Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New <keyword id="66" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi">Delhi</keyword>, Sep 22 () The Delhi government on Tuesday said it will challenge the high court's order staying reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds for COVID-19 patients in 33 private hospitals. A Delhi government functionary said it is extremely important to reserve ICU beds in private hospitals to deal with the rising coronavirus cases in the national capital. He said the AAP dispensation will challenge the high court order on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, <keyword id="1204125" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="The-Delhi-High-Court">the Delhi High Court</keyword> stayed the AAP government's decision to reserve 80 per cent ICU beds for coronavirus patients in 33 private hospitals. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla said prima facie the Delhi government's September 13 order is "arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights of citizens" guaranteed under the Constitution. The court issued notices and sought responses of the Delhi government and the Centre on a plea by 'Association of Healthcare Providers' to quash the order to reserve 80 per cent ICU beds for COVID-19 patients. The Delhi government, however, defended its decision in the court, saying it is only for 33 hospitals and 20 per cent ICU beds remain for the non-COVID-19 serious patients and it has been done keeping in view the sudden spike in cases of the virus. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/companies-amendment-bill-cleared-by-parliament-improves-ease-of-doing-business-allows-direct-overseas-listing-and-more/articleshow/78253822.cms">Companies (Amendment) Bill cleared by Parliament – improves ease of doing business, allows direct overseas listing and more</a>

Delhi Govt to contest HC stay on its plan to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID patients in private hospitals

Upholding the Central Information Commission’s (<keyword id="6378909" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="CIC">CIC</keyword>) order, the <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has dismissed a writ petition by <keyword id="6362997" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="DLF">DLF</keyword>’s subsidiary Edward Keventors Successors. The company had challenged CIC in which the commission had directed the company to disclose the details of a land in South block in Delhi that allegedly raises security threats to the Rashtrapati Bhawan. 
	 
	“In view of the aforesaid, the contention that the petitioner had not been granted an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained. An opportunity of making oral submissions was granted to the petitioner in view of the unequivocal language of the notice issued on February 28, 2013, however the petitioner rested content by sending a response dated March 10, 2013. Thus, the provision of Section 19(4) of the RTI Act was duly complied with,” the court said in its order. 
	 
	The court further added, “I am also unable to accept the contention that the petitioner was prejudiced in any manner on account of non disclosure of the application preferred by respondent no.3. The petitioner was informed of that respondent number three had sought information relating to the property ‐Block‐ 48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi...Thus, the petitioner was aware of the information that was sought. It is clarified that no information relating to the petitioner other than that relating to the property in question is to be disclosed.” 
	 
	The court observed that since the commission had followed the law, hence, it was not necessary to review the ‘merits of the decision’ taken by CIC. The commission had given its final order on December 3, 2013 following a RTI application filed by activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal which had sought information on the said land. 
	 
	It should be noted that objections were raised against DLF’s subsidiary’s plans of constructing high-rise luxury apartments on that land as any private building close to the President’s house posed serious threats to the country’s sovereignty. 
	 
	“It is noteworthy that Subramanian Swamy in his letters addressed to President of India alleged involvement of UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra in the dubious land-deal highlighted in the RTI queries, said to have been the biggest ever land-scam in the country,” said Agarwal. 
	 
	“With petition of DLF subsidiary (Edward Keventors Successors) now dismissed, Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and any other concerned government-agency should review decision of allowing land-use change in earlier UPA-regime in the controversial matter where even intelligence-authorities and President Secretariat are learnt to have raised objections from security-aspect with land-project being in close vicinity of Rashtrapati Bhawan,” he added. 
	 
	Representational Image

Delhi High Court Upholds CIC’s Order, Rejects
Petition Filed by DLF’s Subsidiary

<ul><li>Google Maps intricate detail and accurate images might be a ‘security threat’ to India.</li><li>India’s <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has asked the central government to look into the issue and assess whether Google’s mapping services in the country should be restricted.</li><li>Google Earth services reportedly shows all of India’s defence bases and other critical information.</li></ul>Google Maps can peer into any country in the world and while it has made navigation extremely convenient, India’s Delhi High Court thinks it might also be a ‘security threat’. It’s one of the most popular apps in the world with over a billion users and the same features benefit ordinary users can also be used by criminals or terrorists to plan their activities, according the <a href="https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-google-restrained-indian-map/">public interest litigation</a> filed by Kisalya Shukla, an advocate. The PIL states that India’s defence bases and other critical information is available through Google Earth services — the mapping mechanism behind Google Maps — in ‘violation of India’s sovereignty’. The two judge bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar have asked the central government to look into the issue and decide whether or not Google should be allowed to continue posting maps on India online. Google accuracy could be its undoing Google Earth services, that powers Google’s mapping applications, is an open source image data source — that means anyone can use it and it’s free. The company collects data through road sensors, transport departments and even user contributions through Map Maker in addition to the satellite images it has already collected. The resulting maps that are seen online can be used to find the fastest route to work or to plan the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, according to <a href="https://www.pcworld.com/article/154684/article.html">police officials.</a> Late president, APJ Abdul Kalam, also stated that "sensitive areas clearly marked on Google Earth" during a <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Google-earth-under-govt-scrutiny/articleshow/1264698.cms">press conference</a> in 2005. He added that the current laws in the country, and abroad, aren’t sufficient for restricting how these detailed maps are used which make them a security hazard. ‘As an alternative, the PIL filed by Shukla also requested that the Indian government launch India’s indigeous navigation system, <a href="https://www.isro.gov.in/irnss-programme">NavIC</a>, developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) available to the general public. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/uber-relies-on-google-maps-for-its-business-and-spent-58-million-on-it-over-three-years/articleshow/68841738.cms">Uber relies on Google Maps for its business and spent $58 million on it over three years</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/google-maps-new-feature-spots-speed-cameras-in-india/articleshow/67638326.cms">Google Maps will now alert you to speed traps as you drive — but its chances of success are limited</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/incognito-mode-is-coming-to-google-maps-and-google-search/articleshow/69224890.cms">Incognito mode is coming to Google Maps and Google search</a>

Is Google Maps a ‘security threat’ to India's sovereignty, Delhi High Court asks government

The <keyword id="6355014" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday allowed <keyword id="6380276" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Duty">duty</keyword> free import of Amphotericin B, used for treating <keyword id="10432869" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="black-fungus">black fungus</keyword> patients, on furnishing of a bond by the importers, till the final decision by <keyword id="6356303" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Centre">Centre</keyword> on waiving customs duty. A bench comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said, "We direct that if any import is made by any person of this drug (Amphotericin B), it shall be allowed on a bond furnished by the importer without the actual duty being paid, till a decision is taken by the Centre." The bench observed that the medicine is essential to save lives of several thousands of people suffering from mucormycosis. In the backdrop of shortage of the medicine in the country, the <keyword id="6355392" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="High-Court">High Court</keyword> emphasised that the Centre should seriously consider waiving customs duty for a limited period or till issues with shortage of medicine exists. On the aspect of the bond for importing the medicine, the High Court said any person can import Amphotericin B and if any import is made by any person, it should be cleared by accepting the bond from the importer without actual payment of duty till the Centre takes a final decision in the matter. SEE ALSO <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-moves-the-delhi-high-court-against-indias-new-it-laws-says-report/articleshow/82965251.cms">WhatsApp moves the Delhi High Court against India’s new IT laws, says report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/cyclone-yaas-will-unleash-its-fury-for-another-12-to-18-hours-after-making-landfall/articleshow/82964922.cms">Cyclone Yaas will unleash its fury for another 12 to 18 hours after making landfall</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/oneplus-is-giving-away-9000-worth-google-stadia-bundle-for-free-but-its-not-available-in-india/articleshow/82965884.cms">OnePlus is giving away ₹9,000 worth Google Stadia bundle for free – but it’s not available in India</a>

Delhi High Court allows duty-free import of black fungus drug Amphotericin B

The Delhi High Court will today hear the appeal of <keyword id="1042120" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Uber">Uber</keyword> and <keyword id="6362049" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ola-Cabs">Ola Cabs</keyword> against the ban imposed on them by Delhi’s <keyword id="62110" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="transport-department">Transport Department</keyword>. On January 1, the Transport Department had refused to lift the ban, saying “there are no grounds to review the ban imposed.” 
 
The Delhi government had banned all web-based taxi operators in December last year after a taxi driver working with Uber allegedly raped a woman. Uber and Ola had approached the Delhi High Court requesting quashing of the ban orders. 
 
The Transport Department had said in its order: "They (web-based taxi operators) provide a simple taxi service by transporting people from one point to another through a vehicle driven by a driver for a fee, which is collected by the petitioner company directly from the passenger. Being a taxi service provider they are required to follow the law of the land and by using an AITP (All India Tourist Permit) taxi for local point to point drop, as in the present case, the petitioner has violated the prevailing law of the land and as it was not registered, which again was a violation.”

Delhi High Court To Hear Uber And Ola Cabs Appeals Today

The <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has questioned <keyword id="6354335" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="reserve-bank-of-india">Reserve Bank of India</keyword>’s (<keyword id="30067" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="RBI">RBI</keyword>) move to limit withdrawal from ATMs. The court even said that the account holders were being “unnecessarily taxed.” 
 
According to new norms issued by RBI, bank account holders in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bangalore can withdraw money without any charge only five times a month and they will be charged Rs 20 per transaction from the sixth time. 
 A division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice PS Teji issued notice to RBI, Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) and <keyword id="6354731" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="State-Bank-Of-India">State Bank of India</keyword> (SBI). The next hearing in the case will take placed on February 18, 2015. 
 
“Why are you unnecessarily taxing your own account holders? File your response by next date of hearing,” the Bench said. 
 
Advocate Swati Aggarwal had filed a public interest litigation, asking the court to direct RBI to allow unlimited number of transaction. 
 
According to the plea, “the guidelines came into force from November 1 and have already been implemented by several banks, including SBI.”

Delhi High Court Questions RBI’s Move To Limit Withdrawal From ATMs

It’s good news for <keyword id="6354720" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ola">Ola</keyword> riders. App only taxi operator Ola has won a legal reprieve to operate in New Delhi. Rival <keyword id="1042120" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Uber">Uber</keyword> too has filed a similar suit to challenge the <keyword id="6354952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-Government">Delhi government</keyword>’s ban in the city. 
	 
	According to an ET report, the transport authorities in the national capital had started penalizing cabs that were operating under Ola and Uber after the Delhi government issued ban orders imposed in December. The ban was issued after a 25 year old woman accused Uber driver of rape. 
	 It should be noted that the <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> asserted that the government's ban was not valid and could not be the sole basis to reject the taxi operators’ application to operate its taxis in the city. 
	 
	The court also directed the transport authorities to provide Ola with all details required for a licence within 10 days. Uber too has followed suit. 
	 
	Image: Indiatimes.com

Say Ola! Delhi High Court
rejects ban on taxi operator, Uber to follow suit

Its war time for arch rivals <keyword id="1042120" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Uber">Uber</keyword> and Ola. Taxi aggregator Uber, which has its headquarter in San Francisco, has filed a petition against <keyword id="6362049" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ola-Cabs">Ola Cabs</keyword> in <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword>, accusing the Indian cab operator of setting up fake riders accounts and misleading its drivers through fake calls impersonating Uber. 
	 
	Interestingly, the legal battle will is only expected to stir up the cab market that has been up for grabs for quite sometime now. 
	 
	According to the ET report, Uber is seeking ‘declaration, perpetual injunction and damages’ against Ola in the Delhi HC. The high court has asked Ola to respond to the allegations and has given time till the next hearing, which has been scheduled on September 14. 
	 
	As per the report, Uber has accused Ola of creating over 93,000 fake rider accounts in order to mislead the company as far as their sales is concerned. Also, the US cab operator has alleged that Ola made 405,649 false bookings of taxi rides and thereafter cancelled them to create frustration and disrupt business. 
	 
	Another serious allegation made by Uber includes accusing Ola employees of impersonating Uber employees in order to spread malicious text messages, thus causing damage to the business and the brand. 
	 
	But this isn’t the first lawsuit involving either company. ANI Technologies Ltd, the parent company of Ola, has filed a contempt petition in the Delhi High Court, alleging Uber of buying diesel cars to provide services, which if true, is a violation of Delhi HC’s October 14, 2015 order.

Uber accuses Ola of causing serious ‘damage’ to its business

<ul><li><keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has slapped a fine of ₹950,000 on <keyword id="10879" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="YouTube">YouTube</keyword> for not removing an ‘offensive’ video posted against a doctor on its platform. </li><li>YouTube argued that it could not permanently remove the content due to technical reasons but could instead ensure that nobody has access to it. </li><li>The court refused to believed that the content of a platform could govern its entire functioning and added that YouTube had wasted precious judicial time.</li></ul> The <keyword id="66" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi">Delhi</keyword> High Court judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/youtube-fined-for-not-removing-offensive-post/articleshow/64910561.cms">slapped a fine</a> of ₹950,000 on YouTube for not removing an ‘offensive’ video from its platform. The content that was asked to be removed was targeted against the IVF practices of a Delhi-based female doctor. The ₹950,000 fine includes a punishment for wasting judicial time - ₹50,000 for each of the nine hearings that took place over the last 64 days. In June 2015, the trial court had directed YouTube and its patent, Google, to remove the content. For the past nine trials, YouTube had been asking for a time extension to comply with the decision of the high court. However, after the ninth trial, it said that it can’t comply at all, because of “technological reasons”. YouTube argued that though it could not remove the content permanently, it could ensure that nobody had access to it and that would also, in extension, mean complying with the high court’s decision. However, the court refused to accept these two actions as equivalents of one another. The Google-owned platform then decided to withdraw its appeal from the high court and challenge the trial court decree. The court allowed YouTube to do so on two conditions - one, the company would not raise any arguments that have already been addressed in this court and two, it will pay the fine mentioned by the court for the doctor. Rupees 100,000 also needs to be paid to the High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre as a repayment of costs incurred during the trials. Even though YouTube pleaded its case stating ‘technical reasons’ and their helplessness in the matter, the bench did not make any allowances and refused to believe that content on a platform could govern its entire functioning.

You Searched For "Delhi High Court" and got 9 results

Delhi Govt to contest HC stay on its plan to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID patients in private hospitals

PTI

Delhi High Court Upholds CIC’s Order, Rejects Petition Filed by DLF’s Subsidiary

Purba Das

Is Google Maps a ‘security threat’ to India's sovereignty, Delhi High Court asks government

Prabhjote Gill

Delhi High Court allows duty-free import of black fungus drug Amphotericin B

IANS

Delhi High Court To Hear Uber And Ola Cabs Appeals Today

BI India Bureau

Delhi High Court Questions RBI’s Move To Limit Withdrawal From ATMs

BI India Bureau

Say Ola! Delhi High Court rejects ban on taxi operator, Uber to follow suit

BI India Bureau

Uber accuses Ola of causing serious ‘damage’ to its business

BI India Bureau

Delhi High Court slaps a fine on Youtube, protects a Delhi-based doctor

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides