National Stock Exchange of India is a “public authority” under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
The Court held that NSEI would qualify as a “public authority” not only under the second part, but also under the first part of Section 2(h), RTI Act.
The Court held that NSEI would qualify as a “public authority” not only under the second part, but also under the first part of Section 2(h), RTI Act.
CAM successfully represented the BCCI in the present remand- proceedings, where comprehensive arguments were advanced demonstrating that the BCCI does not meet any of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, for being classified as a ‘public authority’.
The Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social media.
‘Being careful while giving reasons to candidates for which they have not been appointed would help in avoiding such litigation which entails cost for candidates who may not be able to afford it.’
Cap of stamp duty of Rs 25 lakhs on increase in share capital under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
MP High Court affirmed the candidates’ right to access information about the performance of other candidates as part of a public activity.
“The premise on which the petitioner is relying, the publishing of such newspaper article, cannot be taken as gospel truth.”
A Full Bench was constituted to consider whether a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, which is running an institution that receives a grant from the State is duty bound to supply information sought from it under provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.
ABOUT RGNUL The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab, was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the
While we brace ourselves for 2023, we switch on our anamnesis mode and note down the significant decisions covered in the entire year of 2022 by Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions
Madras High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner- candidate seeking the reason for his non-selection as well as
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling| ‘Combined Wire Rope’ not a part of the fishing vessel, thus, not
Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Shankar, J., while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the petitioners, for quashing and setting aside
Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani (Information Commissioner), harmonised the conflicting interests of the parties keeping with the letter and spirit of
Central Information Commission (CIC): Bimal Julka, Chief Information Commissioner, instructed Ministry of Law and Justice.to examine the RTI Application to provide a
An RTI application was filed with regard to the PM Cares Fund, wherein following details were sought: Total amount deposited in the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Surya Kant, CJ. and Ajay Mohan Goel, J. disposed of a writ petition
The Law Commission of India’s (hereinafter ‘Commission’) 275th report, titled ‘Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005’, was recently submitted
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Vibhu Bakhru, J., allowed a petition before it,