NEW MEDIA BROADCASTING P.LTD . v. UNION OF INDIA

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2010 UNION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No. 2307/2010, C.A. No. 2308/2010, C.A. No. 2309/2010, C.A. No. 5193/2010, C.A. No. 5202/2010, C.A. No. 4530/2010 O R D E R 1. The respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.2306, 2307, 2308 and 4530 of 2010 who are also the appellants in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 2309, 5193 and 5202 of 2010 had approached the High Court of Delhi by filing the Writ Petitions (out of which the above appeals have arisen) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking interference of the High Court with the action of the Union of India in forfeiting/withholding the reserved license fee, 50 percent of which was deposited by the respondents (referred to herein as “the

2 licensees”) as a condition of their bids for obtaining FM Broadcasting license. According to the licensees, there was a unilateral departure by the Union of India from the terms of the tender document which had surfaced when the LOI was issued on 02.08.2000. It is the specific case of the licensees that the said departure became even more apparent from the Draft License Agreement which was forwarded to them by the Union. The contention before the High Court was to the effect that in view of the aforesaid unilateral departure, the Union was in breach of the tender conditions. That apart, it was also contended that in the absence of any specific clause in the tender document permitting forfeiture/retention of the license fee, the action in this regard were totally unjustified. The licensees also contended that the Union was not even justified in forfeiting the earnest money inasmuch as it was the Union which had acted in breach of the Agreement and there was no wilful default on the part of the licensees to act in terms of the offers made by them.

3 2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by licensees on the ground that the departure from the conditions of the tender document as made in the LOI and the Draft License Agreement were not of significance. The learned Single Judge also took the view that retention/forfeiture of the amount by the Union would be justified as the action of the licensees in refusing to act in terms of the LOI granted to them had occasioned loss to the Union. 3. The licensees carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench reversed the view taken by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the departure from the terms of the tender document were major in nature amounting to imposition of new conditions beyond those contemplated in the tender document. The Division Bench of the High Court, on an exhaustive consideration of the relevant clauses of the tender document, also came to the conclusion that there was no power vested in the Union to

5 far beyond what is mentioned in the NIT. The draft agreement proposed also deals with matters on which the NIT is silent. The above would become clear from a recital of aforesaid differences in a tabular form, which for the sake of convenience, may be set out as under: TERMS IN NIT TERMS IN FINAL LICENSE AGREEMENT NOT PROVIDED Schedule C Article 12 12.1 Termination for Default The licensor can terminate the license of the licensee in case of: I. Default in payment of license fee. Ii Breach of any terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The licensor may, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of the conditions of the license give a written notice to the licensee at its registered office 30 days

6 in advance before terminating this license. In the event of termination/revocation of the license, licensee will not be eligible to apply directly or indirectly for any FM Radio Slot on license, in future. Section 5 Clause 3 Undertake to set up the infrastructure and commission the service within specified time limit, failing which my application shall be rejected and advance license fee shall be forfeited. Section 6 Clause 1(c) The license is non-transferable. The licensee shall not grant a sub-license. No contractor shall be appointed for performing activities Schedule C Article 4 Prohibition of certain activities 4.1. The license is non-transferable. The licensee shall not grant a sub-license or lease the channel/broadcast service in whole or part. 4.2 The licensee shall ensure that no objectionable, obsene, unauthorized or any other content messages or communication, infringed copyright, intellectual property right and international and domestic broadcasting laws in any

7 under the license. Section 6 Clause 1(f) The licensee shall not lease the channel/broadcast in whole or in part. form or inconsistent with the laws of India are carried in its Broadcast Channel. The use of the Channel or network for anti-national activities would be construed as an offence punishable under the IPC and applicable laws and will attract immediate termination of the license. 4.3 The license shall not either directly or indirectly assign or transfer its right in any manner whatsoever under this agreement to any other into any agreement for sub-license and/or partnership relating to any subject matter of the license to any third party either in whole or in part. Any violation of the terms shall be construed as breach of the license agreement and license of the licensee

8 shall be terminated immediately. However, the licensee may with prior approval of the licensor enter into an agreement with a third party so as to enable the latter to set up infrastructural and hardware facilities such as tower, transmitter, etc. such permission shall not in any case, be treated as permission to provide the service under the Agreement by such third party on behalf of the License. Section 6 1. General (a) The license shall be for free to air broadcast of audio on main carrier and data on sub carriers, both excluding News and Current Affairs. Clause 7 of License agreement The license is for free to air broadcast of audio on main carrier and data on sub carrier both excluding news and current affairs and any other services which are under jurisdiction of Department of Telecommunications. Section 3 Clause 10(c) Clause 5 of License

9 The successful applicant shall also be required to submit application to WPC wing of the Ministry of Communications for frequency allocation and SCAFA clearance, within three months from the date of issue of Letter of Intent. Agreement The licensee shall also a bide by all the terms and conditions required for issuance of operational license by WPC. Schedule C Article 18.3 The licensee shall abide by all the conditions required for the issuance of all the Wireless Operational License of the Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing and has to also conform with the Technical Parameters as laid down in this agreement. The licensee shall also have all the environmental clearances. The licensee has to also comply with the Electricity Act, Factories Act and other allied Acts. In case of non-compliance of any of the aforesaid requirement, the licensor shall have the right to

10 revoke the license of the licensee. Section 3 Clause 8(f) The license has to be paid every year in advance within seven days of the beginning of the year. For the first year, balance of the license fee will have to be paid within 10 days of WPC' s intimation that operational license is ready to be issued. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the amount already deposited. The license period will be reckoned from the date of the issue of operational license by the WPC, Ministry of Communications. Schedule B Clause 2 Balance of the license fee of the first year shall be paid by the licensee within 10 days of the intimation from the WPC that the Wireless Operating License is ready to be issued and failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the amount already deposited by the licensee and the revocation of this license the licensee shall not be entitled to any interest on the advanced license fee deposited by him. 6. Clause 8(f), 10(d) and 12 of the Tender Document which is relevant to the case may now be set out as

11 under: 8(F) The license fee has to be paid by each licensee every year in advance within seven days of the beginning of the year. F or the first year, balance of the license fee will have to be paid within 10 days of WPC's intimation that operational license is ready to be issued. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of amount already deposited . The license period will be reckoned from the date of issue of operational license by Wireless Planning & Coordination Wing (WPC), Ministry of Communications. 10(d) The successful applicant shall also complete the installation of the broadcast facilities including studios, transmitter infrastructure etc. and commission the service within 12 months from the date of frequency earmarking by WPC. If the successful applicant fails to do so, the first year license fee

12 paid by the applicant shall stand forfeited. 12. EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (EMD): That applicant shall enclose with the tender document a crossed A/c payee demand draft, payable at any scheduled bank in New Delhi for the amount defined below. In favour of the Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of I&B, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – payable at Delhi Towards earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit shall be forfeited in case the applicant does not abide by his offer. No relaxation of any kind on earnest money deposit will be given to any applicant. EMD will be returned to unsuccessful applicants. After payment of license fee and furnishing of bank guarantee, the EMD will be returned to successful applicant. Category EMD Rs. Lakhs A+ 2.00 A 1.00 B 0.75 C& D 0.5 7. We may also take note of another significant fact at this stage. Though an attempt has been made on behalf of the Union to assert that the retention/forfeiture of the

13 license fee is on account of damages/losses suffered by the Union, there is no pleading whatsoever to the aforesaid effect. In fact neither before learned Single Judge nor before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before us the Union has even remotely attempted to place relevant materials in this regard to show that the action of the licensees in refusing to act in response to the LOI granted to them had occasioned losses/damages for which the Union is liable to be compensated. In the absence of any pleading on the aforesaid score, what was urged before the High Court was primarily a legal question, namely, whether in the absence of any specific clause in the NIT, forfeiture was justified. The aforesaid issue had arisen irrespective of the question whether the licensees were justified in refusing to act on the basis of the LOI's issued/granted to them. If this was the issue raised we do not see how in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction the High Court should have felt handicapped in answering the same. Viewed in the above light, the objections of the appellant-Union regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court must necessarily fail. 8. We have already taken the view that the Union had

14 departed from the terms of the NIT and had incorporated new/additional terms and conditions in the LOI and the Draft License Agreements which were finalized by the Union after exchange of correspondence with the licensees. The precise content of the departures made has also been set out above. Inherent in said finding would be a further determination of the unjustifiability of the action of the Union in forfeiting the license fee. The Union could not have departed from the terms of the NIT unilaterally and on the refusal of the licensees to accept such modified terms and act in terms of the LOIs granted to them the Union could not have resorted to the forfeiture as made. This is irrespective of the question of the existence of any enabling provision in the NIT for forfeiture of the license fee. 9. Coming to the aforesaid question of availability of a power to order forfeiture, a reading of the relevant clauses i.e. 8(f), 10(d) and 12 extracted above would go to show that the Union had not protected/empowered itself to forfeit the license fee. The forfeiture contemplated by the aforesaid clauses are altogether in different contexts and situations. In the absence of any such power, the

15 forfeiture that has taken place in this case will have to be adjudged as null and void. 10. This would take this Court to the issue with regard to earnest money. The earnest money required to be deposited by the licensees under Clause 12 of the NIT can be forfeited only in the event there is default on the part of the licensees or if a licensee is unwilling to act on its offer. The refusal of the licensees in the present case was not on their own voliation but was prompted by additions to the terms and conditions of the NIT made unilaterally by the Union of India. If that is so, it will be difficult to accept the view of the High Court insofar as forfeiture of earnest money is concerned. The refusal of the licensees to act in furtherance of the LOI's granted to them being on account of breach committed by the Union, we are of the view that the forfeiture of the earnest money is also not justified. 11. If the license fee and the earnest money have been forfeited unjustifiably by the Union as we are inclined to hold, naturally, the licensees would be entitled to payment of interest. Award of interest is a measure of re-compense for delayed payment. Interest also

16 seeks to offset the decline in the value of money with time. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date that the amounts were forfeited by the Union (license fee and the earnest money) would serve the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly and direct the Union to pay all such amounts along with interest at 6 per cent per annum within a period of eight weeks. 12. Consequently and in the light of the above discussions, the civil appeals filed by the Union are dismissed and those filed by the licensees are allowed. …...................J. [RANJAN GOGOI] NEW DELHI …...................J. 12TH FEBRUARY, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE]

17 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 2306/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No. 2307/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2308/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2309/2010 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5193/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5202/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4530/2010 (With Office Report) Date : 12/02/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

18 For Parties Mr. A.K. Panda,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Tejveer Bhatia,Adv. Mr. Upender Thakur,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. Mr. Ajit Warrier,Adv. Ms. Nisha,Adv. Ms. Nimisha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vishal Nijhawan,Adv. M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Malnini Sud,Adv. Ms. Vidhi Goel,Adv. Ms. Bhunika Manon Kaliya,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeals filed by the Union are dismissed and those filed by the licensees are allowed. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)

Listed On: 12/02/2015 Before Court No. Item No. SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2306, 2307,2308, 2309,4530, 5193 & 5202 OF 2010 Union of India Etc. ...Appellants Versus Vertex Broadcasting Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT C.A. No. 2306/2010 It is submitted that there are 2 Respondents in this Appeal. Both the respondents have been served and Respondent No.1 is represented by M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates and no one has entered appearance on behalf of R.No.2 t hough served. C.A. No. 2307/2010 There are 5 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment Petition of Appeal is complete. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been merged with R.No.4 i.e. Dhun Radio(I)Pvt. Ltd. vide Hon'ble Chamber Judg order dated 8/9/2014 passed in I.A.No.3 and cause title has been amended in appeal paper books. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have been served and represented by Mr. Umesh Kr. Khaitan , Advocates. C.A. No. 2308/2010 There are 3 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on all the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 is represented by M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. C.A. No. 2309/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. ...2/

...2... C.A. No. 5193/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. C.A. No. 5202/2010 It is submitted that there is sole respondent in this appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate . C.A. No. 4530/2010 There are two Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the Respondents and Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee, Advocate and no one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 so far though served. The instant matter has been tagged with Civil Appeal No. 2306/2010 ( Main Matter of Group) vide Hon'ble Court's order dated 03/02/2015. It is further submitted that Counsel for the parties have filed the statement of case and copies of the same has been included in appeal paper books. It is lastly submitted that Counsel for the appellant has on 10.02.2015 filed additional document and Copy of the same has been placed with appeal paper books. The Appeals above mentioned are ready and listed before the Court with this Office report. DATED THIS THE 11 th day of FEBRUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Ch. No. 4 Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. 131, New law ch. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Adv. 217, new ch M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates No Ch. M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates No Ch. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p2/Avi

\234Ö 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2010 UNION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No. 2307/2010, C.A. No. 2308/2010, C.A. No. 2309/2010, C.A. No. 5193/2010, C.A. No. 5202/2010, C.A. No. 4530/2010 O R D E R 1. The respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.2306, 2307, 2308 and 4530 of 2010 who are also the appellants in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 2309, 5193 and 5202 of 2010 had approached the High Court of Delhi by filing the Writ Petitions (out of which the above appeals have arisen) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking interference of the High Court with the action of the Union of India in forfeiting/withholding the reservedSignature Not Verified license fee, 50 percent of which was deposited byDigitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2015.02.1614:09:05 ISTReason: the respondents (referred to herein as "the 2licensees") as a condition of their bids forobtaining FM Broadcasting license. According to thelicensees, there was a unilateral departure by theUnion of India from the terms of the tenderdocument which had surfaced when the LOI was issuedon 02.08.2000. It is the specific case of thelicensees that the said departure became even moreapparent from the Draft License Agreement which wasforwarded to them by the Union. The contentionbefore the High Court was to the effect that in

view of the aforesaid unilateral departure, theUnion was in breach of the tender conditions. Thatapart, it was also contended that in the absence ofany specific clause in the tender documentpermitting forfeiture/retention of the license fee,the action in this regard were totally unjustified.The licensees also contended that the Union was noteven justified in forfeiting the earnest moneyinasmuch as it was the Union which had acted inbreach of the Agreement and there was no wilfuldefault on the part of the licensees to act interms of the offers made by them. 32. The learned Single Judge of the High Courtdismissed the writ petitions filed by licensees onthe ground that the departure from the conditionsof the tender document as made in the LOI and theDraft License Agreement were not of significance.The learned Single Judge also took the view thatretention/forfeiture of the amount by the Unionwould be justified as the action of the licenseesin refusing to act in terms of the LOI granted tothem had occasioned loss to the Union.3. The licensees carried the matter in appealbefore the Division Bench of the High Court. TheDivision Bench reversed the view taken by thelearned Single Judge, inter alia, on the groundthat the departure from the terms of the tenderdocument were major in nature amounting toimposition of new conditions beyond thosecontemplated in the tender document. The DivisionBench of the High Court, on an exhaustiveconsideration of the relevant clauses of the tenderdocument, also came to the conclusion that therewas no power vested in the Union to

4forfeit/withhold the license fee. The DivisionBench, therefore, directed for refund of theLicense fee but without any interest. Insofar asearnest money is concerned, the Division Bench tookthe view that the forfeiture of the said earnestmoney was justified.4. Against the grant of refund of license fee,the Union has approached this Court by means ofCivil Appeal. Nos. 2306, 2307, 2308 and 4530 of2010 whereas against the refusal of interest on therefund and the forfeiture of the earnest money, thelicensees have preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2309,5193 and 5202 of 2010.5. We have perused the terms of the TenderDocument, the LOI, the First Draft LicenseAgreement and the Final License Agreement whichhave been placed on record. A perusal of the termsof the NIT and the terms contemplated in the FinalDraft License Agreement (finalized afternegotiations and correspondence by and between theparties) it appears that the Final LicenseAgreement embodies terms and conditions which go 5far beyond what is mentioned in the NIT. The draftagreement proposed also deals with matters on whichthe NIT is silent. The above would become clearfrom a recital of aforesaid differences in atabular form, which for the sake of convenience,may be set out as under:TERMS IN NIT TERMS IN FINAL LICENSE AGREEMENTNOT PROVIDED Schedule C Article 12 12.1 Termination for Default The licensor can terminate the license of the licensee in case of: I. Default in payment of

license fee. Ii Breach of any terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The licensor may, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of the conditions of the license give a written notice to the licensee at its registered office 30 days 6 in advance before terminating this license. In the event of termination/revocation of the license, licensee will not be eligible to apply directly or indirectly for any FM Radio Slot on license, in future.Section 5 Clause 3 Schedule C Article 4Undertake to set up the Prohibition of certain activitiesinfrastructure andcommission the service 4.1. The license iswithin specified time non-transferable. Thelimit, failing which my licensee shall not grant aapplication shall be sub-license or lease therejected and advance channel/broadcast servicelicense fee shall be in whole or part.forfeited. 4.2 The licensee shall ensure that noSection 6 Clause 1(c) objectionable, obsene,The license is unauthorized or any othernon-transferable. The content messages orlicensee shall not communication, infringedgrant a sub-license. No copyright, intellectualcontractor shall be property right andappointed for international and domesticperforming activities broadcasting laws in any 7under the license. form or inconsistent with the laws of India areSection 6 Clause 1(f) carried in its BroadcastThe licensee shall not Channel. The use of thelease the Channel or network forchannel/broadcast in anti-national activitieswhole or in part. would be construed as an offence punishable under the IPC and applicable laws and will attract immediate termination of the license. 4.3 The license shall not either directly or indirectly assign or transfer its right in any manner whatsoever under this agreement to any other into any agreement for sub-license and/or

partnership relating to any subject matter of the license to any third party either in whole or in part. Any violation of the terms shall be construed as breach of the license agreement and license of the licensee 8 shall be terminated immediately. However, the licensee may with prior approval of the licensor enter into an agreement with a third party so as to enable the latter to set up infrastructural and hardware facilities such as tower, transmitter, etc. such permission shall not in any case, be treated as permission to provide the service under the Agreement by such third party on behalf of the License.Section 6 Clause 7 of License1. General (a) agreementThe license shall be The license is for free tofor free to air air broadcast of audio onbroadcast of audio on main carrier and data onmain carrier and data sub carrier both excludingon sub carriers, both news and current affairsexcluding News and and any other servicesCurrent Affairs. which are under jurisdiction of Department of Telecommunications.Section 3 Clause 10(c) Clause 5 of License 9The successful Agreementapplicant shall also be The licensee shall alsorequired to submit abide by all the terms andapplication to WPC wing conditions required forof the Ministry of issuance of operationalCommunications for license by WPC.frequency allocationand SCAFA clearance, Schedule C Article 18.3within three months The licensee shall abidefrom the date of issue by all the conditionsof Letter of Intent. required for the issuance of all the Wireless Operational License of the Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing and has to also conform with the Technical Parameters as

laid down in this agreement. The licensee shall also have all the environmental clearances. The licensee has to also comply with the Electricity Act, Factories Act and other allied Acts. In case of non-compliance of any of the aforesaid requirement, the licensor shall have the right to 10 revoke the license of the licensee. Section 3 Clause 8(f) Schedule B Clause 2 Balance of the license fee The license has to be of the first year shall be paid every year in paid by the licensee advance within seven within 10 days of the days of the beginning intimation from the WPC of the year. For the that the Wireless first year, balance of Operating License is ready the license fee will to be issued and failure have to be paid within to do so will result in 10 days of WPC's forfeiture of the amount intimation that already deposited by the operational license is licensee and the ready to be issued. revocation of this license Failure to do so will the licensee shall not be result in forfeiture of entitled to any interest the amount already on the advanced license deposited. The license fee deposited by him. period will be reckoned from the date of the issue of operational license by the WPC, Ministry of Communications.6. Clause 8(f), 10(d) and 12 of the Tender Documentwhich is relevant to the case may now be set out as 11under: 8(F) The license fee has to be paid by each licensee every year in advance

within seven days of the beginning of the year. For the first year, balance of the license fee will have to be paid within 10 days of WPC's intimation that operational license is ready to be issued. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of amount already deposited. The license period will be reckoned from the date of issue of operational license by Wireless Planning & Coordination Wing (WPC), Ministry of Communications. 10(d) The successful applicant shall also complete the installation of the broadcast facilities including studios, transmitter infrastructure etc. and commission the service within 12 months from the date of frequency earmarking by WPC. If the successful applicant fails to do so, the first year license fee 12 paid by the applicant shall stand forfeited. 12. EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (EMD): That applicant shall enclose with the tender document a crossed A/c payee demand draft, payable at any scheduled bank in New Delhi for the amount defined below. In favour of the Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of I&B, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - payable at Delhi Towards earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit shall be forfeited in case the applicant does not abide by his offer. No relaxation of any kind on earnest money deposit will be given to any applicant. EMD will be returned to unsuccessful applicants. After payment of license fee and furnishing of bank guarantee, the EMD will be returned to successful applicant. Category EMD Rs. Lakhs A+ 2.00 A 1.00 B 0.75 C& D 0.5

7. We may also take note of another significant factat this stage. Though an attempt has been made on behalf ofthe Union to assert that the retention/forfeiture of the 13license fee is on account of damages/losses suffered by theUnion, there is no pleading whatsoever to the aforesaideffect. In fact neither before learned Single Judge norbefore the Division Bench of the High Court or even beforeus the Union has even remotely attempted to place relevantmaterials in this regard to show that the action of thelicensees in refusing to act in response to the LOI grantedto them had occasioned losses/damages for which the Unionis liable to be compensated. In the absence of any pleadingon the aforesaid score, what was urged before the HighCourt was primarily a legal question, namely, whether inthe absence of any specific clause in the NIT, forfeiturewas justified. The aforesaid issue had arisen irrespectiveof the question whether the licensees were justified inrefusing to act on the basis of the LOI's issued/granted tothem. If this was the issue raised we do not see how inthe exercise of its writ jurisdiction the High Court shouldhave felt handicapped in answering the same. Viewed in theabove light, the objections of the appellant-Unionregarding the maintainability of the writ petitions beforethe High Court must necessarily fail.8. We have already taken the view that the Union had 14departed from the terms of the NIT and had incorporatednew/additional terms and conditions in the LOI and theDraft License Agreements which were finalized by the Unionafter exchange of correspondence with the licensees. Theprecise content of the departures made has also been setout above. Inherent in said finding would be a furtherdetermination of the unjustifiability of the action of theUnion in forfeiting the license fee. The Union could not

have departed from the terms of the NIT unilaterally andon the refusal of the licensees to accept such modifiedterms and act in terms of the LOIs granted to them theUnion could not have resorted to the forfeiture as made.This is irrespective of the question of the existence ofany enabling provision in the NIT for forfeiture of thelicense fee.9. Coming to the aforesaid question of availabilityof a power to order forfeiture, a reading of the relevantclauses i.e. 8(f), 10(d) and 12 extracted above would goto show that the Union had not protected/empowered itselfto forfeit the license fee. The forfeiture contemplated bythe aforesaid clauses are altogether in different contextsand situations. In the absence of any such power, the 15forfeiture that has taken place in this case will have tobe adjudged as null and void.10. This would take this Court to the issue withregard to earnest money. The earnest money required to bedeposited by the licensees under Clause 12 of the NIT canbe forfeited only in the event there is default on thepart of the licensees or if a licensee is unwilling to acton its offer. The refusal of the licensees in the presentcase was not on their own voliation but was prompted byadditions to the terms and conditions of the NIT madeunilaterally by the Union of India. If that is so, it willbe difficult to accept the view of the High Court insofaras forfeiture of earnest money is concerned. The refusalof the licensees to act in furtherance of the LOI'sgranted to them being on account of breach committed bythe Union, we are of the view that the forfeiture of theearnest money is also not justified.11. If the license fee and the earnest money havebeen forfeited unjustifiably by the Union as we areinclined to hold, naturally, the licensees would be

entitled to payment of interest. Award of interest is ameasure of re-compense for delayed payment. Interest also 16seeks to offset the decline in the value of money withtime. Taking into account the totality of the facts andcircumstances of the case, we are of the view that interestat the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date that theamounts were forfeited by the Union (license fee and theearnest money) would serve the ends of justice. We,therefore, order accordingly and direct the Union to payall such amounts along with interest at 6 per cent perannum within a period of eight weeks.12. Consequently and in the light of the abovediscussions, the civil appeals filed by the Union aredismissed and those filed by the licensees are allowed. ......................J. [RANJAN GOGOI]NEW DELHI ......................J.12TH FEBRUARY, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE] 17ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 2306/2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITHC.A. No. 2307/2010(With Office Report)C.A. No. 2308/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 2309/2010(With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5193/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5202/2010(With Office Report)

C.A. No. 4530/2010(With Office Report)Date : 12/02/2015 These appeals were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE 18For Parties Mr. A.K. Panda,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Tejveer Bhatia,Adv. Mr. Upender Thakur,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. Mr. Ajit Warrier,Adv. Ms. Nisha,Adv. Ms. Nimisha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vishal Nijhawan,Adv. M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Malnini Sud,Adv. Ms. Vidhi Goel,Adv. Ms. Bhunika Manon Kaliya,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. M/s. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeals filed by the Union are dismissed and those filed by the licensees are allowed. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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. 2306/2010 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH OFFICE REPORT) WITH C.A. NO. 2307/2010 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 2308/2010 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 2309/2010 (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 5193/2010 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) C.A. NO. 5202/2010 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) Date : 03/02/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Parties (s) Mr. A. K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Adv. Ms. Raoha Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Ajit Warrier, Adv. Ms. Sweta Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Adv. For M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Page No. 1 of 2

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Malini Sud, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Goel, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Menon, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv. For M/s. Janendra Lal & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 12 th February, 2015 along with Civil Appeal No.4530 of 2010. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER Page No. 2 of 2

Listed On: 03.02.2015 Before Court No. 9 Item No. 102 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2306, 2307,2308, 2309, 5193 & 5202 OF 2010 Union of India Etc. ...Appellants Versus Vertex Broadcasting Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT C.A. No. 2306/2010 It is submitted that there are 2 Respondents in this Appeal. Both the respondents have been served and Respondent No.1 is represented by M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates and no one has entered appearance on behalf of R.No.2 t hough served. C.A. No. 2307/2010 There are 5 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment Petition of Appeal is complete. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been merged with R.No.4 i.e. Dhun Radio(I)Pvt. Ltd. vide Hon'ble Chamber Judg order dated 8/9/2014 passed in I.A.No.3 and cause title has been amended in appeal paper books. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have been served and represented by Mr. Umesh Kr. Khaitan , Advocates. C.A. No. 2308/2010 There are 3 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on all the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 is represented by M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. C.A. No. 2309/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. ...2/

...2... C.A. No. 5193/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. C.A. No. 5202/2010 It is submitted that there is sole respondent in this appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. It is lastly submitted that Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate has on 31.01.2015 filed a letter in Civil Appeal No. 4530 of 2010 and requested to heard alongwith Civil Appeal No. 2306 of 2010 as the same arise out of a common order and judgment. Copy of the letter has been placed with this office report for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The Civil Appeal No. 4530 of 2010 is ready for hearing. Service of notice of lodgment of petition of appeal is complete and statement of case filed by counsel for the both parties. The Appeals above mentioned are ready and listed before the Court with this Office report. DATED THIS THE 02 nd day of FEBRUARY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Ch. No. 4 Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p2/Avi

ITEM NO.104(MM) COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 2306/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No. 2307/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2308/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2309/2010 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5193/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5202/2010 (With Office Report) Date : 20/01/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/s. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not for today. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.104(MM) COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 2306/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS VERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No. 2307/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2308/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 2309/2010 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 5193/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5202/2010 (With Office Report) Date : 20/01/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. For Respondent(s) M/s. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2015.01.2017:13:57 ISTReason: Not for today. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Listed On: 13.01.2015 Before Court No. 9 Item No. 105 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2306, 2307,2308, 2309, 5193 & 5202 OF 2010 Union of India Etc. ...Appellants Versus Vertex Broadcasting Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT C.A. No. 2306/2010 It is submitted that there are 2 Respondents in this Appeal. Both the respondents have been served and Respondent No.1 is represented by M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates and no one has entered appearance on behalf of R.No.2 t hough served. C.A. No. 2307/2010 There are 5 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment Petition of Appeal is complete. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been merged with R.No.4 i.e. Dhun Radio(I)Pvt. Ltd. vide Hon'ble Chamber Judg order dated 8/9/2014 passed in I.A.No.3 and cause title has been amended in appeal paper books. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have been served and represented by Mr. Umesh Kr. Khaitan , Advocates. C.A. No. 2308/2010 There are 3 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on all the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 is represented by M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. C.A. No. 2309/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. ...2/

SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2306, 2307,2308, 2309, 5193 & 5202 OF 2010 Union of India Etc. ...Appellants Versus Vertex Broadcasting Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT C.A. No. 2306/2010 It is submitted that there are 2 Respondents in this Appeal. Both the respondents have been served and Respondent No.1 is represented by M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates and no one has entered appearance on behalf of R.No.2 t hough served. Original record has been received from the High Court. C.A. No. 2307/2010 There are 5 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment Petition of Appeal is complete. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been merged with R.No.4 i.e. Dhun Radio(I)Pvt. Ltd. vide Hon'ble Chamber Judg order dated 8/9/2014 passed in I.A.No.3 and cause title has been amended in appeal paper books. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have been served and represented by Mr. Umesh Kr. Khaitan , Advocates. Original record has been received from the High Court. C.A. No. 2308/2010 There are 3 Respondents in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on all the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 is represented by M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Original Record has been received in the matter. C.A. No. 2309/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. Original record has been received from the High Court. ...2/

...2... C.A. No. 5193/2010 There is sole Respondent in this Appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole Respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates. Common Original record has been received in C.A.No.2308/2010. C.A. No. 5202/2010 It is submitted that there is sole respondent in this appeal. Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete on the sole respondent and is represented by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Common Original Record has been received from the High Court in C.A.No.2307/2010. The Appeals above mentioned are ready and listed before the Court with this Office report. DATED THIS THE 3rd day of November, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates M/s. Janendra Lal & Co., Advocates ASSISTANT REGISTRAR p2/Avi

ITEM NO.108 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 PANKAJ BHANDARI Civil Appeal No(s). 2307/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS DHUN RADIO(INDIA)PVT.LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 15/10/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Nishtha Kishore, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bhumika Menon, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

Ä ITEM NO.108 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 PANKAJ BHANDARI Civil Appeal No(s). 2307/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS DHUN RADIO(INDIA)PVT.LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 15/10/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Nishtha Kishore, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bhumika Menon, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.10.1716:51:45 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 3/2013 in Civil Appeal No(s). 2307/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS DREAM RADIO(INDIA)PVT.LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (for substitution and office report) Date : 08/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sahil B.,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aditi Sharma,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the application for substitution and is accordingly allowed. Amended cause title shall be filed within a period of one weeks. (SUMAN WADHWA) AR-cum-PS (H.S. PARASHER) COURT MASTER

J ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 3/2013 in Civil Appeal No(s). 2307/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant(s) VERSUS DREAM RADIO(INDIA)PVT.LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (for substitution and office report) Date : 14/08/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application to be served on the counsel for the respondent. List after two weeks. (NEELAM GULATI) (SAROJ SAINI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod LakhinaDate: 2014.08.1911:25:22 ISTReason:

ÚC.A.No.2306/10 etc. etc. 1ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(Office report for directions)Date: 30/04/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr.Viddyam Mukherjee, Adv.In C.A.2306/10, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.2307/10,2308/10& for RR in C.A.2309/10,5193/10& 5202/10 Mr.Upender Thakur, Adv. Mr.Tejveer Singh, Adv. Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.In C.A.5202/10 & Ms.Aditi Sharma, Adv.for RR in C.A. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv.2307/10In C.A.5193/10 & Ms.Ananya Ghosh, Adv.for RR in CA No. For M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Adv.2308/10C.A.No.2306/10 etc. etc. 2For Respondent(s) M/S. Janendra Lal & Co., Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.Viddyam Mukherjee, learned counsel, states thatstatement of case which he has to file in these cases is ready.Those who have not filed the statement of case may also do sowithin four weeks, as a last opportunity.

(Satish K.Yadav) (Minakshi Mehta) Court Master Court Master

²ITEM NO.68 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIV 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 SUNIL THOMAS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 07/03/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Both sides have filed their respective statement of cases. No further steps are required. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. | | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |

nITEM NO.30[CHAMBER] COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010[UNION OF INDIA V. DREAM RADIO (INDIA) PVT. LD. & ORS.](Office report on default)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010[UNION OF INDIA V. HIND BROADCASTING CO. PVT. LTD. & ORS.](Office report on default)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010[NEW MEDIA BROADCASTING P. LTD. & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA](Office report on default)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010[HIND BROADCASTING CO. P. LTD. & ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA](Office report on default)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010[DREAM RADIO (I) P. LTD. & ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA](Office report on default)Date: 24/10/2013 These Appeal were called on for default today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA [IN CHAMBERS]For Appellant(s)IN 2306, 2307 &2308 Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.In CA 2309 Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.In In CA 5202 Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv.In CA 5193 Mr. Akshay Ringe, Adv. For M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advs.For Respondent(s)in CA 2306 For M/S. Janendra Lal & Co., Advs.In CA 2307 Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv.In CA 2308 Mr. Akshay Ringe, Adv. For M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advs.

In CA 2309, 5202 &5193 Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted at the request of the counsel for the appellant in CA No. 2307 of 2010 to file the Statement of Case. Four weeks' thereafter in CA No. 2307 of 2010 is granted to the respondents to file Statement of Case. In rest of the matters, counsel for the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file the Statement of Case.| || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[USHA SHARMA] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

\206ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.15 SECTION XIV 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). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS)Date: 30/09/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that statement of case has been on filed on Saturday, the 28th September, 2013. Registry may take it on record. There is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2 despite service. (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) (INDU POKHRIYAL) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

üITEM NO.47 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(Office report for directions)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(Office report for directions)Date: 10/09/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR IN CHAMBERSFor Appellant(s) Mr. Gobind Kumar,Adv.in 2306-2308 Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.& RR. in 5193,2309,5202/10 Ms. Anannya Ghosh,Adv.for M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Shaswat Tripathi,Adv. Mr. S.M.Saim,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. -2-For Respondent(s) M/S. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. Ms. Anannya Ghosh,Adv.for M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R Mr. Gobind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.A.Nos. 2306, 2307 and 2308/2010 and for respondents in C.A.Nos. 2309, 5193 and 5202/2010 seeks time to file the statement of case. Adjourned for four weeks for the said purpose. [SUMAN WADHWA] [SNEH LATA SHARMA] AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

6ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV 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). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(Office Report for directions)Date: 19/07/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Suneet Bhatia, Adv.r-1 Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, four week's further time is granted to the said respondent, as a last chance, to file statement of case. |(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(INDU BALA KAPUR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

æITEM NO.46 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)( office report for directions )WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010( office report for directions )Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010( office report for directions )Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010( office report for directions )Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010( office report for directions )Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010( office report for directions )Date: 16/04/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co.Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. Mr.Chetan Chopra,Adv.For Respondent(s) M/S. Janendra Lal & Co.,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co.Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CA No.2306/2010 Learned counsel of respondent no.1 filedstatement of case yesterday. Registry to take the statement of case on record. CA No.2307/2010 On request of learned counsel, list the matter aftertwo weeks. CA No.2308/2010 Four weeks time granted to counsel forappellant to file statement of case. CA No.2309/2010 Two weeks time granted to the appellants tofile statement of case, six weeks time granted to counsel forRespondents to file statement of case thereafter. CA No.5193/2010

Six weeks' time granted to the Respondent to filestatement of case as a last opportunity. CA No.5202/2010 Delay condoned. It is submitted that counsel for the appellants has on7.7.2011 filed an application for substitution on behalf ofDhun Radio P.Ltd., the appellant company for substitution of petitioner Nos. 1-3 and the same is allowed. Delay in filing statement of case is condoned. Sixweeks time granted to respondent to file statement of case. | (SHIVERAJ KAUR) | |(USHA SHARMA) ||P.S. TO ADDL. REGR. | |COURT MASTER || | | |

FITEM NO.126 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV 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). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(Office Report for Directions)Date: 31/01/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR (In Chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherji, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing the statement of case by the appellant is condoned. Four weeks' time is granted to counsel for the respondents to filestatement of case. |(Jayant Kumar Arora) | |(Neelam Arora) ||Sr. P.A. | |Court Master |

$ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV 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). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(With office report on default)Date: 24/09/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK (In Chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sahil B., Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the appellant tofile statement of case. Respondent will file statement of case within four weeksthereafter.| (HEMALATHA MOHAN) | |(INDU SATIJA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |

lITEM NO.30(CHAMBER) COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV 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). 4530 OF 2010UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 19/09/2012 This Appeal was called on for default today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK [IN CHAMBERS]For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.(NP)For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.(NP) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R| ||None appears. ||List the matter next week. || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

\232ITEM NO.132 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.K. HANJURAUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(With office report)Date: 09/05/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Sahil B., Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Monark Gahlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Deepak Khurana, Adv.Item No.132 -2- Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RCA Nos.2306,2307,2308,2309 and 5202/2010 Learned counsel for the appellant and learnedcounsel for the respondents are present. Vide order dated 30.9.2010, parties were directed tofile the statement of case and the matter was directed to belisted before the Hon'ble Court on 30.11.2010. On 30.11.2010,

it was directed that the statement of case shall be filedbefore 17.1.2011 but the same has not been filed so far thoughas per the requirement of the rules the same had to be filedwithin a period of 45 days which period has already expired.The matter shall, therefore, be listed before the Hon'bleJudge in Chamber for non-prosecution.CA No.5193/2010 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Noorders require to be passed in this appeal keeping intoconsideration the order dated 4.5.2011, passed in it. (M.K.HANJURA) REGISTRARrd

NITEM NO.115 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 5193 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.K. HANJURAHIND BROADCASTING CO.P.LTD. & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 04/05/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr Monark Gahlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Sahil Bhalaik, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The ld. Counsel for the appellants and the ld. Counselfor the respondent are present. The ld. Counsel for the appellants is directed to filethe statement of case within a period of 45 days. The ld.Counsel shall provide a copy of the statement of case to theld. Counsel for the respondent against proper acknowledgmentimmediately after he files the same and the ld. Counsel for therespondent shall file the statement of case within a period of35 days thereafter. The matter shall be processed for listingbefore the Hon'ble Court in accordance with the rules after theperiod stipulated above. (M.K.HANJURA) Registrarhj

bITEM NO.57 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(With office report)Date: 30/11/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr Shabhit Chandra, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Monark Gehlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr Shabhit Chandra, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Statement of case to be filed before 17.1.2011. (S.G.SHAH) Registrarhj

îITEM NO.82 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(With office report)Date: 30/09/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Monark Gehlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Birthrey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Reminder to be sent to the High Court for originalrecord and status of notice for some of the respondents.Item No.82 -2- The learned Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Birthreyappearing on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate-on-Recordaccepts notice for Union of India in CA Nos.5202 and5193/2010. Appellant in CA Nos.2309, 5202 and 5193/2010 has tosupply copy of the pleadings within a week againstacknowledgment, which is to be filed on record to avoidissuance of further notices.

Parties may file statement of case. List again on 30.11.2010. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRARrd

ºITEM NO.37 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5193 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 5202 of 2010(With office report)Date: 17/08/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Ms. Pratibha M. singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Ms. Priyadeep, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Monark Gehlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Umesh Kumar KhaitanItem No.37 -2- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present for the appellant in CANo.2307/2010. Call for the status of notice from the concernedHigh Court regarding certificate of service and originalrecord in the civil appeals. Respondents may file counter affidavit within fourweeks in all the appeals.

List again on 30.9.2010. (S.G. SHAH) Registrarrd

\236ITEM NO.82 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 16/07/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Chandan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv. M/s. Prathiba M Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav MukerjiFor Respondent(s) Ms. Jasleen K. Oberoi, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Ms. Priyadeep, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the appellant in C.A.Nos.2307 and 2308/2010 has to pay process fee on or before24.7.2010. If it is not paid before 24.7.2010, list before theHon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution against theunserved respondents.Item No.82 -2- Though process fee is due since 26.2.2010, it isunfortunate that the learned Advocates appearing for theappellants do not agree with the facts on record. In the present case, on last occasion also, it wasstated that process is paid whereas, in fact, process fee waspaid in one Civil Appeal only though there are three separateSLPs. Because of such wrong statement by the petitioner,matter is being delayed for couple of months.

The learned Advocate, Mr. A. Chaman, Advocate and Ms.Priyadeep accept notice on behalf of the sole respondent in CANo.2307/2010 and for all the respondents in CA No.2308/2010respectively and seek time to file vakalatnama. Since theywere present at SLP stage, their appearance is to be recordedas such. It is disclosed by the learned counsel for therespondents of CA No.2307/2010 that it is a separate appeal andthey will take appropriate steps. Registry has to take appropriate steps, as per rulefor listing. List again on 13.8.2010. (S.G. SHAH) Registrarrd

øITEM NO.6 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV 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)....../2010 CC 8775/2010(From the judgement and order dated 14/09/2009 in LPA No.71/2008of the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)HIND BROADCASTING CO.P.LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 08/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Manu Nair,Adv. Ms. Jasleen K. Oberoi,Adv. For M/S. Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No.2306/2010. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

tITEM NO.13 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV 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)....../2010 CC 8875/2010(From the judgement and order dated 14/09/2009 in LPA No.78/2008of the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)DREAM RADIO(I) P.LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)(With I.A.No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 08/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Malani Sod,Adv. Mr. Rohan Dheman,Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Allawadi,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No.2309/2010. (A.S. BISHT) (NEERU BALA VIJ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

VITEM NO.21 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV 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).9013/2010(From the judgement and order dated 14/09/2009 in LPA No.227/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 13/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr.Abhishek Birthray, Adv. Mr.Chandan Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Nikhil Mehra, Adv. Ms.Surbhi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for exemption from filing O.T. isgranted. Leave granted. In case the respondents ultimately succeed, theamount would be refunded to the respondents with interest. Hearing expedited. (G.V.Ramana) (Neeru Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master

>ITEM NO.103 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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). 2306 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHUNION OF INDIA Appellant (s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2307 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2308 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2309 of 2010(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 03/05/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhishek Birthray, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Monark Gehlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Ms. Priyadeep, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the appellant states thatrequisite process fee has been filed on 20.4.2010. Office has to take appropriate steps to issue noticeupon the unserved respondents. List again on 9.7.2010. (S.G. SHAH) Registrarrd

<ITEM NO.10 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV 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 M.K GUPTAPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2010 CC 2925/2010UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUSNEW MEDIA BROADCASTING PVT.LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and office report )Date: 17/03/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Abhishek Birthray, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for condonation of delay in refiling thespecial leave petition is allowed. (M.K.GUPTA) Registrarhj

lITEM NO.21 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV 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)....../2010(CC 2856/2010)(From the judgement and order dated 14/09/2009 in LPA No.291/2008of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUSVERTEX BROADCASTING CO.(P)LTD.&ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)With S.L.P. (C) No......../2010 (CC 2861/2010)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)S.L.P. (C) No......../2010 (CC 2862/2010)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)S.L.P. (C) No.4690 of 2010(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents, prayerfor interim relief and office report)Date: 26/02/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKURFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Tripathy,ASGIn CC 2856/2010, Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv.2861/2010 & 2862/2010: Mr. Amey Nargolkar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek,Adv.In SLP 4690/2010: Mr. Maninder Singh,Sr.adv. Ms. Pratibha M. Singh,Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. ....2/- - 2 -For Respondent(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram,Sr.Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhalla,Adv. Mr. Monark Gehlot,Adv. for M/s. Suresh A. Shroff & Co.,Advs. Ms. Malini Sud,Adv. Mr. Deepak Khurana,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Permission to file additional documents is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. In case the respondents ultimately succeed, the amount would be refunded to the respondents with interest. Hearing expedited. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Neeru Bala Vij ] Court Master Court Master

NEW MEDIA BROADCASTING P.LTD . v. UNION OF INDIA

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status