1. Sthavi Asthana v. Times Now Navbharat & Ors .CS(OS) 654/2022, I.A. 17221/2022
Represented the plaintiff Ms. Sthavi Asthana in a defamation suit seeking Rs 2 crore as damages.
Represented the plaintiff Ms. Sthavi Asthana in a defamation suit seeking Rs 2 crore as damages following the allegations in the prime-time show telecast that the petitioner was awarded the Yash Bharti Samman (Equestrian category) in 2016 solely owing to the fact that her father was the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P.. The suit was moved against the news channel, its parent company Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL) as well as editor Navika Kumar and anchor Sushant Sinha among other defendants namely – Google LLC, Youtube, Facebook (Meta), and Twitter Inc. It is worth mentioning that the
Prior to filing of suit, I sent a legal notice to the Times Now Navbharat editor-in-chief Navika Kumar and Senior Anchor Sushant Sinha to issue an apology to Ms Sthavi Asthana and furnish damages in March 2022. The company Bennet & Coleman on behalf of editor-in-Chief Times Now Navbharat Navika Kumar and Sushant Sinha responded to the legal notice in April 2022 refusing to tender an apology culminating into a 2-crore defamation suit for damages and for permanent injunction among other reliefs against Times Now Navbharat, Bennet & Coleman, Editor-in-Chief Times Now Navbharat Navika Kumar, and News Anchor Sushant Sinha (defendants 1-4) for making defamatory statements in their prime time show "News ki Paathshala," telecast on January 20, 2022, on their Hindi news channel, Times Now Navbharat. It was contended that the senior anchor, Sushant Sinha (defendant no. 4), made defamatory statements about the plaintiff, diminishing and undermining her achievements as an equestrian of national and international repute.
The court convinced of the petitioner’s case passed an order directing the defendants to issued a corrigendum stating therein that the plaintiff was found eligible by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the pension and the Yash Bharti award which was accorded based on her achievements as an equestrian. On the basis of the aforesaid undertaking, the Suit was withdrawn in view of the apology tendered on prime-time news hour of Times Now Bharatwarsh.
2. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd - Civil Misc. Arbitration Appln. No. 12/ 2019;
D.OJ.: 17 January 2022
Citation: (2022 LawSuit (All) 42); Eq. Citation: [2022 (2) ADJ 252, 2022 (1) AWC 851
CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. (formerly Crompton Greaves Ltd.) filed an application u/s11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of arbitrator. Represented the respondent UPPTCL in the said matter. It was contended by UPPTCL that the matter falls within the purview of UPERC and the matter is time barred.
The Hon’ble court allowed Arbitration application and proposed the name of Justice O.P. Srivastava (Retd.) to Act as Arbitrator. Now the matter is pending adjudication before the sole arbitrator Justice O.P. Srivastava. Appearing on behalf of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd as special counsel.
3. Executive Engineer Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. V. SGS Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. W.P.(C) 2860/2021
D.O.O.: 10 May 2021;
Citation: [2021 SCC Online Del 2005]
Assisted SGI Tushar Mehta for the respondent in the matter SGS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS SLP NO(S) 6895 OF 2021 and 6983 OF 2021. The matter involved a stay vacation application to complete transmission line for enabling 24*7 electricity supply to the oxygen plants and to urgently ensure 24x7 uninterrupted power supply to Santosh Hospital, Jeevan Jyoti, Metha, Aloki, Floris etc. as well as the Largest Oxygen Plant of Delhi-NCR namely M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases from newly constructed 220 KV Sub-Station, Pratap Vihar and 132 KV, Industrial Area, Rathi, connected with it, allowed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court but to stayed by the Supreme Court.
4. Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Versus CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited (Indirect Tax-Cess Matter, a Special Leave Petition (c) no. 08630 of 2020) (Counsel for the Petitioner)
Citation: [2021 (6) SCC 15; 2021 (2) SCC (L&S)]
I filed and represented the corporation UPPTCL (petitioner) in the aforesaid SLP against the final Judgment dated 24th February 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The SLP raised the following significant questions of law among others that whether the Hon’ble High Court has erred by not considering the Inspection/Audit report of the Accountant General (Lucknow Branch), (Comptroller and Auditor General of India - CAG) that labour cess is to be deducted on the cost of construction wherein supply of material and erection work were also included for deduction on the total work contract and deposited with BOCWWB.
- The SLP raised the following significant questions of law among others that whether the Hon’ble High Court has erred by not considering the Inspection/Audit report of the Accountant General (Lucknow Branch), (Comptroller and Auditor General of India - CAG) that labour cess is to be deducted on the cost of construction wherein supply of material and erection work were also included for deduction on the total work contract and deposited with BOCWWB?
- WHETHER, the provisions of the BOCW Act and Cess Act extend to the Supply contracts and the workers engaged in supply of equipment for the purposes of construction of civil work are covered by the Act?
- WHETHER, the supply of goods/materials is excluded from definition of cost of construction as provided under Section 3 of the Cess Act read with Section 3 and Section 4 of Welfare Cess Rules 1998?
The court in this landmark judgement dated 12th May 2021 clarified and upheld the principle of law that even where there is an arbitration clause between a State instrumentality and a private party, such clause does not act as an absolute bar to the remedies under Article 226. Further, the Supreme Court recorded that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution can be granted in contractual disputes. The matter has been widely reported in all law journals and law magazines.
5. Rajeev Agrawal vs. Union of India & ORS. 89 of 2019
6. Bar Council of U.P. and Anr. vs Bar council of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 2493/2021
Citation: 2021 SCC Online Del 2372
I represented the cause of the Bar Council of U.P. In the aforesaid writ petition, The BCUP assailed the two resolutions of the Bar Council of India “BCI”) dated 19th January, 2021 and 2nd February, the same being arbitrary and without jurisdiction, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and beyond the purview of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules framed there under as well as the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers U/s 15 (2) (c) of the Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The matter was heard by the bench presided by Mrs. Justice Pratibha M. Singh and it was resolved to settle the dispute amicably between the respective Bar councils. The petition was disposed of in view of the amicable resolution arrived between the parties, keeping the question of law open vide judgement/order dated April 27, 2021.
A letter of acknowledgement and appreciation from the Chairman Bar Council of U.P. Mr Rohitashwa K Agarwal was addressed to me on behalf of the Bar Council of U.P. recognizing the efforts for representing the cause of the council and bringing the matter to an amicable resolution. The matter was widely reported by media and law journals.