The MM told Special Prosecutor I.U. Khan to file the reply and has fixed March 24 for further hearing.

The court also extended the judicial remand of Sanjeev Nanda till the next date after Khan submitted that investigation in the case was still in progress. Defence counsel Ramesh Gupta today filed another complaint seeking the prosecution's assistance in getting the list of the victims of the accident so that the amount of Rs 15 lakh, that has been deposited in the BMW accident relief account was not distributed directly by the Nanda family.

Earlier Khan had submitted that the prosecution was not in the picture as the ``compensation is in between the accused and aggrieved parties''. Sanjeev Nanda, who was driving the BMW that mowed down six persons including three policemen in the wee hours of January 10, has been in Tihar jail since his arrest. Arguments on Sanjeev Nanda's bail application will come up in the High Court on March 17.

Telecom operators ordered to pay up licence fee
Three private telecom operators were today directed by the Delhi High Court to deposit their licence fee with the Department of Telecom (DoT) within 10 days failing which their bank guarantees would be ``invoked''.

A division bench of justices Arun Kumar and Manmohan Sarin told Essar, Tata Teleservices and Hughes Ispat to pay 20 per cent of the amount due within this ``stay'' period. If the final order in this case went in favour of these companies, the DoT would refund the money along with interest to the appellants, the court said, adding that the companies need not pay any interest on the amount due to the DoT since February 28.

Since the order is not applicable to Birla AT&T, the fourth appellant, bank guarantee of the company could be encashed by DoT. The high court will, however, hear its case tomorrow. The case was earlier filed by four private telecom operators for an interim injunction against the DoT to restrain it from encashing their bank guarantee, which was rejected by the single judge bench. They failed to pay 20 per cent of the licence fee by February 28, the last date set by the Ministry of Telecommunications for the grant of licences. The telecom operators challenged denial of interim stay before the division bench. Notices were earlier issued to the DoT in the main petition, asking it to file a reply within three weeks.

Priyanka Vadra's house: HC wants petition amended
The Delhi High Court will decide on issuing notice to Priyanka Vadra in the house allotment case only if an amendment was allowed in the petition challenging the allotment. Acting Chief Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice K.S. Gupta today asked the Union government and the Ministries of Urban Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs to file their replies to the amendment petition by April 26, when the matter comes up for hearing next.

A Delhi based NGO had filed the petition demanding that Priyanka not be allotted the government house as she was not entitled for it under any rule. In the meanwhile, the house was allotted to Priyanka and she even moved in, rendering the earlier petition useless, thereby resulting in the amendment petition demanding her eviction from the said house. Though there was no rule on allotment of a separate house to the children of former prime ministers, 35 Lodhi Estate, the government had argued, was allotted to Priyanka on security considerations against the ``market (licence or rental) rate'' of Rs 19,900 per month. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs was made a party in the case on this count.

German MNC sues city firm A GERMAN multinational has slapped a case of cheating and copyright infringement against a city firm for allegedly illegally manufacturing and selling multimedia audio speakers under its trademark Typhoon & Anubis.

Dominique Bonk has alleged that the Nehru Place-based company, Sadh Engineering, was not only illegally using its trademark but had also copied the style, colour pattern and design of its products. The court has now issued notices to Sadh Engineering to reply to the allegations by March 10. Meera Bhatia, counsel for the German company, said the trademark was duly registered in countries, including France, Switzerland, Mexico and China, and that the company had applied for the same in India as well way back in 1997. By allegedly using the German company's brand name without permission, the defendants not only infringed upon their trademark but were also passing off their inferior quality goods as German goods, Bhatia contended. The company has also sought damages and interest thereon, along with penal action against the Delhi company under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Copyright Act.

Uphaar case transferred
District Judge M.A. Khan has transferred the Uphaar tragedy case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) L.D. Malik after another ASJ, S.C. Mittal, requested that the case be shifted from his court. ASJ Mittal had asked the District Judge to transfer the case to another sessions judge as his daughter was working with one of the accused persons on a project. The case will now come up for hearing on March 12.