Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>MCD's Jurisdiction Over Cellular Towers Upheld, Fees Deemed Arbitrary</h1> <h3>Cellular Operators Association Of India & Ors., Idea Cellular Limited, Tower Vision India Private Limited, Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. Wireless Tt Info Services Ltd Versus MCD And Ors.</h3> The court held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has jurisdiction to regulate the installation of cellular towers as 'buildings' under the ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of MCD to levy fees and impose conditions for installation of cellular towers.2. Validity of the fees imposed by MCD.3. Applicability of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.4. The role of municipal governance in regulating the installation of cellular towers.5. Health and safety concerns related to cellular towers.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of MCD to levy fees and impose conditions for installation of cellular towers:The primary contention of the petitioners was that the imposition of fees and conditions by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for the installation of cellular towers was beyond its jurisdiction. They argued that telecommunication is a central subject under Entry 31 of List-I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and only the Central Government has the authority to legislate on this matter. The petitioners further claimed that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, empowers only the Central Government to grant permissions for telegraph installations, and the MCD has no locus to demand fees or impose conditions for such installations.2. Validity of the fees imposed by MCD:The petitioners challenged the fees prescribed by the MCD, arguing that the fees were arbitrary, excessive, and lacked legal backing. They contended that the MCD had failed to justify the rationale for enhancing the fee from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5 lacs for a period of five years. The petitioners also argued that the fee imposed by the MCD did not satisfy the principle of quid pro quo, which is necessary for any regulatory fee.3. Applicability of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:The court examined whether the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, precluded the applicability of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (DMC Act) concerning the installation of cellular towers. The court noted that while the Telegraph Act grants the Central Government exclusive privilege to establish telegraphs, it does not bar the applicability of other laws concerning other facets of telegraph establishment, maintenance, or working. The court held that the impugned circulars/orders of the MCD did not encroach upon the exclusive domain of the Centre regarding telegraphs but regulated other aspects such as structural stability, public safety, and aesthetics.4. The role of municipal governance in regulating the installation of cellular towers:The court emphasized the importance of municipal governance in regulating the skyline, aesthetics, and safety of the city. It held that the MCD is responsible for maintaining the skyline of Delhi and ensuring that the installation of cellular towers does not negatively impact the city's aesthetics or safety. The court observed that the MCD has the authority to regulate the installation of towers as 'buildings' under the DMC Act, which includes structures of metal or other materials.5. Health and safety concerns related to cellular towers:The court acknowledged the health and safety concerns raised by the MCD regarding the installation of cellular towers. It noted that the MCD is responsible for ensuring that buildings, including towers, comply with safety standards and do not pose a health hazard to citizens. The court upheld certain conditions imposed by the MCD, such as requiring structural stability certificates and prohibiting installations on unauthorized buildings, to address these concerns.Conclusion:The court held that the MCD has the jurisdiction to regulate the installation of cellular towers as 'buildings' under the DMC Act. However, it struck down the fees imposed by the MCD as arbitrary and beyond its competence. The court emphasized the need for legislative amendments to the Building Bye-Laws and the Telegraph Act to address the regulation of cellular towers comprehensively. The court upheld certain conditions imposed by the MCD related to public safety and aesthetics but struck down others that were beyond the scope of municipal governance. The writ petitions were partly allowed, and the impugned fees were quashed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found