Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)

Hiralal D. Karnavt @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2019

5. In the present case, there is admittedly, no allegation, either in the FIR, the chargesheet, or the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, that the Petitioner wrote or marked upon the electricity pole with any material such as ink, chalk, paint or any other material. The gravamen of the accusation is limited to the affixation of a banner/poster, which, as per the law laid down in T.S. Marwah (Supra), and followed in HDFC Bank (supra), does not contravene Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 189 - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd vs J.J.Mannan @ J.M.John Paul & Anr on 16 December, 2009

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 21:45:11 HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State & Anr4, where proceedings under the DPDP Act were quashed on the ground that no allegation of writing or marking upon the property itself had been made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 164 - A Kabir - Full Document
1