w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Selvel Media Services Pvt Ltd. v/s Municipal Corporation, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B K MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC266323

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92130TN2008PTC066197

Company & Directors' Information:- M C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130MH1996PTC098640

Company & Directors' Information:- SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300WB1989PTC046366

Company & Directors' Information:- G L MEDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22110AS1992PLC003745

Company & Directors' Information:- C P MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921DL1997PTC089994

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2000PTC162796

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA 6 (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22211TG2010PTC069036

Company & Directors' Information:- V L MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22222UP2015PTC070065

Company & Directors' Information:- D A MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22110DL2001PTC111926

Company & Directors' Information:- J. M. MEDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2012PLC231621

Company & Directors' Information:- N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92100TN2008PTC067723

Company & Directors' Information:- E-MEDIA SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200TN2007PTC065700

Company & Directors' Information:- I E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH1993PTC075096

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300BR1993PLC005422

Company & Directors' Information:- R G MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TG1994PTC018512

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2012PTC187736

Company & Directors' Information:- U S MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1998PTC091530

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22190MH2010PTC211481

Company & Directors' Information:- K & V MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH2008PTC188833

Company & Directors' Information:- K 4 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TG2013PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- C R MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC161444

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069853

Company & Directors' Information:- S & N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900BR2013PTC020667

Company & Directors' Information:- H A E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2011PTC042765

Company & Directors' Information:- R P MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130KA2013PTC071267

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL2000PTC103350

Company & Directors' Information:- K MEDIA PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U01222WB1991PTC053599

    Civil Writ Petition No. 23167 of 2017

    Decided On, 02 April 2019

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KRISHNA MURARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

    For the Appearing Parties: Chetan Mittal, M.S. Nain, Pankaj Jain, Deepali Puri, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Krishna Murari, CJ.

1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main relief:-

i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.2 thereby debarring the petitioner for a period of two years with immediate effect from participating in future tenders/works in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, on the ground for which neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was granted and the ground of continuous possession after the expiry of contract was under the orders of the Court in the previous litigation and thus not only illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and result of total non application of judicious mind and on such minor issues warranting such extreme penalty of debarring is against the well settled principles of law and rather the same has been passed hurriedly with a pre-determined mind."

2. We have heard Shri Chetan Mittal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Mohinder Singh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner company and Shri Pankaj Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh alongwith Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the respondents.

3. Facts relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy at hand in nut-shell can be summarized as under:-

The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of advertising and other media related services. The petitioner company on being successful in two different tenders for operation, running and maintenance of public toilets within the internal markets of Chandigarh entered into two agreements bearing Nos. 71 and 72 with the respondent-Municipal Corporation. The petitioner company was also successful in obtaining the third contract which relates to two toilets situated in Sectors 23 and 35, Chandigarh. The time period for all the three contracts was five years.

4. During the continuation of the contract period, vide order dated 21.07.2015 the petitioner company was debarred/black listed for a period of two years which was put to challenge before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19017 of 2015 mainly on the allegation that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the said writ petition conceded the factual position that the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing and on a request made by, the respondents were permitted to withdraw the notice dated 21.08.2015 with liberty to issue fresh notice and to take action in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing.

6. Subsequently, the respondents issued a fresh show cause notice dated 08.10.2015 proposing black-listing/debarring the petitioner company for a period of two years on the ground that having failed to handover the vacant possession of the buildings with fittings/fixtures etc. in running condition to the Municipal Corporation as handed over at the commencement of the contract, it has violated clause 15 of the two agreement Nos. 71 and 72. In respect of agreement No.21, the charge against the petitioner company was that it has failed to deposit the licence fee in advance and thus was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,89,367/- and despite the demand notice the petitioner company has failed to deposit the same.

7. The petitioner company submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter a hearing meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh on 23.12.2015 and after detailed discussion it was resolved as under:-

1. Company representative on behalf of M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. agreed to pay the upto date amount of license fee after reconciliation for the work under Agreement No.21 of year 2010-11.

2. Company was advised to clear the other liabilities such as Service Tax on license fees for the work under Agreement No.21 of year 2010-11.

3. Company was advised to submit the NDC to the office of the Executive Engineer, MC PH Divn. No. 4, Chandigarh, in respect of :

i) Electricity & water bills for the period of execution of contract,

ii) The applicable statutory for display of advertisements.

4. Company also agreed to update the condition of Public Toilet Blocks as per inventory for the toilets (2 No. of Sector 22 and Sector 35) covered under Agreement No.21 of year 2010-11.

5. Regarding inventory of public Toilet Blocks i.e. 46 no. and 40 no. (Covered under 2 no. agreements of year 2007-08), the works to update the condition of toilets by replacement of fixtures and repair of Civil Works etc. have already been allotted to M/s Esquire Construction Co. Sector 56, Chandigarh with the charges to be recoverable from the dues of M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, the company representative has agreed for the same but requested that the quantities of the various items should be as per the inventory for the toilets signed after the joint survey which was carried out during May, 2014."

8. The aforesaid resolution arrived at in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015 was communicated to the petitioner company vide letter dated 04.07.2016. The petitioner company further alleges that in compliance of the aforesaid resolution arrived at between the parties in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015, the petitioner company deposited a sum of Rs. 12,89,367/- with the respondents. However, since in respect of Agreement Nos. 71 and 72, the detail of the amount to be paid was not communicated, therefore, the same could not be deposited, though various communications took place between the parties in this regard.

9. Another order dated 18.11.2016 was passed by the respondents again debarring/black-listing the petitioner company from participating in the future tenders for a period of two years. The order was again challenged before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 24197 of 2016. Again during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the order of black listing/debarring the petitioner company was withdrawn by the respondents and accordingly the petition was disposed of as having rendered infructuous vide order dated 15.03.2017.

10. The petitioner company again filed a detailed reply to the allegations made against it. The respondents passed an order dated 29.09.2017 again black-listing/debarring the petitioner company for a period of two years from participating in future tenders which is impugned in this petition.

11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner company vehemently contended that the main ground on which now the petitioner company has been debarred in respect of keeping the government property under unauthorized possession even after the date on which the contract came to an end i.e. 31.03.2014, was not even a part of the show cause notice and yet has been made the basis of passing the order of black listing/debarring which is totally illegal. It is further submitted that the aforesaid charge cannot be made out against the petitioner inasmuch as the continuation in respect of agreement Nos. 71 and 72 even after the expiry of the period of contract was by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2950 of 2014 and 7718 of 2014. It is pointed out that after the expiry of the period of contract, the petitioner company was declared successful in the fresh tender process but the formal allotment of new contract was not finalized which was challenged by filing the aforesaid two writ petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 2950 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court by making various directions one of which is as under:-

"In case of any adverse decision, especially as the adhoc arrangement has continued till now, the same be not implemented for a period of seven days from the date of communication of the decision to the petitioner."

12. The respondents issued two notices dated 01.04.2014 and 11.04.2014 requiring the petitioner company to remove the advertisement from the toilets and handover the vacant possession which was in violation of the order dated 18.02.2014 and was put to challenge by filing another Civil Writ Petition No. 7718 of 2014 which was disposed of by making the following observations:-

"The only concern of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in this behalf is that in terms of interim directions passed by this Court, the petitioner continued to maintain the toilets beyond 1.4.2014. We may notice that as per an interim arrangement, the petitioner was continuing to do so but in the midst of the decision making process over the tender, the petitioner was sought to be deprived of the right to maintain the toilets. It is in these circumstances that the interim orders were passed.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly states that the petitioner will be paid for the period beyond 1.4.2014 also, on the same terms as were being paid immediately prior to that, when the tender process was under examination. The possession of the toilets will be handed over on or before 12.5.2014."

13. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the possession of the toilets has been handed over in the 2nd week of May, 2014 within the time allowed by this Court.

14. When learned counsel for the respondents was confronted with the observation that in view of the orders passed by this Court firstly the petitioner company cannot be made liable for the charge for not handing over the vacant possession and secondly the debarment/black-listing on this ground being directly in the teeth of the order dated 06.05.2014 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 7718 of 2014 is contemptuous, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the instructions made a statement before us that this charge cannot sustain and conceded that it may be deemed to have been withdrawn. The main charge having been conceded to be withdrawn, the other charge on which the petitioner company has been black-listed and debarred, namely, the possession of the toilets when handed over was not in good condition and despite deficiencies being noted in the joint inspection, the same have not been rectified and non deposit of licence fee, learned counsel for the petitioner company contends that these aforesaid two charges against the petitioner company already stood resolved in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015 and in response thereto a sum of Rs. 12,89,367/- towards licence fee have already been deposited.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner company further submits that since in respect of the shortcomings/deficiencies in respect of agreement Nos. 71 and 72 no specific amount was conveyed and therefore, the same could not be deposited and the petitioner company cannot be held liable for the same as well.

16. There is no denial of the fact that the issue was resolved in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015 and in pursuance thereto outstanding sum of Rs.12,89,367/- towards licence fee has been deposited. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to point out any material to demonstrate that any specified amount in compliance of the resolution arrived at between the parties was ever demanded from the petitioner company and it failed to deposit the same.

17. In the light of the above facts and in the absence of any material having been brought on record by the respondents to counter the aforesaid facts, prima-facie the respondents cannot be said to be justified in blacklisting/debarring the petitioner company on the twin charges, once the third charge which was predominant has been withdrawn.

18. Apart from the above, the three charges on which the impugned order is based

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

are so inter-linked and the facts constituting the charges are so intermingled and interrelated to each other that once one of them has been withdrawn, the issue in respect of other two charges need a fresh consideration especially in the light of the resolution arrived at between the parties in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015 and the un-rebutted allegations of the petitioner having deposited the licence fee. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the impugned order in respect of the remaining two charges, since require a fresh consideration, the same cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the respondents' authorities to pass a fresh order in respect of two charges in respect of agreement Nos. 71 and 72 in accordance with law keeping in view the conciliation arrived at between the parties in the hearing meeting dated 23.12.2015 and also the deposit of licence fee as alleged by the petitioner. Needless to observe that the decision shall be taken by the authorities after issuing a fresh show cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks from today. With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of finally.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-06-2020 Entertainment City Ltd. Versus Aspek Media Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Another Versus Sobhagya Media Pvt. Ltd. (Apn Live) & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Anil Chamadia Versus The Chairman Media Advisory Committee Rajya Sabha & Others High Court of Delhi
09-03-2020 Narendra Hirawat & Co. Versus Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Picturehouse Media Ltd., Chennai Versus Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 HT Media Limited & Another Versus WWW.THEWORLDNEWS.NET & Others High Court of Delhi
09-01-2020 M/s.Magic Frames, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - I (TDS) Versus Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 M/s. Shine Medias, a partnership firm Represented by its Partner R. Mahesh Versus M/s. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its CEO, Ekkattuthangal High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-09-2019 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-08-2019 S. Varadan, Editor-cum-Publisher, Kalaikadir Newspaper, Mahalakshmi Media Private Limited, Salem Versus Vasu Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-08-2019 HT Media Limited Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department & Others Versus Bihar State non formal cum special education Instructor Union through its Member-cum-Media In-charge, Bhagalpur & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-07-2019 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Versus Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
16-07-2019 Jatin Keshruwala Sole Proprietor, Janvi Production through its Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Keshruwala Versus M/s. DAG Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. through its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 Gopalacharya Gautam Versus Chief Editor Himachal Dastak Media House & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-07-2019 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Versus Traffic Media India Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
24-06-2019 Mahavir Multi Media, Chennai, Represented by Prakash Chand Chordia, Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, Reg. by its Partner R. Sarath Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-05-2019 Indian Potash Ltd. & Others Versus Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
26-04-2019 M/s. Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Times Innovative Media Ltd., Mumbai, Represented by its Assistant Vice President B. Chinnamallikarjun High Court of Karnataka
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 G.K. Mani, President & Others Versus New Generation Media Corporation (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2019 Times Innovative Media Ltd. Versus Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-02-2019 Living Media India Limited Versus Lallantop Media & Another High Court of Delhi
25-01-2019 M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
30-11-2018 Lokmat Media Private Limited Versus Vijay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-11-2018 Atul Kanti Tripathi Versus Kuber Media Ltd. High Court of Delhi
24-09-2018 India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Visveshwaran Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2018 M/s. Selvel Media Services (P) Versus Pr. Cit-4, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
05-09-2018 Lokmat Media Private Limited, (Formerly known as Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited., Through its Sr. Manager ? Legal Syed Arshad Ali Versus Dilip & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-07-2018 Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Versus HT Media Limited High Court of Delhi
12-07-2018 Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs (II), (Air Special Cargo), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
11-07-2018 Reliance Media Works Limited Versus B.R. Films High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-05-2018 HT Media Limited & Another Versus K. Satish Kumar & Another High Court of Delhi
04-05-2018 Ravindra Bhagyanarayan Thakur & Others Versus M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-05-2018 Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai V/S Sovereign Media Marketing P. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
23-04-2018 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle II, Chennai & Another Versus Vijay Television Private Ltd., Rep. By its Chief Financial Officer, S. Rajaraman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2018 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle II, Chennai & Another Versus Vijay Television Private Ltd., Rep. By its Chief Financial Officer, S. Rajaraman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2018 M. Lakshminath Versus Living Media India Limited Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-03-2018 Aditya Prakash Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Magikwand Media Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-02-2018 K.V. Jagannath Versus M/s. ODM Media Services Private Limited, Rep. by its Directors & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-02-2018 Radaan Media Works (I) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-02-2018 Radaan Media Works (I.) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
18-01-2018 Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
12-01-2018 Real Image Media Technologies P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-01-2018 Real Time Interactive Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus Metro Mumbai Infradeveloper Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-01-2018 Vir Sanghvi Versus Outlook Media Private Limited High Court of Delhi
22-12-2017 Saregama Ltd. Versus The New Digital Media & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-11-2017 C.C.E., Jaipur-II V/S Sky Media Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
27-10-2017 Smriti Television Media & Films (P) Ltd V/S CCE, Bhopal Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-10-2017 M/s. Jaya Balajee Real Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
14-09-2017 M/s. Media Graphics, Rep. by its Partner, S. Varadharaj & Another Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2017 HT Media Ltd V/S CST, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-08-2017 H.T. Media Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income High Court of Delhi
11-08-2017 Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-07-2017 M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., rep. By its authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan, Chennai Versus M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, reg. By its Partner R. Sarath Kumar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-05-2017 Bennett Coleman & Company Limited Versus Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Ltd & Others High Court of Delhi
18-05-2017 Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-04-2017 Indusland Media & Communication Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax- I Custom Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench Bangalore
26-04-2017 Indusind Media & Communications Limited - Thro' Sanjeev Ahuja Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-04-2017 Saregama India Limited Versus Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-04-2017 Zee Sports Ltd. Versus Nimbus Media Pte. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-03-2017 Reliance Media World Ltd V/S Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
28-02-2017 Raftaar Media Pvt Ltd. Versus Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-02-2017 Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
09-02-2017 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulator Authority Versus Labbaik (Private) Limited & Another Supreme Court of Pakistan
08-02-2017 Alliance Media & Entertainment Ltd. C/o. Natvar Vepari & Co., Mumbai Versus ITO (TDS) 1(1), Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
31-01-2017 Zee Sports Limited Versus Nimbus Media Pte. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Quark Media House India Pvt. Ltd. Mohali High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-12-2016 In the matter of: Morpheus Media Ventures Private Limited & Others Versus Anthony Maharaj, of Trinidad & Tobago & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-12-2016 Morpheus Media Ventures Private Limited & Others Versus Anthony Maharaj & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2016 R (on the application of Ingenious Media Holdings plc & Another) Versus Commissioners for Her Majesty?s Revenue & Customs United Kingdom Supreme Court
15-10-2016 M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-10-2016 M/s. Thai Media Entertainment Rep by its Proprietor Abuthahir Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Secretary to Government Tamil Development and Information (Exhibition) Department Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2016 Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. Versus Hero Honda Motors Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-08-2016 Maganlal Savani & Another Versus Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-04-2016 Eros International Media Limited Versus Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-03-2016 Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Nia) High Court of Delhi
21-03-2016 Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Versus HT Media Limited High Court of Delhi
11-03-2016 Sambhav Media Limited Versus Karnavati Club Limited High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
25-02-2016 Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) V/S TAM Media Research Private Limited Competition Commission of India
29-01-2016 Living Media India Ltd. & Another Versus Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
21-12-2015 Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Saturday Sunday Media Internet & Others High Court of Delhi
07-12-2015 M/s. Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Versus M/s Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
25-11-2015 M/s. Manipal Media Network Limited Udupi District, Udupi represented by its authorized signatory Sri. P. Vaman Mallya Versus The State of Karnataka Department of Finance by its Secretary, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
17-11-2015 In Re: Polimer Media Private Limited Versus TAM Media Research Private Limited Competition Commission of India
16-10-2015 Eastern Media Limited through the Editor, Sambad & Others Versus Madhusudan Padhi High Court of Orissa
08-10-2015 Inception Media LLP Versus Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-09-2015 M/s. S.S.T. Media Private Limited (In Liqn.) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-09-2015 National Stock Exchange of India Limited Versus Moneywise Media Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2015 IMG Media Ltd. Versus Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)- 3 (1), Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
21-07-2015 M/s. Telesat Media Matrix Pvt. Ltd., Chennai rep. by its Director Shyamm Kumar Versus The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2015 M/s. Seven Arts Films, Mahalingapuram, Chennai Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle ? II, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2015 Clear Media (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
23-06-2015 Inter Media Publishing Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, M. Usman Versus State of Kerala, represented by The Chief Secretary To The Government of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2015 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Media Circle-I, Chennai Versus Ganapathy Media (P.) Ltd. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
04-06-2015 In Re: M/s K. Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s NBC Universal Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India