Advanced Search Results

Just Rights For Children Alliance Vs. S. Harish

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

children over the internet.145. The aforesaid was due to the fact that, the IT Act prior to the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for short, the ‘2008 Amendment Act’), criminalized only one act being the publication or transmission of obscene material, … punished with imprisonment of either Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024 Page 31 of 199 description which may extend to three years, or with fine, … Scheme of the POCSO. ................................................ 25 b. Relevant Provisions of the IT Act. ..................................................................... 38 ii. Scope of Section 15 of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act. ............ 40 a. Contradictory Views of different

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Electronics (DoE) with the support of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The program was focused on integrating information technology and internet tools with learning environment, to enhance the quality of education. However, funding by the UNDP ended … clause (i), if the other conditions laid down therein were satisfied.” 5 Section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, reads as follows: “(3) Any income, profits or gains falling within the following classes shall not be … exemptions: Section 10 (20A) and Section 10 (23) ................................................... 20 G. Amendments to Section 2 (15) by Finance Act, 2008 (w.e.f. 01.04.2009) ................................................ 21 II. Submissions of parties ................................................................................................................................. 22 A. Arguments on behalf of the revenue.......................................................................................................... 22 … SCCOnline Bom 10021 (para 10-12) 34 (1965) 1 SCR909(hereafter “Navnit Lal Jhaveri”) 31 executive’s understanding - in the form of circulars in the context of

X Corp vs Union of India

Court : Karnataka

service providers had exemption, a safe harbour from liability for third party content. In 2009, the Parliament enacts Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (‘IT Amendment Act, 2008’ for short), which added Section 69A to the original enactment of 2000, and substituted … quashment of following notifications: i. Respondent No. 2 - Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2023 bearing No. 1(4)/2020-CLES-1. (Annexure- C) ii. Respondent No. 3 - Ministry of Home Affairs’ notification dated 13.03.2024 bearing

M Moser Design Associates India Pvt Ltd vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

legal canvass. The canvass spreads to vast and varied enactments - Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (‘Act’ for short); Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 … allegation. On 09-11-2024, the crime in Crime No.876 of 2024 comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). … are listed at page 133, which read as follows: “1. Tik Tok 31. Mi Video Call - Xiaomi2. Shareit 32. WeSync3. Kwai 33. ES File

Smriti Achuthan vs the State Represented by

Court : Chennai

to have committed offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. .. A-5 Smriti Achuthan, joined Pace Automation, an executive assistant to the Chairman and CEO, on 01.06.2009. She … IPC, a case has been registered in Crime No.172 of 2011 dated 30.03.2011, pursuant to a complaint dated 31.01.2011 lodged by the defacto complainant. Since the petitioner claimed herself as innocent and not committed any offence as

Azeez M vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2024.2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; betweenthe period from 08.01.2024 … 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRIME NO.144/2024 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod ----------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- AZEEZ M, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. KUNHIMON, MOYIKKAL HOUSE, FAROOQPALLIOTTUMBURAM, PERIYAPURAM VILLAGE, THANOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 302 BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Luhar Shaileshbhai Vaghaji vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

complainant.3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is also produced.5. I … THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 3 MIDHUN V T AGED 31 YEARS S/O. MANI K K, VERKOTTUTHAZHAM, VELLIPARAMBA, KUTTIKKATTOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, P.P., R3 BY SRI.HALVI

R.Avudayappan @ Manoj Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police ...

Court : Chennai

remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS and 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, in Crime No.58 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. The case of the … petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS and 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, in Crime No.58 of 2025 on the

Sanjai Lal vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

The offences alleged against him are under Sections 420 and 376 of IPC and Section 67(a) of the Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008.4. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court as perAnnexure I order with 8 conditions. … 2022 AGAINST ORDER DATED 12.1.22 IN CMP 42/22 IN CP 71/22 OF JFCM-I, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: SANJAI LAL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SHAJI LAL, POURNAMI, AYLARA, YEROOR VILLAGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM- BY DR. K.P. SATHEESAN, SR. ADVS.P. MOHANDAS, K.SUDHINKUMAR,

R. Vijayakumari Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,

Court : Chennai

No.40 of 2025, for the offences U/s.319(2), 336(2)&(3) and 318(4) BNS 2023 and Section 66C, 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody along with the other accused.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit … the impersonator. Believing the same, the victim transferred a sum of Rs.1,28,91,540/- through various transactions from 19.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 into various suspect accounts, one of which is the petitioner’s account. The de facto complainant had lodged an