Delhi High Court permits an application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia seeking modification of the order dated September 25 wherein the Court issued summons in his defamation suit.
Justice Amit Bansal heard the matter.
The Counsel appearing for Bhatia was seeking modification of the September 25 order to the extent that he may be exempted from serving the defendants through all modes.
Counsel for Bhatia - Under paragraph 45 of the order, he was required to serve summons to defendants 3 ( Dr. Ragini Nayak) and 26 (News18 India) through all modes. We have their emails, we do not have their address so it is not possible to serve through all modes.
The Court has allowed the modification plea of paragraph 45 to the extent that Bhatia may serve Nayak and News18 via email alone.
Further, the Court modified the paragraph 50 of the order to the extent that the Bhatia will be permitted to serve the handles of users through X. Application disposed of.
Court - Since the counsels for defendant nos 1 (Samajwadi Party Media Cell),6 (X Corp) and 22 (Newslaundry) waived formal service of summons, let written statement be filed withing 30 days from today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Delhi High Court seeks response of the Central Government in the petition filed by All India Confederation of the Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries discontinuing the GST concession on certain vehicles given to persons with disabilities.
The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Advocate Rahul Bajaj was appearing for the petitioners - Ministry of Heavy Industries has decided to discontinue issuing GST concession certificate under the GST exemption certificate.
Delhi High Court pulls up DDA over delays in handing over possession of land in Shahdara for the construction of residential buildings for judicial officers; Court says it is not impressed with “excuse” that Rs 50k was left to be paid.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter.
Court: Why has Shahdara land not been given? Payment was given in July.
Lawyer: There was some discrepancy, some balance, small amount of 50k.
Court: It’s a matter of ₹50k, you could have easily handed over possession, asked for deposit (later)…Since 19th July, despite all formalities, not handed over possession? Possession could have been given with a sense of expedition
Supreme Court hears a plea challenging the grant of defence land within cantonments to private individuals and alleging encroachment of thousands of acres of defence property across the country.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Adv. Prashant Bhushan: After several orders of the Court, last time the Attorney General said that they had appointed a committee. I have gone through the interim report, and it virtually says nothing.
Adv. Prashant Bhushan: They mentioned that they had a few meetings but did not proceed further because they couldn't obtain the records. First, they filed a status report in which they stated that the entire digitization of all defense lands had been completed. And today, this committee is apparently saying that they are still trying to search for records, etc. If digitization is complete, where is the need to search for records?
Delhi High Court is hearing a suit filed by Bollywood actor Hritik Roshan seeking protection of his personality rights.
The matter is listed before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi is appearing for Roshan. He is telling the Court about certain Apps which are using his picture.
Sethi is taking the Court through the annexures of the suit and tells that Roshan's personality rights are being used in certain merchandise such as bags.
Delhi High Court grants last and final opportunity to the Enforcement Directorate to argue its case against the bail order passed in June 2024 by Rouse Avenue District Courts to Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal.
The matter was listed before the bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja.
Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani appeared for ED and sought for adjournment on behalf of Additional Solicitor General S.V Raju as he was arguing before the Supreme Court at that time.
Earlier #SupremeCourt had stayed the investigation against the state-run Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) and critiqued the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for 'crossing all limits'
SR Adv Kapil Sibal: This is the TASMAC issue. How can a govt company be raided? We are the ones who directed them to be filed. The managing directors are raided. Once FIR is there..ECIR is there.. this matter can be closed in no time at all. We have to decide what to do and what not.. what is ED doing? ED has seized computers etc. this is shocking
ASG SV Raju: There are 47 FIRs there is large scale irregularities.. we are on predicate offences and are on scheduled offences..for all these officers there is a conduit of how money is flowing.
ASG Raju: this is large scale corruption and what happens to the federal structure?
CJI Gavai: Can't the local police look into this ?
Sibal: We are the ones who are raiding and we are taking steps. They should give us info to under Section 66(2). What is this?
ASG: there is large scale corruption.. their FIR disclosed it
CJI: what happens to federal structure ? Who controls law and order
Sibal: 36 out of 42 FIRs are closed.
ASG: this is not about law and order.
Sibal: There is 60 hour of searches carried out
CJi: is it not encroaching upon the right of the state to probe a case? Whenever you have a doubt that state is not probing you will go there ?