9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , T.C.(C) NO. 41/2023, T.C.(C) NO. 43/2023, SLP(C) NO. 34097/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34180/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34918/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34092/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34207/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34110/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34949/2015, SLP(C) NO. 35355/2015, SLP(C) NO. 35357/2015, SLP(C) NO. 35356/2015, SLP(C) NO. 35353/2015, SLP(C) NO. 34917/2015, SLP(C) NO. 2549/2016, SLP(C) NO. 6643/2016, SLP(C) NO. 8458/2016, SLP(C) NO. 4255/2016, DIARY NO. 19948/2021, DIARY NO. 19951/2021, DIARY NO. 20062/2021, DIARY NO. 20063/2021, DIARY NO. 20105/2021, T.C.(C) NO. 7/2024, T.C.(C) NO. 9/2024, T.C.(C) NO. 8/2024. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Adv., Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv., Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv., Ms. Fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Mr. Yogendra Aldak, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent(s)-State and others. 2. We have perused the impugned order. 3, The High Court has relegated the petitioner(s) herein to the appellate authority and granted sixty days time from the date of the impugned order so as to file an appeal and agitate all questions raised by the petitioner(s) before the appellate authority. We reiterate the said order. 4. However, we state that the petitioner(s) is granted sixty days from today to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the appellate authority or by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment and have contended that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is just and proper and has correctly distinguished the judgment of this Court in Nokia India Private Limited's case (supra). It was submitted that when a cell phone is sold along with a charger, there is only one Maximum Retail Price (MRP) stated on the packaging and therefore, Entry 28 has to be read in the context of the said facts. 12. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar, in light of the judgment of this Court in Nokia India Private Limited's case (supra) and in light of the detailed discussion made by the High Court distinguishing the aforesaid judgment. 13. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Hence, the Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
