Advanced Search Results

M/S Patanjali Foods Limited vs Union of India

Court : Karnataka

In M.D.Overseas Ltd.’s case referred to supra,the High Court of Delhi has held as under“30. Section 8 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the IT Act") reads thus :"8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette.- … 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE AND HOLD THAT SECTION 25(4) OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 IS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL, ULTRAVIRUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME

Mohanan.K., vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

in 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

in 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),

Dhanya Martin, vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

in 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

in 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

in 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

made, 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

Smt Supraja Chandra vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

of India. Hence, there cannot be any prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Since the aforesaid applications are pending consideration by the learned Magistrate, this petition is disposed of directing that … this Hon’ble court may, in exercise of its statutory power under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Section 401 thereof graciously be pleased to: a) Call for the record in Criminal Case No.7102

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

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

[Explanation - 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