Madras High Court News

S

sTrOnTiaBOnd

[OP]
Here is a question that was asked in the parilament about landing stations
Internet cable landing stations

Q: 1620
Will the Minister of COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY be pleased to state :-
(a) the details of the number of internet cable landing stations along with the ownership distribution;
( B) whether Government intends to break the monopoly in fixing high charges for bandwidth by companies; and
(c) if so, the details thereof?
ANSWER

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI MILIND DEORA)
(a) Sir, Internet Service providers and International Long Distance service providers are permitted to establish internet cable landing station. So far, total 12 Cable landing stations have been established by International long Distance service providers namely, Tata Communications Ltd. (5 No.), Bharti Airtel Ltd. (4 No.), Reliance Communications Ltd.( 2 No.) & Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (1 No.)
( B) &(C) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released “The International Telecommunication Cable Landing Stations Access Facilitation Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations, 2012” (No. 27 of 2012) on 21/12/2012. The said Regulation was challenged by the telecom operators in Madras High Court. Hon’ble Madras High Court has stayed the implementation of TRAI’s Regulation vide its orders dated 24/01/2013 & 21/02/2013.

The govt has not even asked the court to vacate the stay. Here we are told that due to input costs tariffs are increasing and here we know that tataairtel own 90% of the landing stations.
 
Reactions: 1 person

Sushubh

Administrator
Oct 29, 2004
413,718
12,754
Gurugram
If couple wants divorce, courts cannot ask for reasons, says HC - Times of India

If a married couple wants divorce by mutual consent, it is not a court's business+ to deny them judicial separation by insisting on knowing the reason for their decision, the Madras high court has said.
Noting that a court could not act like a fact-finding authority, a division of Justice K K Sasidharan and Justice N Gokuldas said: "In case the marriage is a failure and the parties wanted to put an end to the marital bond, the court should respect the sentiments and grant divorce+ . It is not the intention of the legislature to deny divorce in spite of the parties taking a conscious decision to part ways."
Rapping a family court in Tirunelveli for having dismissed a joint divorce plea filed by a couple that had been living separately for more than a year, the judges said: "Once it is convinced that it would not be possible for the parties to live together and that they have opted to dissolve the marriage peacefully the endeavour of the court must be to grant a decree of divorce rather than compelling them to live separately even thereafter."