Entertaining - Judgment Search Results

Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Zee Entertainment ...

Court: Mumbai

final disposal of the Notice of Motion. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a production house engaged in production of entertainment content for television including TV serials. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are, respectively, the Chairman and Managing Director, and

Y.T. Entertainment Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR148

Agreement dated 26.12.2007 is between the petitioner originally M/s. R F C Limited now changed to Y. T. Entertainment Ltd. And respondents 2 and 3 for the film titled 'Khalbali Fun Unlimited' with rights of film and

M/S Glambirds Entertainment vs.m/s Glam X Entertainment & Anr

Court: Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 01.2018 FAO132018 M/S GLAMBIRDS ENTERTAINMENT Through: Mr. Ketan Malhotra, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus M/S GLAM X ENTERTAINMENT & ANR Through: ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM:

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008(4)ALD47(SC); 2008(5)BomCR719; JT2008(7)SC11; LC2008(2)129; 2008(37)PTC353(SC); 2008(9)SCALE69; 2008AIRSCW6698; 2008(4)Supreme98; 2008(11)SCALE170; 2008(4)LH(SC)2638; 2008AIRSCW6698; 2008(4)LH(SC)2638

and CDs commonly known as T- series. It has copyrights in cinematographic films and sound recordings. Appellant M/s. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (ENIL) broadcasts under the brand name 'Radio Mirchi'. It is a leading FM radio broadcaster.

Popcorn Entertainment and anr. Vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2007(1)CTLJ137(SC); JT2007(4)SC70; (2007)4MLJ890(SC); 2007(3)SCALE465; (2007)9SCC593; 2007AIRSCW2010

On 8.6.2004, the appellants made a request for allotment of the plot in Airoli for setting up multiplex-cum-auditorium-cum- entertainment center. CIDCO, in response to the said application, requested the appellant to submit a detailed project defining all

Entertainment Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad Vs. Hi Tech thea ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2007(11)SCALE653; 2007AIRSCW6519

S.B. Sinha, J.Delay condoned.Leave granted.1. Interpretation of Sub-section(6) of Section (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 in the facts and circumstances as obtaining herein falls for our consideration in this appeal

Entertainment Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad Vs. Geeta Enterp ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008(11)SCALE170; (2008)8SCC134; (2009)11VatReporter33; (2008)16VST461(SC); 2008AIRSCW6384

dispute relates to demands raised by the prescribed authority in terms of Section 5(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 as the provision was in existence at the material time (Section 5 now stands deleted

Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC735; 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)970; 2008(4)AWC4035(SC); 2008(13)SCALE493:2008AIRSCW79512008(6)LHSC4402

of the Court's order dated 31.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court.3. Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) is a producer of some programmes which are telecast.4. One of such programmes known

Modi Entertainment Network and anr. Vs. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC1177; 2003(1)ARBLR533(SC); 2003(1)CTC429; JT2003(1)SC382; (2003)2MLJ98(SC); 2003(1)SCALE388; (2003)4SCC341; [2003]1SCR480

construed according to the English law and that the courts of law in England should have jurisdiction to entertain any action in respect thereof. The DHC suspended further work on the re-engining programme claiming that the BAe

Entertainment Tax Officer and anr. Vs. Ambae Picture Palace

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT1993(6)SC221; 1993(4)SCALE295; (1994)1SCC209; [1993]Supp3SCR453; [1995]96STC338(SC)

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Entertainment Tax Officer-I, Khammam and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the High Court