Advanced Search Results

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,

Phonepe Private Limited vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

app. The petitioner further avers in the petition that it is only an intermediary as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ for short) and facilitates services as a system provider and petitioner and only provides a platform … the petitioner says that it is governed by. A consequent declaration is also sought that the notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., dated 07-12-2022 to be bad in law.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane … intermediary, shall observe the following due diligence while discharging its duties, namely- Xxx xxxx xxxx(j) the intermediary shall, as soon as possible, butnot later than

Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of defendant No.2, it is an „intermediary‟within the definition of Section 2(1) (w) and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act,2000, defendant No.2 is under an obligation to remove unlawful content … India called „Samagams‟wherein, he interacts with his followers and offers spiritual guidance. His preachings are telecasted by over 30 television channels on a daily basis including Sony TV and Aajtak, SAB and IBN7. He claims that he

Radiological and Imaging Association Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 2003 ; Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 17, Section 4 and Rule 9; Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996 - Section 30, 32 rw 30, 29, 4(2)(3), 72-A, Rule 12; Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 72, 5, 6, 23(2), 72 and 72 A ; Amendment Act of 2003 - Section 17(4); Evidence Act - Section 45

result into breach of confidentiality and privacy and therefore, constitute an offence punishable under section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur, Mr. V.D. … of such record for a period of two years till the final disposal of proceeding under the Act. Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 12 confers power to search, seize and seal records and ultra- sound

Wipro Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Bang.)211

Explanation to Section 80HHE of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the CBDT hereby specifies the following information technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of said clauses, namely : includes … Systems Division, STPK/G175/97- 18-11-1997 1999-2000 1999-2000Chennai 111, Mount Road, 98/2761 Guindy, Chennai-600Pune Wipro Ltd., CTS, 685/2B STP/P/VIII(A) 10-3-2000 2000-01 2000-01Gurgaon Wipro Ltd., Flat No.201, PCMG/PSE/5 19-3-2000 2000-01 2000-01Mysore -- -- -- 2000-01 2000-01__________________________________________________________________________________________ was filed by the … Annex.III to the paper book)1. 181 to 185 Letter No. 15(45)/92-SDA, dt. 30-4-1992 regarding setting up of 100 per cent software export unit under STP

XXXXXX vs Sri. Balamanjunathaswamiji

Court : Karnataka

FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4, 6, 11(iv) AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, SECTION 66(E) AND 67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, SECTION 376, 354(A)(1)(i), 354(A)(1)(ii), 417, 342, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC SECTION 3 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF … 342, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC SECTION 3 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT, 1988 AND SECTION 30 OF ARMS ACT 1959.IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11808 OF 2024 BETWEEN: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX ... PETITIONER (BY SRI

Ms. Sapna Ganglani and anr. Vs. R.S. Enterprises and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 4, 69, 69(1) and 69(2); Contract Act - Sections 45; Information Technology Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 99 - Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 30, Rules 1, 1(1), 1(2), 2, 2(3) and 3

Reported in : AIR2008Kant178; ILR2008KAR3928; 2008(6)KarLJ136; 2008(4)KCCR2234; 2008(5)AIRKarR465; AIR2008Kar178

of his principal.21. Sri. Chandrashsekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000, a contract in respect of an immovable property cannot be validly entered into through E-mail and therefore, the … it will, in effect, be a suit by a firm. As Order 30 prescribes the procedure for a suit by or against a firm a … the Lower Court records are perused.4. Sri. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Order XXX Rule 1

Sapna Ganglani D/O Shyam M. Ganglani and Smt. Tamanna Moolchandani W/O ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Contract

Acts : Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 4, 69, 69(1) and 69(2); Contract Act - Sections 45; Information Technology Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 99 - Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 30, Rules 1, 1(1), 1(2), 2, 2(3) and 3

of his principal.21. Sri. Chandrashsekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000, a contract in respect of an immovable property cannot be validly entered into through E-mail and therefore, the … it will, in effect, be a suit by a firm. As Order 30 prescribes the procedure for a suit by or against a firm a … the Lower Court records are perused.4. Sri. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Order XXX Rule 1

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 … 86 d. Scope of Section 67B of the IT Act.................................................................... 95 iii. Presumption of Culpable Mental State under Section 30 of the POCSO. 108 a. Concept of Statutory Presumption and Principle of Foundational Facts. .......... 110 b. Foundational

Christian Louboutin Sas vs.nakul Bajaj & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

platform be termed as intermediary?.11. Does e-commerce website automatically come under the definition of intermediary?. As per the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter, ‘IT Act’) an `intermediary’ is defined as under: company which every runs an “Section 2(w) “intermediary”, with … It claims that it 13. provides luxury fashion essentials from over 70 opulent fashion labels, out of which 30 are available exclusively with Darveys.com. It also clearly states - “we offer these exclusive products to our members