Advanced Search Results

Dhanya Martin, vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

the aforenoted paragraph.4. The Special Marriage Act has to be construedwith time, especially, in the light of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 6 of Information Technology Act recognise the use of electronic records in Government and its agencies. Section 6 … A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.2072 OF 2021 PETITIONERS: 1 ARUN R.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN.P., RESIDING AT CHITHRA, KUMMANAM, ELAMPARA (PO),

Mohanan.K., vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

the aforenoted paragraph.4. The Special Marriage Act has to be construedwith time, especially, in the light of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 6 of Information Technology Act recognise the use of electronic records in Government and its agencies. Section 6 … A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.2072 OF 2021 PETITIONERS: 1 ARUN R.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN.P., RESIDING AT CHITHRA, KUMMANAM, ELAMPARA (PO),

Pradeep John, vs the State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

the aforenoted paragraph.4. The Special Marriage Act has to be construedwith time, especially, in the light of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 6 of Information Technology Act recognise the use of electronic records in Government and its agencies. Section 6 … A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.2072 OF 2021 PETITIONERS: 1 ARUN R.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN.P., RESIDING AT CHITHRA, KUMMANAM, ELAMPARA (PO),

V.V.Soman vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

the aforenoted paragraph.4. The Special Marriage Act has to be construedwith time, especially, in the light of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 6 of Information Technology Act recognise the use of electronic records in Government and its agencies. Section 6 … A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.2072 OF 2021 PETITIONERS: 1 ARUN R.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN.P., RESIDING AT CHITHRA, KUMMANAM, ELAMPARA (PO),

Arun R.K. vs the State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

the aforenoted paragraph.4. The Special Marriage Act has to be construedwith time, especially, in the light of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 6 of Information Technology Act recognise the use of electronic records in Government and its agencies. Section 6 … A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.2072 OF 2021 PETITIONERS: 1 ARUN R.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN.P., RESIDING AT CHITHRA, KUMMANAM, ELAMPARA (PO),

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. andors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

FIR No.24/2012 under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was registered against the petitioners by Cyber Police Headquarters, Bhopal, M.P. The respondent no.2, … the High Court for quashment of the FIR.8. At this stage, it is pertinent to state that on 19.2.2015 the petitioners filed an application for discharge and the learned Magistrate passed an order discharging the petitioners in

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Another Vs. M/s. Reliance ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

- The terms signed and signature also include attribution of electronic record as per section 11 of the Information Technology Act, 2000] Section 2(l) : instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, … companies are situated in two different States, the Company in state of Maharashtra is entitled for rebate under Section 19 in respect of the stamp duty paid on the said scheme in another State? 4. Whether for the

Firos Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Media and CommunicationIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 70, 70(1) and 81; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 17, 60 and 61; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1) and 226; Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1999; Limitation Act - Sections 60 and 61; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34

Reported in : AIR2006Ker279; 2006(3)KLT210; 2007(34)PTC98(Ker)

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant/petitioner approached this Court for declaring that Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is unconstitutional and unenforceable and also for issuance of a writ of … copyright can be claimed for IPR in the software in view of the amendment in the Copyright Act, 1957 in 1994. When respondents 1 to 4 arranged to modify the software 'FRIENDS' to suit its further requirements

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Cyber Crime Cell, Chennai ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

offences u/s 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 380 and 511 IPC r/w 66, 66-C and 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. During the course of investigation, the names of Suganandan [A3], Muralidharan [A4], Chandra Mohan [A5] and Prakash … (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3295/2016 in C.C.No.904 of 2015 on the file of XI … Alandur, despatched the articles to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department on 19.11.2013. After analysing the articles, the Deputy Director, Computer Forensic Science Division, Forensic

Just Rights For Children Alliance Vs. S. Harish

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

petition and thereby quashed the chargesheet dated 19.09.2023 filed for the offences punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, the “IT Act”) and Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012