ITV

Tag: Bombay High Court

  • Abetment case: Arnab Goswami alleges mistreatment by Mumbai police

    Abetment case: Arnab Goswami alleges mistreatment by Mumbai police

    NEW DELHI: Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami is a man caught in the eye of a storm. Weeks after finding himself in the midst of a TRP manipulation racket, the journalist was arrested in connection to a 2018 abetment to suicide case. In the last few days, the visuals of Goswami being dragged and shoved ignominiously while being taken into police custody have been shared widely on social media and the TV news circuit. Now, he has levelled the charge of mistreatment against the Mumbai police in his bail plea before the Bombay high court.

    Goswami has claimed that not only did he sustain injuries as a result of police action during his arrest, he was denied drinking water and made to ingest a “certain liquid” while he was in police custody.

    "During the course of his arrest and while being transferred to Alibaug in a police van and in the custody of the police, the petitioner suffered a 6-inch-deep gash on his left hand, a serious injury to his spinal cord, was hit by a heavy uniform police officer’s boot, was not allowed to wear shoes throughout, suffered vein injuries and was not even given access to drinking water. Additionally, the Petitioner was also forced to consume certain liquid by the police officers guarding him and choked as a result thereof," the petition reads, as reported by Bar and Bench.

    He has also accused the police of deliberately delaying in filing a reply to the court's notice on his bail plea, in order to ensure that he "remains illegally detained." Yesterday, senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Goswami, had asserted that the Maharashtra government was acting in malice against his client.

    In a special hearing today, the bench of justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik has taken up Goswami's habeas corpus petition challenging his arrest and detention. Submissions are currently underway from senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for the state. Earlier in the day, the court heard submissions from counsels for the two other accused in the case and advocate Subodh Desai, representing the complainant Adnya Naik, the deceased’s daughter.

    The bench told the lawyers that they need to wrap up arguments on the matter of interim relief today itself, otherwise the case would be next posted for hearing on November 23, after vacations.

    After being closed in 2019, the abetment case was reopened in October this year. It pertains to the suicide of Mumbai-based interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother. Naik alleged in his suicide note that Goswami and two others had not paid dues owed to his firm, which is why he decided to end his life. Goswami was arrested by Alibaug police and was remanded to judicial custody till 18 November by a magistrate’s court.

  • TRP Scam: Hansa Research moves Bombay High Court, claims harassment from Mumbai crime branch officials

    TRP Scam: Hansa Research moves Bombay High Court, claims harassment from Mumbai crime branch officials

    New Delhi: Hansa Research Group has moved the Bombay HC, alleging that Mumbai Police’s crime branch officers probing the case are pressuring its employees to “retract” a report, based on which Republic TV had claimed it was not among channels named in the TRP Scam case. It has urged the court to transfer the probe to CBI or another state agency, accusing the Crime Branch of being “biased”.

    The media report said that the group has filed a petition and the four petitioners – Hansa Research, its director Narsimhan K Swamy, CEO Praveen Nijhara and deputy GM Nitin Deokar – contended that since October 12, several employees of the company have been repeatedly called to the crime branch office and were pressured to make a “false statement” disowning the report telecast on Republic TV on October 10 – referred to as the “Hansa report”.

    They mention that they are caught in the crossfire in a “battle-like situation between Mumbai Police and certain sections from media for the last few months…. It is evident that the petitioners are being used by police and certain section from media as means to attack each other and petitioners are suffering from collateral damage in this.”

    The petition further stated: “Harassment caused to the petitioners by respondent no. 1 (Assistant Inspector Sachin Vaze) is only with a view to extract a statement, albeit false, from them that the…purported Hansa report shown on Republic TV since October 10 is not that of the petitioner no. 1 but a fake one.”

    Read more news on Hansa Research

    The petitioners stated that they told crime branch officers repeatedly that they could not confirm or deny the report since they were not aware what the ‘Hansa Report’ cited by Republic TV was, as the channel had not sought their permission or informed them about using the report, and only parts of the report were telecast. They said that they will have to see the entire document to ascertain its veracity.

    The petition names assistant police inspector (Crime Branch) Sachin Vaze, Mumbai Police commissioner Parambir Singh, assistant CP and chief investigating officer Shashank Sandbhor, Maharashtra government and the CBI as respondents.

    The petition stated that on October 26, four directors of the company and one vice-president (finance) were present at the crime branch office. The petitioners claimed that while the crime branch officers again told the petitioners to deny ‘Hansa report’ as fake, they also disallowed their lawyer to enter the premises. They were then informed that they were being arrested and their phones were seized, the petition further stated.

    The petitioners alleged that since October 12, when Nijhara and Deokar first went to the crime branch office, their employees have been “kept detained there for over 200 man hours for no justifiable reason”. The only objective of the crime branch, the petition alleged, is to “keep them detained and pressurise and frustrate them so that they make a false statement according to the desire of respondent no 1 (Vaze) for reasons best known to him.”

    The petition is likely to be heard by the court later this week.

    Earlier, the group moved the city civil court seeking an order restraining Republic TV from citing the report as ‘Hansa Report’ since they were not informed by the channel. The city civil court, however, refused to grant the injunction.

    On 6 October, Hansa Research Group lodged an FIR against its employee Vishal Bhandari after he was found allegedly accepting payments illegally to make certain households watch specific TV channels, allegedly to fudge TV TRP ratings. Several arrests have been made in the case. 

  • Bombay high court gives India today TV a clean chit

    Bombay high court gives India today TV a clean chit

    New Delhi: If anyone thought that the TRP manipulation row has ended, the news is that it is far from over.

    Last fortnight, the Bombay high court stayed an order passed by BARC disciplinary committee and directed BARC India not to take any coercive action against India Today group subject to a deposit of Rs 5 lakh with the court.

    In the latest development, as per a court order the Bombay high court has set aside the BARC disciplinary committee  order against India Today TV.  It has ordered that the Rs 5 lakh deposited with the court registrar be returned to the India Today group in full.

    A statement from the group said: “Over 45 years, we have painstakingly built on the principle of credible journalism. Story by story. Edition by edition. Platform by platform. We have created a deep legacy of credibility, excellence, trust and bipartisanship. We are widely recogised as the gold standard of journalism in the country. In a landscape marked by shrill polarities, we have only one political alignment: the Indian constitution. And, we follow it without fear or fervour.”

    We tried reaching BARC for comments but no one was available to respond.

  • Bombay High Court stays BARC order against India Today

    Bombay High Court stays BARC order against India Today

    NEW DELHI: The TRP manipulation row has embroiled several parties including news broadcasters, research agencies and police authorities. The row is getting murkier as it goes along.

    Last week, the Bombay high court stayed an order passed by BARC disciplinary committee and directed BARC India not to take any coercive action against India Today Group subject to a deposit of Rs 5 lakh with the court. Now, after various sections of news media purportedly misreported facts in the case, India Today has issued a clarification.

    Referring to the plea it filed against the BARC order, TV Today said in a statement, “The petition filed challenges an order passed by the BARC disciplinary committee on the grounds that it was without an appropriate quorum and without presenting evidence, among other criteria. The court has stayed the order and directed that no coercive action be taken subject to a deposit of 5 lakh with the court– and not with BARC– and without prejudice to our rights.”

    The media house pointed out the misinterpretation of the court order by several news outlets that TV Today must pay a fine of Rs 5 lakh to BARC. “It is unfortunate that certain sections of the media are misreporting the reasons for TV Today approaching the Bombay high court against BARC,” it said.

    The network also clarified that the Hansa report has nothing to do with the case filed by it against BARC. “Similarly, any mention of TV Today's name in the Hansa report is something we are completely unaware of. We are not privy to any such information, and neither has BARC informed us of the report.”

    The TRP manipulation scam was unearthed by the Mumbai police on 8 October. Since then, several news broadcasters have been reeled into the controversy surrounding the matter. Charges and allegations have freely flown and a string of law suits and FIRs have been filed, with no end seemingly in sight.

  • NTO 2.0 case: Judgement reserved, TRAI can’t take any coercive step

    NTO 2.0 case: Judgement reserved, TRAI can’t take any coercive step

    KOLKATA: The Bombay High Court bench today reserved its judgement on the NTO 2.0 case. After hearing both sides, the court has also ordered the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) not to take any coercive action against the broadcasters for non-implementation of the amended tariff order.

    Within a very short span of new tariff order (NTO) implementation, TRAI had issued a set of amendments at the beginning of 2020. It was challenged legally by the major broadcasters. Even while the case was sub-judice, TRAI had released fresh directives on 24 July, asking broadcasters to publish details including maximum retail price per month of channels and maximum retail price per month of bouquets of channels, the composition of bouquets and also amended RIO and other details. This further irked the broadcasters.

    In the last couple of years, the industry has been overburdened by regulations. According to a FICCI -EY report, NTO 1.0 reduced the number of TV subscribers by 26 million. While broadcasters are reeling from the impact of Covid2019 , it is of serious concern how another change will impact the industry.

  • Bombay high court questions TRAI on twin conditions, DPO bouquets

    Bombay high court questions TRAI on twin conditions, DPO bouquets

    KOLKATA: Within a very short span of the new tariff order (NTO) implementation, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued a set of amendments at the beginning of 2020. These have been challenged legally by the major broadcasters, and the litigation is still in progress.

    In an interesting twist, at today's hearing yesterday, the bench at Bombay High Court has questioned the relevance of a few important clauses of the regulation.

    The division bench of the Bombay high court comprising Justice AA Sayed and Justice Anuja Prabhu Desai asked whether the twin conditions were placed by TRAI for consultation. The industry regulator had introduced this clause citing “manipulation” of consumer choice by broadcasters.

    Read more news on Trai

    “The sum of the a-la-carte rates of the pay channels (MRP) forming part of a bouquet shall in no case exceed one and half times the rate of the bouquet of which such pay channels are a part. The a-la-carte rates of each pay channel (MRP),forming part of a bouquet, shall in no case exceed three times the average rate of a pay channel of the bouquet of which such pay channel is a part,” TRAI said along with introducing the Rs 12 cap for introducing a channel in a bouquet.

    TRAI has been upholding (amended tariff order) NTO 2.0 for bringing rationality between a-la-carte price and the bouquet price. But several reports have indicated that consumers opted for the distribution platform operator (DPO)-designed bouquets post NTO 1.0.

    Considerably, the bench also mentioned that more than 90 per cent bouquets in the market are DPO bouquets which do not appear to be under the same restrictions as the broadcaster’s bouquets. The bench asked TRAI's counsel to explain how and whether DPO bouquets are bound by restrictions as compared to the broadcasters.

    Giving an example of NTO 1.0 which was implemented without the discount cap on the formation of a bouquet by the broadcasters, the bench asked whether NTO 2.0 could be implemented without some of the provisions.

    Read more news on NTO

    The counsel appearing for TRAI has sought time to respond till the next date of hearing, 8 October.

     It is expected that counsels for the union of India and TRAI will complete their arguments during the next hearing. However, keeping in mind the rejoinder to be made by the broadcasters, the first half of Friday has been kept as reserve time.

    Over the past couple of years, the industry has been overburdened by regulations. According to a FICCI -EY report, NTO 1.0 reduced the number of TV subscribers by 26 million. While broadcasters are reeling from the Covid2019 impact, it is of serious concern how another change will impact the industry. 

  • Bombay HC orders conflicting parties to present submissions on the validity of sec11 of TRAI Act by 31 August

    Bombay HC orders conflicting parties to present submissions on the validity of sec11 of TRAI Act by 31 August

    KOLKATA: Amid the ongoing tussle between the Broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India( TRAI) regarding the amended new tariff order (NTO 2.0), the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice A A Sayed, Justice Anuja Prabbhudesai heard the case on Thursday. The bench has ordered the parties to submit additional submissions on the validity of section 11 of the TRAI Act by 31 August. 

    The bench will hear the matter finally on 2, 7 and 8 September and will pronounce judgment following the hearings. As per today’s order, regulations will remain in force but no coercive steps can be taken by the regulator. It also added the Indian government is at liberty to file an affidavit on the validity of section 11 if needed. 

    Meanwhile, TRAI in a recent notification directed all broadcasters to comply with the provision of NTO 2.0 by 26 August, substituting the earlier timeline of 10 August as the final judgement on the case was expected on 24 August. The confusion regarding the implementation appears to persist as again the pronouncement of verdict has been postponed to next month. 

    Earlier this year,  the power to issue tariff orders by TRAI was challenged by broadcasters when they filed a writ petition on NTO 2.0 against the authority. “Violation of the mandatory principles of Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act and thus acting in a matter that is inconsistent with the TRAI Act, 1997” – was mentioned as one of the broad grounds of the challenge.

  • Emami VS HUL: Bombay high court restrains Emami to not use ‘Glow & Handsome’ trademark until further notice

    Emami VS HUL: Bombay high court restrains Emami to not use ‘Glow & Handsome’ trademark until further notice

    NEW DELHI: In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has restrained FMCG company, Emami, to not use its ‘Glow and Handsome’ trademark till further notice, saying that prima facie Hindustan Unilever (HUL) had used it first in its brand.

    The order was passed by Justice SC Gupte on Monday on an application filed by HUL under the trademark act. HUL’s counsels submitted documents which showed that the mark was adopted by the company in September 2018, and it has also asked for permission from the Food and drug administration to change the name ‘Fair and Lovely’ to ‘Glow and Handsome’, which was cleared on 2 August 2020.

    HUL had recently dropped the word ‘Fair’ from its skin cream product for men and women and renamed it to ‘Glow & Handsome.’

    HUL had approached the court last week seeking to restrain Emami from using the trademark.

    However, Emami claimed that it was the proprietor of this trademark, and was going to launch a skincare cream for men under the same name.

    "… plaintiff (HUL) prime facie appears to be a prior adopter and user of the mark "Glow & Handsome"," the high court said in its order.

    The court noted that the maker of Dove soap and Surf detergent already launched its goods in the market with this trademark whereas Emami was still at the stage of adopting a process of launching its goods.

    "Its (Emami) application for registration of that mark is also of a subsequent date," the order said. It also said that HUL had advertised its brand sufficiently.

    "At this threshold stage, it is reasonable to see that there is a concrete likelihood of confusion and deception in the public, if identical marks are allowed to hold the field for popular and much sold commodities" said the court.

    The judge said that until the final disposal of the matter, Emami deserves to be restrained from using the name ‘Glow and Handsome.’

    The next hearing will take place in two weeks.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • TRAI directs broadcasters to comply with the provision of NTO 2.0 by 26 August

    TRAI directs broadcasters to comply with the provision of NTO 2.0 by 26 August

    NEW DELHI: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in a recent notification has directed all broadcasters to comply with the provision of the New Tariff Amendment Order (NTO 2.0) by 26 August. The broadcasters were previously asked to comply by NTO 2.0 by 10 August but due to the ongoing battle between broadcasters and the regulatory body, the date has been substituted by 26 August.

    The Bombay High Court’s Verdict on the NTO 2.0 case between broadcasters and the TRAI is expected on 24 August.

    The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and other broadcasters had approached the Bombay High Court over the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) July 24 directive, wherein it has asked all broadcasters to comply with NTO 2.0 by August 10, despite the fact that the matter is sub judice and the final judgment has been reserved by the court.

    In one of the hearing, the case was listed before the original bench comprising Justice AA Sayed and justice Anuja Prabhudesai. While the legal battle is ongoing since long, TRAI citing a regulatory vacuum released a fresh directive on 24 July irking the broadcasters who have already been battling with the impact of the ongoing pandemic.

    It asked broadcasters to publish details including maximum retail price per month of channels and maximum retail price per month of bouquets of channels, the composition of bouquets and also amended reference interconnected offer (RIO) and other details on their website. 

  • Bombay high court’s NTO 2.0 verdict on 24 August

    Bombay high court’s NTO 2.0 verdict on 24 August

    KOLKATA: The Bombay high court's verdict on the NTO 2.0 case between broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is expected on 24 August. Until then, all parties have agreed to wait before taking any further decision. 

    During a hearing last week, the court asked both parties to follow “gentlemen’s word” and TRAI also assured to not take any action against broadcasters who haven't yet implemented NTO 2.0.

    During Friday’s hearing, the case was listed before the original bench comprising justice AA Sayed and justice Anuja Prabhudesai. While the legal battle is ongoing since long, TRAI citing a regulatory vacuum released a fresh directive on 24 July irking the broadcasters who have already been battling with the impact of the pandemic.

    It asked broadcasters to publish details including maximum retail price per month of channels and maximum retail price per month of bouquets of channels, the composition of bouquets and also amended reference interconnected offer (RIO) and other details on their websites by 10 August.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment