MUMBAI: The Supreme Court today directed three public sector banks to deposit within 15 days a sum of Rs 4 billion with the Prothonotary and Master of Bombay High Court, who would then remit the money to the bank account of BCCI.

The BCCI had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the Bombay High Court order that prevented it from invoking bank guarantees following the termination of contract with Nimbus Communications.

However, if the BCCI?s suit fails, the said sum would be returned along with interest. Three nationalised banks namely Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank and Union Bank of India had helped Nimbus to furnish un-conditional bank guarantee to the tune of Rs 16 billion to acquire the BCCI media rights.

The bank guarantees had been given to secure payment of dues by the Nimbus to the BCCI.

The BCCI had entered into Media Rights License Agreement (MRA) with Nimbus Communications for the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2014. In November 2011, the BCCI had terminated the MRA with Nimbus for default in payment and sought to encash the bank guarantees which were in the possession of BCCI.

However, the banks refused to pay the monies to the tune of Rs 16 billion under the unconditional bank guarantees. This compelled the BCCI to file summary suits against the three in the Bombay HC.

Much to the disappointment of BCCI, the Bombay HC granted the three banks leave to defend the suits on a condition that the banks deposit a sum totaling Rs 4 billion with the Prothonotary and Master of the Bombay HC, who would then redeposit the sums with the respective banks.

Earlier, Nimbus Communications was directed by the Bombay HC to secure the dues of BCCI by the way of bank guarantee. The order has not been complied by them and the Company faces contempt proceedings, the BCCI said.

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.