Advanced Search Results

Yogesh Agarwal Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Right to Information

of Cyber Crime Police Station (CID) for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 426, 120B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 62 and 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000.7. It is the submission of Sri

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)

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

Phani Leyba Nangli vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

07.10.2025 OF THE RESPONDENT/HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION, ALLEGING THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66(C), 66(D) AND 84(b) OF IT ACT 2000 SECTIONS 318 (4), 319, 61(2) AND 111(2), 111(4) AND 4 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023.-3- IN CRL.P … Crime No.70/2017 of Shillong, Laitumkhrah Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of Information and Technology Act. Accused No.4 was earlier working in Megalaya

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Mc Dowell and Company Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 35D, 37(1), 37(3), 43A, 154, 234(2), 254(2) and 260A; Income Tax Rules - Rule 6D

Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Kar)544; [2009]310ITR215(KAR); [2009]310ITR215(Karn); [2009]177TAXMAN317(Kar); ILR2008(3)Kar3218; 2008(3)KCCRSN216; 2008(4)AIRKarR185(DB)

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the IT Act' for short), the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2002 passed under Section 234(2) of

M.S. Associates, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Indian Partnership Act, 1931; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 120, 132, 132(1), 147, 158BB, 158BC, 158BD and 246A; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74 and 75; Constitution of India (15th Amendment) Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 2(17); Parliament Act; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 22(4), 24, 34(1), 37(1), 131(1) and 142(1); Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 2(1); Constitution of India (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 - Sections 26; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 154; Legislative Assembly Rules - Rule 235; Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1), 31, 32, 74(2), 105, 148, 149, 150, 151(2), 194, 194(3), 226 and 226(2)

of electronic record as defined in Clause (t) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or … is quite immaterial. In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT : [1959]35ITR1(SC) , the Supreme Court, while construing Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has held that the word 'information' appearing therein should be treated to

M.S. Associates, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Indian Partnership Act, 1931; ;Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 120, 132, 132(1), 147, 158BB, 158BC, 158BD and 246A; ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74 and 75; ;Constitution of India (15th Amendment) Act, 1963; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 2(17); ;Parliament Act; ;Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 22(4), 24, 34(1), 37(1), 131(1) and 142(1); ;Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 2(1); ;Constitution of India (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 - Section 26; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 154; ;Legislative Assembly Rules - Rule 235; ;Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) Act; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1), 31, 32, 74(2), 105, 148, 149, 150, 151(2), 194, 194(3), 226 and 226(2)

Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Gau)318,[2005]275ITR502(Gauhati)

of electronic record as defined in Clause (t) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or … is quite immaterial. In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT : [1959]35ITR1(SC) , the Supreme Court, while construing Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has held that the word 'information' appearing therein should be treated to

Dilip Jose vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘ the IT Act’) on the file of the XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru City and for other reliefs.2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for … State Electricity Board was made an accused for the offence under Sections 192 and 199 respectively read with Section 34 of the IPC, this Court observed thus: “30. It is trite law that wherever by a legal fiction

Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya, Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharati S ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

163A and 153B 384 389, 420, 504, 506, 511 and 34 of IPC along with Section 66A on IT Act, 2000. The Police in fact have arrested the victim and her husband. In this background, in order to wreck

Christian Louboutin Sas vs.nakul Bajaj & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Defendants’ use of the Plaintiff’s mark, logos and the Information image is protected under Section 79 of Technology Act, 2000?. b) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, and if so, in what terms?. E-commerce platforms and their … (COMM) 344/2018 Page 6 of 59 2009 (hereinafter, ‘IT Act’). The issue of liability under Section 79 of the IT Act is to be decided on the basis of pleadings and documents on record, none of which are disputed … :20. h July, 2018 Date of decision :2nd November, 2018 CS (COMM) 344/2018, I.As. 19124/2014, 20912/2014, 23749/2014 & 9106/2015 CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS ..... Plaintiff Through:

M/S Patanjali Foods Limited vs Union of India

Court : Karnataka

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.- Where any law provides that any rule, … of the Constitution-Tenth Edition, Introduction ex). The apex court made a reference to United States v. Wunderlick (1951) 342 US 98, wherein it was held that, "when it has freed man from he unlimited discretion of some