Rekha.....
18 February 2010 at 16:09
Respected Sirs /Ma’am
Please provide me the latest judgment of Supreme Court of India on Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution as I need tomorrow early morning plz. I will be very grateful to u.
Anonymous
17 February 2010 at 23:30
Sam co. and ABC co. together have
about 45% of the existing market share in operating systems in the Europe. Sam
co. developed X-Operations bundled with software applications in
Games and the ABC co. developed Y-Operations bundled with software
applications in Entertainment for use in the Personal Computers. In order to enhance
their market share, these companies entered into an agreement on 1.11.2008 to
exclusively share the ‘interoperable’ properties, so that the user of X-Operations
can transfer data to Y-Operations and vice versa.
The Antitrust Division of the Europe Department of Justice initiated civil proceedings on
10.12.2008 against the Sam co. and abc co.. for indulging in
anticompetition and monopolistic activities by bundling software applications in the
operating systems and then entering into an agreement for exclusive sharing of
interoperable properties.
The Sam co. and ABC co. decided to sell their products in India
through their partly owned subsidiaries TC ltd and DC ltd
respectively (as in both the subsidiaries 20 percent of the equity shares were held
by Indians). Advertisements appeared in the print and electronic media highlighting
the features of X-Operations and Y-Operations and their exclusive
“interoperable” compatibility.
Simultaneously, the Government of India received a report from its Embassy in Europe informing about the harmful effects of X-Operations and Y-Operations
on the Indian market. The existing market players in India also petitioned
the Government of India and submitted that these operating systems will have a
prejudicial effect on their market share. In view of this, the Government of India acted
quickly and promulgated an ordinance on 1.1.2009 which was replaced by
an Act of the Parliament viz. Prohibition of the Entry and Sales of X-Operations
and Y-Operations Act, 2009 banning the entry and sales including
licensing for a period of 2 years.
I just want to know….
1.Whether, the Parliament has competency to pass the Act of 2009?
2. whether, the above Act violates article 14,19 and 21 of constitution?
Anonymous
17 February 2010 at 15:00
Respected Experts,
As there is a case as against the orders of Bar Counsel of India in respect of Age Limit for 3 years & 5 Years for LLB, pending before the Supreme Court.
I want to know whether the said cases are disposed off are still pending.
Maharamchandra
17 February 2010 at 11:08
Respected Sir,
An applicant has requested to CPIO & Income Tax Officer regarding information of movable & immovable property of the ITO under the RTI.
At this juncture, I would like to ask that can CPIO reject application taking benefit of exemption provided U/s.8(1)(j) of the RTI?
If yes, then please kindly provide judgement of Central Information Commission on this issue which in favour of the applicant.
Anticipating your kind advise in this regard
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
17 February 2010 at 10:26
wht is the difrence penal lawyer and legal advisor.
Anonymous
13 February 2010 at 19:48
i am an engineering student i want to know if i dont want to vote any candidate in my ward then what sould i do????
Dushyant Pandya
13 February 2010 at 08:28
In India any one gets graduation degree in any stream with less then 45% marks will not eligible for admission in LLB as directed by Bar Council of India.
Is it right?
Anonymous
11 February 2010 at 20:27
Whether raising slogans outside the court room, can be termed as contempt of court, in the following factual backgrounds:-
1. while making a reference to the High Court, subordinate court did not disclose the actual slogans and withheld the same for the sake of decency?
2. the court proceedings were never hampered on those days, which is essence for invoking the contempt jurisdiction, as the contemnors have all the documentary evidence in this regard, in the form of orders of the subordinate courts, against which alleged slogans were raised?
3. while keeping in view the concept of truth as a valid defense in the contempt proceedings what the contemnors did was perfectly within the meaning of article 14 of the constitution as they claimed equal treatment of law for themselves as well as the judges of the subordinate courts when they are acting in an illegal way and that too not under the colour of their offices?
4. whether raising slogans against a judge without hampering the court proceedings do not come within the purview of article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution, i.e freedom of speech and expression?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
fighting against a ban on website ??
If a website is banned U/s 69 A or 67 of the information Technology Act.
What remedies can the website has to lift the ban ?
1. To approach the Cyber Appellate tribunal OR
2. High Court ?
This is a new an interesting field !