The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the <keyword id="6356156" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="public-works-department" source="Orion">Public Works Department</keyword> (<keyword id="11911427" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="pwd" source="Orion">PWD</keyword>) and the <keyword id="6358992" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="delhi-police" source="Orion">Delhi Police</keyword> on a petition regarding the damage to a tree in the <keyword id="8282" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rohini" source="Orion">Rohini</keyword> area during road construction. Seeking a response from the authorities, including the PWD engineer-in-chief, executive engineers, the secretary and deputy commissioner of police, the station house officer, and the tree officer, justice <keyword id="262620" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="najmi-waziri" source="Orion">Najmi Waziri</keyword> issued the notice on a contempt petition filed by <keyword id="6358777" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="new-delhi" source="Orion">New Delhi</keyword> Nature Society. The bench checked the photos submitted by the petitioner and noted the concrete on the roots of a tree. The court relied heavily on the officials, pointing out similar petitions. Notably, the same bench had earlier expressed concerns over tree felling and destruction of <keyword id="6527937" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="greenery" source="Orion">greenery</keyword> in the national capital, which is vulnerable to air pollution. Earlier in June, expressing its anguish over the damages to the green cover in the national capital during the recent thunderstorm, the bench held the officials accountable for the lack of care, which led to concretisation around trees that weakened their roots and caused heavy damage. Justice <keyword id="4101374" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="waziri" source="Orion">Waziri</keyword> also came down heavily on the authorities, saying the Public Works Department came and crept up to the neck of these trees. In another hearing also, he had stressed the importance of the trees. "In this capital city with its ever-burgeoning population, the cacophony of voices and rampant commercialisation of every other street, robbing the residents of the familiar ambience of their residential neighbourhood, the ever-increasing motor-vehicular traffic, the choking air pollution and the ever-creeping concretisation, trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship. The more solitary the tree, the greater its significance," he had said.

Plea against damage to the trees during road construction; Delhi HC issues notice

<img class="gwt-Image" src="/photo/56853204.cms" /> 
<a href="http://media.indiatimes.in/media/facebook/2015/May/kat_600_1432187601_600x315.jpg">(Image Source)</a> 
 <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has just redefined women’s footwear to demonstrate customs duty. In the context, a woman's footwear without a back strap is a sandal and that with is a chappal, ruled the court. 
 
The order came to the light while discussing custom duty levied on exports of chappals and sandals. What’s weird is not the court’s definition, rather a government order that says export of sandals would attract 10% custom duty while chappals will attract 5%. 
 
The government had withdrawn a 10 per cent duty drawback given to a footwear manufacturer saying the footwear exported by it were 'chappals' as these did not have back strap. The Delhi High Court, while ruling that these were sandals, quashed the government's decision. Disagreeing with the government's view, a bench of justices S <keyword id="211436" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ravindra-Bhat">Ravindra Bhat</keyword> and <keyword id="262620" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Najmi-Waziri">Najmi Waziri</keyword> ruled, "The respondents (Centre and the <keyword id="6371460" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="revenue-department">Revenue Department</keyword>), in our opinion, acted upon prejudice and a preconceived notion that ladies sandals cannot be without a back strap". 
It said in view of the totality of circumstances, "this court is of the opinion that the impugned orders, upholding duty drawback withdrawal and imposing penalty cannot be sustained. They are hereby quashed". 
 The court said that an expert body, <keyword id="532055" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Council-of-Leather-Exports">Council of Leather Exports</keyword> which routinely dealt with such issues in context of export, had, based on evidence and instructions of government, furnished an opinion that goods were sandals and not chappals. 
 The court's order came on a plea by Chennai-based footwear manufacturer, <keyword id="4116441" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="wishall-international">Wishall International</keyword>, challenging the government's position that a woman's footwear without a back strap was a chappal and not a sandal. 
 The firm in May 2003 had filed a shipping bill to export the consignment declared as "ladies leather sandals" claiming 10 per cent customs duty drawback. The <keyword id="55109" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Customs-department">Customs Department</keyword> here, however, had said the export consignment were chappals. 
 
The company, however, had sought opinion from the Council of Leather Exports which had cleared the export consignment as sandals.

Delhi Hight court just defined chappals and Sandals. Check
yours and pay appropriate custom fee

New Delhi, Apr 26 () COVID-19 test kits should be made available urgently at the lowest possible price so that the virus can be controlled and people's health can be safeguarded at a time when the country was facing an "unprecedented medical crisis", the Delhi High Court has said.Justice Najmi Waziri issued the direction to three private companies which had entered into an agreement to import 10 lakh test kits from China and distribute them here at a cost of Rs 600 each, the rate approved by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).The court said that in the "present extraordinary circumstances" when the country was going through an "unprecedented medical crisis", with a disquiet over one's safety and the economy at a standstill, the public interest must outweigh the private."The lis (litigation) between the parties (the three companies) should give way to the larger public good. In view of the above, the kits/tests should be sold at a price not beyond Rs 400 each," it said.However, the order would not affect price of the kits to be sold to ICMR and the Tamil Nadu government.The order came on the plea of Rare Metabolics Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and Aark Pharmaceuticals which had entered into an agreement with Matrix Labs, the importer of the kits, to distribute the kits in India.Rare Metabolics and Aark, the petitioner companies, moved the court seeking release of 7.24 lakh COVID-19 test kits from Matrix which was seeking full payment upfront before delivering them.Out of the 7.24 lakh kits, five lakh were to be supplied to ICMR by Aark at a total cost of Rs 30 crore, the court was told.According to the petition, the initial order was for 10 lakh kits of which five lakh were meant for ICMR. Out of the five lakh meant for ICMR, 2.76 lakh had already been delivered, the plea said.However, Matrix was saying it will not hand over the remaining 2.24 lakh kits, when they arrive in India, till it received full payment, the petition claimed.The petitioner companies, represented by advocates Jayant Mehta and Anshumaan Sahni, said as per the agreement with Matrix, initial payment of Rs 12.75 crore was made for import of the five lakh test kits at Rs 600 each and remainder Rs 8.25 crore was to be paid after it received money from ICMR.After hearing both sides, the court said in its order on Friday that the tests "are required in the country on urgent basis in view of the worldwide pandemic" and directed that the remaining 2.24 lakh kits would be delivered to ICMR the moment they arrive in India.The court further directed that the remaining amount of Rs 8.25 crore (at Rs 600 per kit) to be paid to Matrix would be done within 24 hours of receiving payment from ICMR.Of the remaining five lakh units, out of the initial order of 10 lakh, 50,000 has to be kept aside for Tamil Nadu government, the court said and added that remainder 4.5 lakh kits be sold at the price of Rs 400 to any government, governmental agency or private entity. With the directions and observations, the bench disposed of the plea. HMP SKV DVDV

COVID-19 test kits should be made available at lowest cost: HC

<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 "najmi waziri" and got 4 results

Plea against damage to the trees during road construction; Delhi HC issues notice

IANS

Delhi Hight court just defined chappals and Sandals. Check yours and pay appropriate custom fee

Suchayan Mandal

COVID-19 test kits should be made available at lowest cost: HC

PTI

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

BI India Bureau