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="6356654" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="bombay">Bombay</keyword> High Court onWednesday asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) if it can defer the implementation of its 2020 tarifforder as the court is hearing pleas filed by producers,broadcasters and cable operators against the new regulations.A division bench of Justices Amjad Sayyed and <keyword id="8837243" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="anujaprabhudessai">AnujaPrabhudessai</keyword> noted that the 2020 regulations and tariff orderis to come into force on March 1. "Even for interim relief, detailed arguments wouldhave to be canvased. Considering the complex issues involved,it may not be possible to hear all the parties and pass orderswithin two days," the court said. "We deem it appropriate to request the AdditionalSolicitor General and the senior counsel for TRAI to takeinstructions whether the impugned 2020 Regulations and 2020Tariff Order can be deferred," the bench said. The court noted that the operation of the earlierRegulations of 2017 had been deferred for one month by theTRAI. The HC posted the matter for further hearing onFebruary 27. Several broadcasters including the Indian BroadcastingFoundation, a representative body of TV channels, The Film andTelevision Producers <keyword id="225647" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Guild-of-India">Guild of India</keyword>, <keyword id="51166" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Zee-Entertainment">Zee Entertainment</keyword> Ltd <keyword id="8837242" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="andsony-pictures">andSony Pictures</keyword> Network India have moved the HC. In January, another bench had refused to defer thedeadline of January 15 given to broadcasters to submit theirrevised tariff plans to TRAI. The broadcasters in their petitions said the amendedregulations were "arbitrary, unreasonable and violative oftheir fundamental rights". The TRAI, on January 1, 2020, issued new tariff rules. Earlier, all free-to-air channels were available forRs 130, and consumers needed to pay more to watch additionalchannels. Under new tariffs, consumers will pay Rs 130 asNetwork Capacity Fee charges, but will be entitled to 200channels.

Bombay High Court wants to delay new cheaper TV tariffs

The <keyword id="48485" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="40" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> has ordered the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=BCCI&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">BCCI</a> to shift matches of the ongoing <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Indian+Premier+League&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">Indian Premier League</a> (IPL) out of Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur in drought-hit Maharashtra after April 30. 
 However, it has acknowledged the contributions of Rs 5 Crores each from the <keyword id="13880" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Mumbai-Indians">Mumbai Indians</keyword> and Rising Pune Supergiants franchises and 64 lakh litres of water from the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=BCCI&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">BCCI</a> to the city of Latur in the Marathwada region of the state. This means that 13 matches, including the final on May 29, cannot be held in Maharashtra. 
 
While Maharashtra continues to suffer from severe drought, the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=BCCI&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">BCCI</a> told the Bombay High Court that shifting matches out of the state was not feasible. This was mainly due to concerns over financial <keyword id="6362476" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="investments">investments</keyword> and the brand values of the defending IPL champions MI and new entrant RPS. 
 
However, the High Court has ruled that the matches cannot go ahead beyond the end of April. The <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=BCCI&amp;sortorder=effectivedate">BCCI</a> will now have to decide on alternate venues for the concerned matches from May 1. 
 
Image credit: Indiatimes

Bombay High Court says no IPL matches
in drought-hit Maharashtra after April 30

<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

<ul><li>A division bench of Justice Tanaji V Nalawade and Justice Mukund G Sewlikar passed the judgment on January 5 on a criminal writ plea filed by Rajendra Ganpatrao Ambhore, a 45-year-old teacher.</li><li>As per the ruling, the telecast of advertisements by TV channels claiming to sell articles with <keyword id="9673868" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="magical-properties">magical properties</keyword> is illegal. </li></ul>The <keyword id="48485" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> on Tuesday (05th January) passed a verdict stating that the telecast of advertisements by TV channels claiming to have special, miraculous or supernatural properties is illegal. The television channel airing such ads will be liable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and <keyword id="1990976" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="black-magic-act">Black Magic Act</keyword>, 2013. The Bombay High Court has directed the state government and Centre to create a special cell in Mumbai that can make sure no such advertisements are telecast on TV channels by separate advertisement. The Aurangabad bench of the court, comprising Justice Tanaji Nalawade and Justice Mukund Sewlikar said that the state government is required to ensure the telecast of such advertisements on TV channels is stopped immediately in coordination with authority under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

TV ads promoting magical properties and superstitions illegal under Black Magic Act: Bombay High Court

An administrator of a WhatsApp group cannot be held criminally liable for an <keyword id="1112268" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="objectionable-post">objectionable post</keyword> by another member of the group, the Nagpur bench of the <keyword id="48485" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> has held and quashed a case of sexual harassment lodged against a 33-year-old man. The order was passed last month and a copy of it was made available on April 22. A division bench headed by Justice Z A Haq and A B Borkar noted that an administrator of a WhatsApp group has only limited powers of adding or deleting members to the group and does not have the power to regulate or censor the content posted in the group. The court passed its order on an application filed by Kishor Tarone (33), the administrator of a WhatsApp group. He was seeking to quash the case registered against him in Gondia district in 2016 under Sections 354-A(1)(iv) (making sexually coloured remarks), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) and 107 (abetment) of the <keyword id="6360844" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ipc">IPC</keyword> and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the <keyword id="6433641" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="information-technology-act">Information Technology Act</keyword>. As per the prosecution, Tarone failed to take action against a member of his WhatsApp group who used filthy and indecent language against a woman member in the group. It was alleged that the applicant, being the group administrator, did not remove or delete the member from the group and also did not asked him to apologise. The bench in its order said the crux of the matter is whether an administrator of a WhatsApp group can be held criminally liable for objectionable posts made by a member of the group. Noting the functioning of the messaging service app, the court said, "Group administrators, as they are generally called, are the ones who create the group by adding or deleting members. Every chat group has one or more administrators." A group administrator has only limited power of removing a member from the group or adding other members to the group, it said. "Once the group is created, the functioning of the administrator and that of the members is at par with each other, except the power of adding or deleting members to the group," the court said. "The administrator of a WhatsApp group does not have the power to regulate, moderate or censor the content before it is posted on the group," the HC said. But, if a member of the group posts any content, which is actionable under law, such a person can be held liable, the court said. "In the absence of a special penal provision creating vicarious liability, an administrator of a WhatsApp group cannot be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member of a group unless it is shown that there was common intention or pre-arranged plan," the court said in its order. The HC quashed and set aside the <keyword id="6358015" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="fir">FIR</keyword> lodged against Tarone and the subsequent charge sheet filed against him. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/favipiravir-shortage-may-get-filled-up-in-a-couple-of-weeks-provided-people-dont-hoard/articleshow/82268973.cms">Favipiravir shortage may get filled up in a couple of weeks provided people don't hoard</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/india-will-receive-the-first-batch-of-russia-covid-19-vaccine-sputnik-by-may-1/articleshow/82269061.cms">India will receive the first batch of Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine by May 1 — in time for the third phase of its vaccination drive</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/who-is-doing-everything-to-help-india-with-its-covid-19-crisis-as-gavi-waits-for-vaccine-exports-to-begin-again/articleshow/82270068.cms">WHO is ‘doing everything’ to help India with its COVID-19 crisis as GAVI waits for vaccine exports to begin again</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/elections/news/election-commission-bans-all-victory-processions-on-or-after-counting-in-tamil-nadu-assam-goa-west-bengal-and-kerala-assembly-elections/articleshow/82269994.cms">Election Commission bans all victory processions on or after counting on May 2</a>

WhatsApp group admin not accountable for objectionable post by other group members, clarifies Bombay High Court

<keyword id="2934282" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Gujarat-Food-and-Drug-Control-Authority">Gujarat Food and Drug Control Authority</keyword> (FDCA) on Monday said it removed the ban on the sale of <keyword id="75190" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Nestle">Nestle</keyword> India’s ‘<keyword id="6369404" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Maggi">Maggi</keyword>’ noodles after the <keyword id="48485" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> lifted the nationwide ban on it in August. 

	“FDCA had lifted the ban on Maggi in Gujarat after the Bombay High Court passed an order to lift the ban across India. We took the decision based on the court order,” Gujarat FDCA Commissioner H G Koshia said. 
 The <keyword id="6370685" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Gujarat-Government">Gujarat government</keyword> had banned the sale of Maggi for a month in June this year after the lead and monosodium glutamate levels in the noodles were found to be above the prescribed limits. Later, the ban was subsequently extended till September. However, the Gujarat FDCA revoked the ban mid-way in August following court order. On August 13, the Bombay High Court had lifted the nationwide ban imposed by Indian food regulators on Maggi noodles, and asked its manufacturer Nestle India Pvt Ltd to go for a fresh test of samples in three independent laboratories across India. 

	But Maggi is still not available in Gujarat markets, as the company is following court order to get its samples tested from three approved laboratories. The state government had in the first week of June banned Maggi sale in the state after the product failed the food safety test. The government had also asked the company to withdraw all its stock of Maggi from the state. 
 

	At that time, the government claimed that all 27 samples collected from different parts of the state had failed the tests, as lead content was found above the prescribed limit in 14 samples while monosodium glutamate, which should not be there at all, was found in all the samples. 
 

	Nestle India had on Friday said that all samples of Maggi have cleared tests conducted by three laboratories, as mandated by Bombay High Court, paving the way for the instant noodles brand to be back in the market after it was banned over the presence of excess lead. The company said it will now commence manufacturing and will sell “only after the newly manufactured products are also cleared by the designated three laboratories”. 
	 
	Image credit: Thomson reuters

Gujarat government lifts ban on sale of Maggi noodles on Bombay HC's order

<ul><li>The <keyword id="48485" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> permits Sebamed ads targeting Dove with no changes and asks to put an end on Lux’s comparison with Rin.</li><li>Sebamed had earlier blamed Hindustan Unilever for taking the matter to court without giving a prior notice. </li><li>The Bombay High Court had passed an injunction order on January 11 after HUL took Sebamed’s campaign that took a dig at the company’s soap range to the court restraining its campaign from all mediums.</li></ul>The ad war between Fast Moving Consumer Goods giants Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) and German personal care brand Sebamed -- that had everyone on the edge of their seats -- has finally come to an end. The Bombay High Court on January 19 passed an injunction order permitting Sebamed to continue its advertisements targeting Hindustan Unilever’s Dove with no changes. The High Court bench concluded that Sebamed ads were backed by evidence-based data. However, the court ordered Sebamed to put an end to its advertisement comparing HUL’s soap bars Lux, Pears and Santoor with Rin and detergent category. “We welcome the decision rendered by the hon'ble Bombay High Court. As stated earlier, at Sebamed, truth and transparency are our key building blocks. We have a legacy of 50+ yrs and our products are known for their highest quality standards across 80+countries globally. Sebamed's entire portfolio of Skin &amp; Hair care products has a pH of 5.5 and our claims are backed by robust scientific research. We remain committed to educating customers on the benefits of pH 5.5 and serving them with highly efficacious products,” Sebamed’s spokesperson told Advertising and Media Insider. Sebamed's legal team further commented, “The judgement is an unequivocal acknowledgement of its endeavours to educate consumers about pH values of soaps and their effects on the skin. The Honourable Judge agreed that a fact-based scientific comparison did not amount to disparagement and parties are free to mention names of competitor brands as long as there is evidence-backed comparison.” In Sebamed’s advertising campaign launched on January 08, it had claimed that its cleansing bar is better than soaps like Dove, Rin, Pears and Lux that its competitor HUL offers. It also compared Lux and Pears with Rin, a detergent bar, implying that HUL’s products are inferior to Sebamed. HUL had retaliated with a print ad claiming that Dove is dermatologists’ number 1 choice. On January 11, the High Court bench had passed an order restraining the USV Private Limited and its affiliates, and their advertising agencies from using telecasting or broadcasting or communicating to the public the TVC, newspaper advertisements, hoardings and such other material in any language or any other content of similar nature. The battle escalated on January 13 as Sebamed blamed HUL for taking the matter to court without giving them a prior notice. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="80211315" title="German personal care brand Sebamed’s dig at HUL’s Dove, Lux and Rin backfires as the company plans to take suitable legal action" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

Bombay High Court permits Sebamed ads targeting Dove with no changes and asks to put an end on Lux’s comparison with Rin

<ul><li>The <keyword id="48485" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> on January 11 passed an injunction order after HUL took <keyword id="6888422" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="sebamed">Sebamed</keyword>’s campaign that took a dig at the company’s soap range to the court restraining its campaign from all mediums.</li><li>However, Sebamed wasn’t given a prior notice by HUL and the arguments will continue today. </li></ul>After the Bombay High Court restrained Sebamed’s commercials from all mediums, the company has now blamed rival <keyword id="6365619" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="hindustan-unilever">Hindustan Unilever</keyword> for taking the matter to court without giving a prior notice to Sebamed. “A suit was filed at Bombay High Court, by Unilever without notice to Sebamed-USV despite the filing of a caveat. The matter was therefore reheard by the Court today after this was pointed out. Arguments are continuing today (13 Jan) and Sebamed- USV continues to diligently pursue its legal rights,” said Sebamed in a media statement. The Bombay High Court on January 11 passed an injunction order after HUL took Sebamed’s campaign that took a dig at the company’s soap range to the court restraining its campaign from all mediums. In Sebamed’s advertising campaign, it had claimed that its cleansing bar is better than soaps like Dove, Rin, Pears and Lux that its competitor Hindustan Unilever offers. It also compared Lux and Pears with Rin, a detergent bar, implying that HUL’s products are inferior to Sebamed.

HUL Vs Sebamed: The battle continues as Sebamed says that it wasn’t given a prior notice by HUL

<ul><li>The recent <keyword id="871507" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ad-war">ad war</keyword> between <keyword id="6888422" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="sebamed">Sebamed</keyword> and HUL that caught everyone’s attention has come to a halt for now. </li><li>The <keyword id="48485" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword> held that the FMCG giant has made a strong prima facie case for grant of ad-interim relief.</li><li>The matter will now come up on January 14, 2021.</li></ul>The Bombay High Court on January 11 passed an injunction order after HUL took Sebamed’s campaign that took a dig at the company’s soap range to the court restraining its campaign from all mediums. In Sebamed’s advertising campaign, it had claimed that its cleansing bar is better than soaps like Dove, Rin, Pears and Lux that its competitor <keyword id="6365619" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="hindustan-unilever">Hindustan Unilever</keyword> offers. It also compared Lux and Pears with Rin, a detergent bar, implying that HUL’s products are inferior to Sebamed. Following this ad campaign, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) said in a media interview that the company will take a ‘suitable action’ against rival Sebamed. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="80211315" title="German personal care brand Sebamed’s dig at HUL’s Dove, Lux and Rin backfires as the company plans to take suitable legal action" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The High Court bench also restrained the USV Private Limited and its affiliates, and their advertising agencies from using telecasting or broadcasting or communicating to the public the TVC, newspaper advertisements, hoardings and such other material in any language or any other content of similar nature. The matter will now come up on January 14, 2021. HUL confirmed the development and welcomed the order. Dev Bajpai, Executive Director, Legal &amp; Corporate Affairs said, “HUL’s brands are time-tested and have always delivered on the promise they have made to their consumers. He added that in the initial days of the Covid pandemic, HUL, as a responsible advertiser, had communicated to the masses that one could wash their hands with any soap as handwashing with soap is the first line of defense against Coronavirus.”

Sebamed’s campaign targeting HUL soaps comes to a halt for now as Bombay High court restrains its commercials from all mediums

Convicted of killing one person and injuring 5 others, a <keyword id="2838854" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="Sessions-Court-in-Bombay">Sessions Court in Bombay</keyword> today sentenced <keyword id="6354583" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Salman-Khan">Salman Khan</keyword> to 5 years in jail, with no more compensation required to be paid to the victims’ families. Given that the jail term exceeds 3 years, there will be no immediate bail provided. Salman’s team of defence counsel will have to appeal to the <keyword id="48485" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Bombay-high-court">Bombay High Court</keyword>. It is unlikely that the Bombay High Court will be able to hear the bail plea today. The Bombay High Court is also expected to go on vacation in a few days, while the <keyword id="166190" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="vacation-judge">vacation judge</keyword> has limited powers. At best, it could be a few days to weeks for Salman behind bars before he manages to get out on bail. 
Salman Khan, now, is likely to be taken for finger printing, followed by a medical check-up, post which he will be sent behind bars. But this is not Salman’s last legal resort. Post securing the bail, he has the option of appealing against the <keyword id="6366930" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Session-Court">Session Court</keyword>’s judgement at the Bombay High Court. Even after that, the last resort would be an appeal at the country’s apex court, the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>. 
Salman has been found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Salman’s counsel is expected to move the Bombay High Court now, having already come prepared for the worst. This despite his counsel trying its best to ensure that Salman didn’t get sentenced to more than 2 years in jail. Earlier in the day, Salman’s defence pleaded for a lenient jail term of 2 years with a hefty fine/compensation for the affected peoples’ families. The pleas that the superstar’s counsel made were primarily on two grounds. First, that this incident was mainly an aberration to the ‘human’ personality that Salman Khan is. The counsel pleaded to the Judge to consider the ‘humanitarian’ work that Salman has been doing bringing about such positive changes to several lives. The counsel even pleaded, “Don’t punish him more just because he is an <keyword id="271" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="actor">actor</keyword>.” 
The second and more important plea being made pertains again to two very high profile hit and run cases similar to this one. The first being the 1998 Sanjeev Nanda BMW case where Nanda ran over and killed six people including 3 police officers in Delhi and the second one being the Alistair Pereira case in Mumbai, where the latter mowed down and killed 7 people on the pavement. In both cases the Supreme Court handed out jail terms of 2 and 3 years respectively, despite the accused being under the influence of alcohol and behind the wheels when the incidents occurred. In the meanwhile, the court dismissed any perjury case to be filed against Salman’s <keyword id="6366401" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Driver">driver</keyword> <keyword id="167070" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Ashok-Singh">Ashok Singh</keyword>.

SALMAN KHAN GETS 5 YEARS IN JAIL!

<keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> Group and <keyword id="19993869" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PhonePe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="PhonePe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="PhonePe">PhonePe</keyword> Group have amicably settled all long-standing legal disputes pertaining to the use of the trademark with the suffix 'Pe', a joint statement read. Both companies had been involved in long-drawn legal disputes across multiple courts, over the past five years. "The settlement will put an end to all open judicial proceedings," the joint statement dated May 26 read. As a next step, they have already taken steps to withdraw all oppositions against each other in the trademark registry which will help them to proceed with the registration of their respective marks. Further, both organizations will undertake other necessary steps to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement in respect of all cases before the <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> and <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword>, the statement said. <keyword id="19956324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rajnish-kumar" source="keywords">Rajnish Kumar</keyword>, Chairman of the Board, of BharatPe, said, "This is a positive development for the industry. I appreciate the maturity and professionalism shown by the Management of both sides, working closely to resolve all outstanding legal issues and moving ahead to focus their energy and resources in building robust digital payment ecosystems.'' Sameer Nigam, Founder and CEO of PhonePe, said, ''I am glad that we have reached an amicable resolution in this matter. This outcome will benefit both companies to move forward and focus our collective energy on growing the Indian fintech industry as a whole. I would like to thank Mr Rajnish Kumar and his team for working with us to get to this positive outcome." BharatPe, the brand name of Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd, was founded in 2018. Currently with a registered network of over 1.3 crore merchants across 450+ cities, the company is one of the leading players in UPI offline transactions, processing 370 million+ UPI transactions per month. PhonePe Group is also India's leading fintech company. Its flagship product, the PhonePe digital payments app, was launched in August 2016. In seven years, the company has scaled rapidly to become India's leading consumer payments app with 535+ million registered users and a digital payments acceptance network of 39+ million merchants. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank">Poco F6 vs Realme GT 6T – which mid-range smartphone should you buy?</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank">Realme GT 6T vs Motorola Edge 50 Pro – price, specs and features compared</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank">India’s wearable shipments rise by 2.1% in Q1 2024, average price declines</a>

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

Bombay high court has ruled that women have the right to enter the inner sanctum of the famous Haji Ali dargah in Mumbai. 
 The HC bench has given its ruling on a PIL that asked for the removal of restrictions on women inside the inner sanctum of the Dargah, which houses the mazaar or tomb of the saint. The <keyword id="1442046" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Haji-Ali-Dargah-Trust">Haji Ali Dargah Trust</keyword> had banned women from going in the inner sanctum somewhere between March and June 2012. 
 
The bench, however, has said that this ban breaches Articles 14 (Right to Life), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) and 25 (Right to practice religion) of the Indian Constitution of India, thus directing the status quo ante to be restored, allowing women as much rights as men. The court added that the state and the dargah trust should take appropriate steps to ensure women safety. 
 
However, the trust has defended the ban saying that entry of women in close proximity to the tomb of a male saint is considered to be a sin in the religion of Islam. Shoaib Memon, advocate of the trust, argued that as per Article 26 of the Constitution of India, the trust has the fundamental right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and any third agency interfering in this matter is uncalled for. Memon also said that women are given a secure place to offer their prayers in the dargah. 
 
Haji Rafat, MIM of the Haji Ali Dargah, told <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Haji-Ali-dargah-must-allow-women-to-enter-the-inner-sanctum-Bombay-high-court-rules/articleshow/53869139.cms">TNN</a> that the HC should have kept away from this issue, and now the trust will be approaching the Supreme Court. 
 
<a href="http://img.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Haji-Ali-Women.jpg">Image source</a>

You Searched For "The Bombay High Court" and got 12 results

Bombay High Court wants to delay new cheaper TV tariffs

PTI

Bombay High Court says no IPL matches in drought-hit Maharashtra after April 30

BI India Bureau

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

Shadab Rabbani

TV ads promoting magical properties and superstitions illegal under Black Magic Act: Bombay High Court

BI India Partner

WhatsApp group admin not accountable for objectionable post by other group members, clarifies Bombay High Court

PTI

Gujarat government lifts ban on sale of Maggi noodles on Bombay HC's order

PTI

Bombay High Court permits Sebamed ads targeting Dove with no changes and asks to put an end on Lux’s comparison with Rin

Karuna Sharma

HUL Vs Sebamed: The battle continues as Sebamed says that it wasn’t given a prior notice by HUL

BI India Partner

Sebamed’s campaign targeting HUL soaps comes to a halt for now as Bombay High court restrains its commercials from all mediums

BI India Partner

SALMAN KHAN GETS 5 YEARS IN JAIL!

BI India Bureau

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

ANI

Women must be allowed inside Haji Ali dargah’s inner sanctum, rules Bombay high court

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides