Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (1.09 seconds)Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Kapil Wadhwa & Ors. vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 3 October, 2012
The decision in Kapil Wadhwa
102.1 The facts in Kapil Wadhwa (supra) are that Samsung Electronics
Company Limited (‗SECL') and Samsung India Electronics Private Limited
(‗SIEPL') were companies incorporated in Korea and India respectively.
SIEPL was the subsidiary of SECL. They were part of the Samsung group of
companies, which had 14 listed companies and 285 worldwide operations.
They were in the business of manufacturing and trading electronic goods,
including colour televisions, home appliances, washing machines, air
conditioners, computers, printers and cartridges, etc. The business was done
under the brand/corporate name, using the trademark ‗Samsung'.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 77 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. on 23 December, 2016
124. During the course of arguments before this Court, the
Respondents/Plaintiffs were not at all clear as to whether, according to them,
Amazon was in fact an intermediary or not. In any event, the alternative
arguments, claiming that Amazon is not an intermediary, appear to be riddled
with inconsistencies. If, in fact, Amazon is not an intermediary, the question
of Amazon having to comply with Section 79 (2) of the IT Act would not
arise at all. Clearly, the Respondents seem to be unsure as to what their stand
ought to be. As a result, the burden of proof has shifted unfairly onto the
Defendants to show that they have complied with the requirements of Section
79 of the IT Act, when in fact the Plaintiffs have to first show that there had
been a violation of any of their rights due to the Defendants' activities before
the ―affirmative defence‖ of Section 79 could be sought to be invoked.
Therefore, Section 79 of the IT Act has been, contrary to the judgment in
Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (supra), sought to be
enforced by the Plaintiffs positively, rather than be deployed as ―affirmative
defence.‖
Christian Louboutin Sas vs Nakul Bajaj & Ors on 2 November, 2018
In this context, it should be noted that the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul
Bajaj (supra) was disapproved of by a Division Bench of this Court in its
judgment dated 4th April, 2019 in RFA (OS) (COMM) 1/2019 (M/s. Clues
Network Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. L'Oréal), wherein the Court set aside an order of
the learned Single Judge, which relied, inter alia, on Christian Louboutin
SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (supra).
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 14 April, 1967
In G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753 the Supreme
Court held that the rules in the Mysore Public Works Department Code did
not partake the character of ‗law' and that Article 162 could not be invoked to
recognize the power of the State Government to frame rules. The provision
only indicated ―the scope of executive power of the State‖. It was further
explained as under: