Advanced Search Results

Koshy Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 65, 66, 66(1), 66(2) and 77B; ;Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008; ;Companies Act, 1956; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 82, 83 and 438; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 419 and 420

Reported in : 2010(1)KLT945

alleged, going by Annexure A First Information Report, are under Sections 65 and 66(1) and (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After hearing all the counsel and the learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Punjab, it is … ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Dr. K.A. Koshy and Dr. Serena, who are two

Syed AsifuddIn and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 2(1) and 65; Income Tax Act - Sections 65 and 66; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 14 and 63; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 405, 409, 415 and 420

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)96; 2005CriLJ4314

under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC), Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, IT Act) and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for short, Copyright Act).2. The crime

Bhim Sen Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 5, 6 and 65; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 182, 211, 366, 376, 417, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 154, 155, 155(2), 156, 156(1), 156(2), 157, 162, 164, 169, 170, 173, 319 and 482; Evidence Act; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226 and 227

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3643; RLW2006(3)Raj2411; 2006(4)WLC579

Transport Nagar, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 469, 471, 120B, IPC, and Section 65 of Information Technology Act 2000.2. During, the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has deleted the offence under Section 65 of the J.T.

Tata Sky Ltd Vs. Youtube Llc and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

Sky is bound to protect. Please be advised that this is an offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. .. Therefore, you are required to … determining it to be a complaint regarding 'circumvention of technological measures' which is defined as an offence under Section 65 A of the Copyright Act, YouTube's review team appears to have got into a bind about correctly 'categorising'

income Tax Officer Vs. Shahid Atiq L/H of Late Atiquer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)89ITD489(Delhi)

the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 23rd March, 2000, for the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. Since identical grounds have been … in the name of a dead person." 9. The learned Departmental Representative submitted before me that the learned first appellate authority has not properly considered the legal issue. According to her since notice under Section 148 was … assessee and the income of Rs. 65,000 was declared. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of IT Act. Thereafter the assessee late Shri Atiquer Rehman died on 9th Feb., 1997. After his death, a notice under

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Election

electronic records.13. It is now necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines “document” as follows: “Document.-- "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon … No.6/2014 to get the copies of electronic record in respect of aforesaid incidents with certificate as provided in section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The correspondence made with them show that even after leaving of the office by

Ms. Rakshha vs the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

14.05.2024 (ANNEXURE A) AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.109/2024 DATED 14.05.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 66, 66-C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND U/S.420 OF IPC 1860 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 32nd … in Crime No.56 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 65 and 66 of the Act. The petitioner is made accused No.3. The - 26 -registration of crime against

Ashwinbhai Somabhai Patel and anr. Vs. Nrugendraprasadji Ajendraprasad ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 1, 3, 65, 65(1), 65(A), 65(B), 65B(1), 65(2) and 65B(2); Information Technology Act, 2000; Registration Act - Sections 17; Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000; Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officer and manner on holding inquiry) Rules, 2003; Information Technology (Security Procedure) Rules, 2004; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 29, Rule 1 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Civil Practice Rules- Rule 60; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : (2009)3GLR2352

Video CD. There is no evidence to suggest that it is electronic record as per the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 and as per Sections 65A and B or amended Evidence Act.(iii) The documents produced vide Exh. 54/1 does … which is otherwise inadmissible in evidence.(vii) It is further submitted that the condition contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act are not satisfied, and therefore, Video CD. itself is inadmissible in the evidence.(viii) It

Mr. Rahul Pandya vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

OF 2020 REJECTING THE ‘B’ REPORT, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 66, 66(C), 72(A) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND SECTION 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE COMPLAINANT TO LEAD EVIDENCE ON 20-07-2024 AT DOCUMENT

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)53

1. The assessee as well as the Revenue are impugning the orders of learned first appellate authority in this bunch of 14 appeals and two cross-objections in asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The … substitute for development rebate, by only a different name and it is a clear incentive for ushering in technological development. The second proviso to Section 32A(1) clearly prohibits investment allowance in the case of any machinery or … reason" as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the IT Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act and the CPC. … to asst. yr. 1995-96, relates to grant of capital loss of Rs. 65,900 on sale of the land. The assessee had sold the land to