Petitioner(s) VERSUSBHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND ANR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment and prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 26/08/2013 These Petitions were Mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohit Paul, AORFor Respondent(s) M/s. Parekh & Co. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Let this matter, which is shown to be listed on Friday (30.08.2013), be adjourned for one week.|(Chetan Kumar) | |(Savita Sainani) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

jITEM NO.35 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22309-22311/2013(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2013 in SCA No.2843/2009,SCANo.3157/2009,SCA No.1337/2010 dated 25/04/2013 in SCA No.2843/2009,SCANo.3157/2009,SCA No.1337/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)SURAT MUNICIPAL CORP. Petitioner(s) VERSUSRELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment andprayer for interim relief and office report ))Date: 05/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant G. Desh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv. Mr. Dhawal Nanavati, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shagun Parashar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed subject to appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeals. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeals. Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.19675- 19678 of 2013 and other connected matters.

|(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

êITEM NO.31 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21641/2013(From the judgement and order dated 30/04/2013 in WP No.2435/2012 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CO. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief))WITHSLP(C) NO. 21750 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 22089 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 22091 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 22/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sarin, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms. Sagun Parashar, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv. Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters after two weeks.|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

)ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).19675-19678/2013(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2013 and 25/04/2013 in SCANo.3411/2012,SCA No.4084/2012,SCA No.15596/2012 and SCA No.3787/2013 ofThe HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner(s) VERSUSGTL INFRA. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief )WITHSLP(C) NO. 20001 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 20011 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 09/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s)SLP 19675-19678/2013 Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Udey Jani, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.SLP 20001/2013 &SLP 20011/2013 Mr. Prashant G. Desh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Nanavati, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv. Mr. R.F. Nariman, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. for M/S. Parekh & Co. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P. (C) NOS. 19675-19678/2013 Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed

subject to appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeals. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeals. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20001 of 2013 Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed subject to appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeal. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeal. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20011 of 2013 Leave granted. Hearing expedited. The order of refund passed by the High Court is stayed subject to appellant depositing the said amount before this Court within eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in fixed deposit as per Circular No. F. 7/Judl./2007 dated April 24, 2007 initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time till disposal of the Appeal. It is clarified that the appellant may determine the tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and raise demand on the respondents. However, such demand shall not be enforced against the respondents until disposal of the Appeals. Moreover, determination of such tax shall be subject to the final decision in the Appeal. |(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

VIOM NETWORKS LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status