NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union of India, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and the Delhi Government on a petition by Zee News Limited (ZNL) praying for quashing of three FIRs, including the alleged extortion case, against the group and its editors.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, asked for the response within four weeks.

The bench issued notice to them on another Zee Group plea which questioned the Centre?s showcause notice issued to it for airing a programme in which the news channel revealed the identity of the male friend and eye witness of the gangrape case on 16 December. The Centre had asked Zee to explain why its licence should not be terminated.

The Zee petition, which has been listed after four weeks, also seeks a stay of an Information and Broadcasting Ministry notice/communication of 31 January "to protect the Petitioners from unconstitutional state action violative of the Fundamental Right of the Petitioners under Article 19(1)(a)".

Earlier last month, the Delhi Court had taken cognizance of a defamation complaint against Congress MP Naveen Jindal and others and asked the Delhi Police to probe the role of Jindal and 16 other officials of his firm Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL) who are named in the complaint filed by Zee News Editor Sudhir Chaudhary.

Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja asked the Station House Officer of the Tughlak Road in south Delhi to seize the minutes of meetings and other documents of Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) regarding termination of the membership of Chaudhary.

The Police had been asked to give a report within a month and the case listed for further hearing on 15 February.

Chaudhary had alleged that "false allegations" were leveled against him to tarnish his image.

"Keeping in view the fact that 15 out of 17 accused are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court - PS Tuglak Road - and the law laid down in section 202 of the CrPC, it is directed that SHO, PS Tuglak Road (or his deputy) shall conduct an investigation qua the allegations made in the complaint," the court said.

It also said the SHO would investigate the role of each of the respondents relating to the two cause of actions described in the complaint.

Chaudhary, who filed his complaint through Zee News Ltd. counsel Vijay Aggarwal, had earlier said Jindal and JSPL officials had made "deliberately false" statements and registered a "false case" against him in the alleged Rs one billion extortion bid case and defamed him by leveling allegations against him at a press conference here.

?The Crime Branch of Delhi Police was doing one-sided investigation,? said Aggarwal. "Here on, the investigation will be under direction of the court and seizure of documents too,? he added, saying ?now truth will come out.?

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has granted adjournment of the appeal proceedings pending before the Karnataka High Court in connection with the ongoing trademark battle with Times Publishing House, a unit of Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd (BCCL), and Financial Times Ltd.

The directive by a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir was on a special leave petition filed by the Financial Times Ltd last week seeking the adjournment of the appeal proceedings in the High Court

A spokesperson for the Pearson group said the Supreme Court?s order is related to a ruling by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), India?s top IP court, in April 2012. That ruling cancelled the trademarks of both Times Publishing House and Financial Times. Both parties had appealed the IPAB order in a court in Delhi, which will be heard in April.

The special leave petition filed by the Financial Times was to ensure that until the appeal is heard and the validity of each party?s trademark determined, a related trademark appeal before the high court in Bangalore is stayed.

In Pearson?s view, this decision is significant because it recognises the necessity of the trademark rights to the title Financial Times being determined prior to other proceedings in this long-running legal battle, ?and in that regard is viewed as a positive development for the Financial Times before India?s foremost court,? a company spokesperson said.

The UK-based Pearson-owned daily Financial Times (FT) and BCCL?s (Bennett, Coleman & Co) Times Publishing House (TPH) over the right of the title ?Financial Times? in India has been going on since 1993. In 2001, FT said that BCCL had infringed its trademark by publishing a supplement called Financial Times with The Economic Times and filed a trademark suit against BCCL seeking protection of its trademark ?FT? in India.

The Times Group had registered the ?Financial Times? title in 1991 in Delhi, according to data available with RNI.

In April 2012, the tribunal body Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decided that that there was no evidence to suggest ?use? in India from 1948, as claimed by Financial Times Limited (FTL), and ordered removal of the FTL mark from the register, following TPH?s application. However it allowed FTL?s rectification application against the mark, ?Financial Times? registered by TPH, saying, ?There is clear evidence to show that the use of the words ?Financial Times? would indicate FTL and no one else. The mark is associated in the minds of the Indian readers with the UK paper, i.e. FTL, and not the Financial Times of any other country.?

The Tribunal also said that FTL was not violating the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act (PRB Act) as it was only circulating and not printing and/or publishing the newspaper in India, and the PRB Act would not apply to it.

FTL then filed a writ before the Delhi High Court challenging the IPAB order on the limited point of its trademark being cancelled.

In July 2012, FT CEO John Ridding had made it clear through an ad that FT was not in any way associated with the Indian title of the same name published by TPH.

MUMBAI: Controversy seems to be following Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray even after his death. Two girls who commented against the "Bandh" following Thackeray?s demise on social networking site Facebook were arrested and later released on bail, enough fodder for liberals to voice their strong opinions.

Former Supreme Court judge and Press Council chairman Justice Markandey Katju has protested against the arrest of these two girls and demanded the suspension of the cops who arrested them.

Katju first wrote to the chief minister of Maharashtra Prithviraj Chavan questioning the authority on why the girls were arrested. He also demanded suspension and arrest of the police officers responsible for this.

"To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments. Under Article 19(1) (a) of our Constitution, freedom of speech is a guaranteed fundamental right. We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act, since under Sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime," the letter stated.

He also wrote that if the facts reported are correct, the chief minister is requested to immediately order the suspension, arrest, chargesheeting and criminal prosecution of the police personnel (however high they may be) who ordered as well as implemented the arrest of that woman. "Failing this I will deem it that you as chief minister are unable to run the state in a democratic manner as envisaged by the Constitution to which you have taken oath, and then the legal consequences will follow."

On not receiving any reply from Chavan, he wrote a second letter that silence was not an option. "I once again request you to tell me, and through me the entire nation, why this arrest of a woman was made in Mumbai just for putting up an apparently innocuous material on the Facebook, and what action you have taken against the delinquent policemen and others involved in this high handedness and blatant misuse of state machinery."

The girl, a resident of Palghar Mumbai, was arrested for posting a comment that read "People like Bal Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that." A friend who liked this comment on Facebook was also arrested. However, they were released on bail on Monday.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court Monday has ruled that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has acted in haste by terminating the franchise agreement of crisis-ridden IPL franchise Deccan Chargers.

However, the HC also gave a green signal to the BCCI to add a tenth new team to the cash rich league.

The court had on 17 September directed BCCI to maintain status quo by not invite bids for a new franchise on a petition filed by DCHL seeking to restrain BCCI to add a new team.

Reiterating what it said on 26 September, the court passed an order directing the franchise to furnish an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 1 billion on or before 9 October which would be in force for one year.

If DCHL manages to furnish the bank guarantee before the deadline, it will be allowed to participate in the season 6 of the IPL and also renew contracts with players. All the franchises are expected to renew contracts with players before 31 October.

However, the court clarified that the order will cease to be in effect in the event DCHL fails to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs 1 billion.

While delivering the order, Justice SJ Kathawala said: "Though I find that the balance of convenience is more in favour of DCHL, I am of the view that the following protective orders will take care of the interest of both the parties."

The BCCI will be entitled to invoke bank guarantee only in the event of any default on the part of DCHL and only to the extent necessary, the court said.

The court also told the BCCI that it will not act on the termination of franchise agreement pending the arbitration proceedings and making of an award by the arbitrator.

It also told the BCCI that it will not act on the termination for a period of seven days if the award is in their favour.

The court had earlier appointed retired Supreme Court judge CK Thakkar as the sole arbitrator for the dispute between BCCI and DCHL.

The court disposed of the arbitration petition with a clarification that all the observations are prima facie and the arbitrator shall make his award without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order.

While directing DCHL to clear all outstanding dues includes players fee, the court told the BCCI to deposit the amount payable by the board to DCHL and payable in future to DCHL with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the court which the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall invest in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank from time to time until further orders of the court.

It needs to be noted that Yes Bank had filed a plea in the Bombay High Court that the receivables due to DCHL from BCCI be deposited in the media company‘s Yes Bank account. DCHL had also told the court that the money from central pool be paid to its Yes Bank account. The BCCI, however, contended that it can‘t do so since other lending banks are making similar claims.

The BCCI had on 15 September terminated the franchise agreement with Deccan Chargers for breach of contract terms. The cricket board had along with DCHL, the owner of Deccan Chargers team, called for bids to sell the Hyderabad-based franchise.

DCHL had rejected the lone Rs 9 billion bid of PVP Ventures despite the bidder meeting the eligibility criteria of the BCCI.

New Delhi: Any attempt to justify the conduct of the news television channels for their live coverage of the terrorist attack in Mumbai on 26 November 2008 by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable, the Supreme Court has said.

In its judgment confirming the death sentence of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the court said ?the freedom of speech and expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions.?

In a strong rebuke of the electronic media, Justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad said ?an action tending to violate another person?s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression?.

?It is beyond doubt that the way their (security forces) operations were freely shown made the task of the security forces not only exceedingly difficult but also dangerous and risky.?

?It is in such extreme cases that the credibility of an institution is tested. The coverage of the Mumbai terror attack by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within.?

The Judges said the shots and visuals that were shown live by the TV channels could have also been shown after all the terrorists were neutralised and the security operations were over. But in that case the TV programmes would not have had the ?same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels?.