Revachand takhtani v. Bank of Baroda
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CONT D. ORDER. SH EET
PAGE NO
CASE NO
| DATE DESCRIPTTONOFTHEORDER |
|---|
| .9.1e3/zozs |
| 12.09 orrteoseTdftq+ftililf,GTqq"r erBrmrr vnq_ql-ftilfrdfldrqfrrilqrd \iIqHqLl erBrmrr flq3Hr( sTruTrfi-{q.3rfr=T3il-trTfu fr{fltI Yerfrtoifusrayrfurqrrrcn.l orfuq siltqTqlftf,fuqrq-il |
| GrBot'ft, S.om.E.q.s.,gqefr-{f,rrd |
| REMARK |
|---|
1,
$tr..g. ;ltl-{ -1e3/2025
Eq r{fr 3rfufiwr w.l.C,rgq (q.s.'tf E-fulTq)
(frdnft{ Grffi - qrr+q +ft qrq funrr q-aa)
w.g.;trt-( -193 / 2025
- t{rf,q ilffirft GTrtrrq Tq-.flq sft tqmq dqdrft, B-q otq 50qS, ffi lTtrl-f, trd ffi TqqFTT, fuf,r n+{ F+1-4s2oo1 .. snilro r
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a benefit under the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is a valuable right within the meaning of Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to dismiss the petition without affording an opportunity of being heard under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of India and Section 228 of the Companies
Whether penalty imposed under section 11 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was in accordance with law and not arbitrary
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sh E. Narayan Prasad Sawan / O/s Balram Kumar v/o Ram Vasudev Sharma
- respondent
State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram
J. S.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court