Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="6355014" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday allowed <keyword id="6380276" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Duty">duty</keyword> free import of Amphotericin B, used for treating <keyword id="10432869" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="black-fungus">black fungus</keyword> patients, on furnishing of a bond by the importers, till the final decision by <keyword id="6356303" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Centre">Centre</keyword> on waiving customs duty. A bench comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said, "We direct that if any import is made by any person of this drug (Amphotericin B), it shall be allowed on a bond furnished by the importer without the actual duty being paid, till a decision is taken by the Centre." The bench observed that the medicine is essential to save lives of several thousands of people suffering from mucormycosis. In the backdrop of shortage of the medicine in the country, the <keyword id="6355392" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="High-Court">High Court</keyword> emphasised that the Centre should seriously consider waiving customs duty for a limited period or till issues with shortage of medicine exists. On the aspect of the bond for importing the medicine, the High Court said any person can import Amphotericin B and if any import is made by any person, it should be cleared by accepting the bond from the importer without actual payment of duty till the Centre takes a final decision in the matter. SEE ALSO <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-moves-the-delhi-high-court-against-indias-new-it-laws-says-report/articleshow/82965251.cms">WhatsApp moves the Delhi High Court against India’s new IT laws, says report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/cyclone-yaas-will-unleash-its-fury-for-another-12-to-18-hours-after-making-landfall/articleshow/82964922.cms">Cyclone Yaas will unleash its fury for another 12 to 18 hours after making landfall</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/oneplus-is-giving-away-9000-worth-google-stadia-bundle-for-free-but-its-not-available-in-india/articleshow/82965884.cms">OnePlus is giving away ₹9,000 worth Google Stadia bundle for free – but it’s not available in India</a>

Delhi High Court allows duty-free import of black fungus drug Amphotericin B

The <keyword id="6360667" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="madras-high-court" source="Orion">Madras High Court</keyword> on Thursday stayed two sub-sections under <keyword id="10826959" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="IT-rules-2021" source="Orion">IT Rules 2021</keyword>'s Rule 9, which provide for a three-tier structure for addressing the grievances made in relation to publishers, under the Code of Ethics annexed to the rules. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavulu passed the order on two petitions that were filed challenging the validity of the <keyword id="645424" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="it-rules" source="Orion">IT Rules</keyword>. Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna had filed a public interest litigation, while the Digital News Publishers Association, and journalist Mukund Padmanabhan had also filed a writ petition in the matter. "There is a substantial basis to the petitioners' assertion that there may be a violation of Article 19 (1)(a) (of the Constitution) in how the Rules may be coercively applied to intermediaries....," the court observed. Earlier, the same sub-section of Rule 9 had been stayed by the Bombay High Court on August 14. With the Supreme Court scheduled to take up transfer petitions next month, the Madras High Court posted further hearing of the case to October 27. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/the-only-way-to-beat-the-bots-from-taking-your-job-is-to-be-more-human/articleshow/86282273.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">Future of Work 2021: The only way to beat the bots from taking your job is to be more human</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/biocon-hero-motocorp-tvs-motor-banks-and-other-top-stocks-to-watch-out-for-on-september-17/articleshow/86281250.cms">Biocon, Hero MotoCorp, TVS Motor, banks and other top stocks to watch out for on September 17</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/biocon-biologics-to-offer-15-stake-to-serum-institute-life-sciences-at-valuation-of-4-9-billion/articleshow/86281318.cms">Biocon Biologics to offer 15% stake to Serum Institute Life Sciences at valuation of $4.9 billion</a>

Madras High Court stays 2 sub-sections of the new IT Rules

<ul><li><keyword id="6360667" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="madras-high-court" source="Orion">Madras High Court</keyword> reiterated that <keyword id="790242" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="whatsapp" source="Orion">WhatsApp</keyword> <keyword id="4484267" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="group-admin" source="Orion">group admin</keyword> are not liable for member’s posts.</li><li>Justice GR Swaminathan referred to a similar judgement given by the <keyword id="48485" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bombay-high-court" source="Orion">Bombay High Court</keyword> before giving his orders.</li><li>The Court asked the respondent to bear in mind the ruling of the Bombay High Court.</li></ul>The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court reiterated the Bombay High Court’s finding of a previous case that a <keyword id="6407380" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="whatsapp-group" source="Orion">WhatsApp group</keyword> administrator cannot be held liable for objectionable content posted by members of the groups. Justice GR Swaminathan referred to the <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/whatsapp-group-administrator-no-vicarious-liability-content-group-member-bombay-high-court">Kishore v. State Maharashtra</a> of the Bombay High Court which ruled that a WhatsApp group admin must be deleted from the list of accused if he did not play any part in the crime committed by group members other than being an admin. However, the Court also held that if another material is gathered that shows the admin being involved in the crime, he may be tried according to the law. The order was given on a plea that seeks to cancel a First Information Report (FIR) against the group admin in which offensive messages were circulated by a member that could cause animosity between communities. The petition claimed that the petitioner was only the administrator of the WhatsApp group and he could not be held responsible for the messages sent by the group members. As per the complainant, the petitioner lacked honesty, claiming that there was a conspiracy between the group admin and the member since the member was first removed from the group and then re-added. The Court disposed of the complaint and asked the respondent to bear in mind the ruling of the Bombay High Court in Kishore vs. State Maharashtra, where a similar case on the liability of a WhatsApp group admin was discussed. In that ruling, the Bombay High Court had held, “a group administrator cannot be held vicariously liable for an act of a member of the group, who posts objectionable content unless it is shown that there was a common intention or pre-arranged plan acting in concert pursuant to such plan by such member of a Whatsapp group and the administrator.” The Bombay High Court also stated that the group admin had limited powers of adding and deleting members and cannot be expected to have advanced knowledge of what the members of the group may post. In light of the above order, the Madras High Court judge declared that if the petitioner's only role in the case was that of a group admin, then the name must be deleted from the chargesheet. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/gadgets/news/these-popular-pc-games-are-expected-to-arrive-on-mobile-in-2022/articleshow/88520508.cms">From Valorant to Apex Legends — These popular PC games are expected to arrive on mobile in 2022</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapps-businesses-nearby-feature-will-allow-users-to-search-for-local-stores-groceries-restaurant-and-more-on-the-app/articleshow/88515961.cms">WhatsApp’s Businesses Nearby feature will allow users to search for local stores, groceries, restaurant and more on the app</a>

Madras High Court reaffirms that WhatsApp group admin isn’t liable for a member’s posts

New <keyword id="66" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi">Delhi</keyword>, Sep 22 () The Delhi government on Tuesday said it will challenge the high court's order staying reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds for COVID-19 patients in 33 private hospitals. A Delhi government functionary said it is extremely important to reserve ICU beds in private hospitals to deal with the rising coronavirus cases in the national capital. He said the AAP dispensation will challenge the high court order on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, <keyword id="1204125" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="The-Delhi-High-Court">the Delhi High Court</keyword> stayed the AAP government's decision to reserve 80 per cent ICU beds for coronavirus patients in 33 private hospitals. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla said prima facie the Delhi government's September 13 order is "arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights of citizens" guaranteed under the Constitution. The court issued notices and sought responses of the Delhi government and the Centre on a plea by 'Association of Healthcare Providers' to quash the order to reserve 80 per cent ICU beds for COVID-19 patients. The Delhi government, however, defended its decision in the court, saying it is only for 33 hospitals and 20 per cent ICU beds remain for the non-COVID-19 serious patients and it has been done keeping in view the sudden spike in cases of the virus. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/companies-amendment-bill-cleared-by-parliament-improves-ease-of-doing-business-allows-direct-overseas-listing-and-more/articleshow/78253822.cms">Companies (Amendment) Bill cleared by Parliament – improves ease of doing business, allows direct overseas listing and more</a>

Delhi Govt to contest HC stay on its plan to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID patients in private hospitals

<keyword id="2451412" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Narang-International-Hotels">Narang International Hotels</keyword>, a Mumbai-based chain of hotels, has moved the <keyword id="6360667" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Madras-High-Court">Madras High Court</keyword>, seeking to wind up budget carrier <keyword id="6358032" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="SpiceJet">SpiceJet</keyword> for not paying the accumulated in-flight service charges, which are about Rs 8 crore. 
 
The court has issued notices to the SpiceJet management asking it to file its reply in four weeks. 
 
Narang has been handling catering services for SpiceJet flights on Delhi and Mumbai sectors since May 12, 2005, said the petition. It added that the airline’s management was contractually mandated to settle payment every 15 days.

Caterer Moves High Court Against SpiceJet

Upholding the Central Information Commission’s (<keyword id="6378909" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="CIC">CIC</keyword>) order, the <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> has dismissed a writ petition by <keyword id="6362997" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="DLF">DLF</keyword>’s subsidiary Edward Keventors Successors. The company had challenged CIC in which the commission had directed the company to disclose the details of a land in South block in Delhi that allegedly raises security threats to the Rashtrapati Bhawan. 
	 
	“In view of the aforesaid, the contention that the petitioner had not been granted an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained. An opportunity of making oral submissions was granted to the petitioner in view of the unequivocal language of the notice issued on February 28, 2013, however the petitioner rested content by sending a response dated March 10, 2013. Thus, the provision of Section 19(4) of the RTI Act was duly complied with,” the court said in its order. 
	 
	The court further added, “I am also unable to accept the contention that the petitioner was prejudiced in any manner on account of non disclosure of the application preferred by respondent no.3. The petitioner was informed of that respondent number three had sought information relating to the property ‐Block‐ 48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi...Thus, the petitioner was aware of the information that was sought. It is clarified that no information relating to the petitioner other than that relating to the property in question is to be disclosed.” 
	 
	The court observed that since the commission had followed the law, hence, it was not necessary to review the ‘merits of the decision’ taken by CIC. The commission had given its final order on December 3, 2013 following a RTI application filed by activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal which had sought information on the said land. 
	 
	It should be noted that objections were raised against DLF’s subsidiary’s plans of constructing high-rise luxury apartments on that land as any private building close to the President’s house posed serious threats to the country’s sovereignty. 
	 
	“It is noteworthy that Subramanian Swamy in his letters addressed to President of India alleged involvement of UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra in the dubious land-deal highlighted in the RTI queries, said to have been the biggest ever land-scam in the country,” said Agarwal. 
	 
	“With petition of DLF subsidiary (Edward Keventors Successors) now dismissed, Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and any other concerned government-agency should review decision of allowing land-use change in earlier UPA-regime in the controversial matter where even intelligence-authorities and President Secretariat are learnt to have raised objections from security-aspect with land-project being in close vicinity of Rashtrapati Bhawan,” he added. 
	 
	Representational Image

You Searched For "High Court" and got 6 results

Delhi High Court allows duty-free import of black fungus drug Amphotericin B

IANS

Madras High Court stays 2 sub-sections of the new IT Rules

IANS

Madras High Court reaffirms that WhatsApp group admin isn’t liable for a member’s posts

Shadab Rabbani

Delhi Govt to contest HC stay on its plan to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID patients in private hospitals

PTI

Caterer Moves High Court Against SpiceJet

BI India Bureau

Delhi High Court Upholds CIC’s Order, Rejects Petition Filed by DLF’s Subsidiary

Purba Das

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides