Case Study: Iridium India Telecom V. Motorola Inc.
Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Inc.
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. ("Litigant") favored the interest under the watchful eye of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the request dated 08.08.2003 of the Bombay High Court suppress the criminal protest dated 03.10.2001 recorded by the Appellant against Motorola Inc.("Respondent") relating to duping under Section 420 read with …show more content…
The Respondent influenced portrayals on the Iridium To extend and PPM to incite people to contribute and in light of such portrayals made by the Respondent, the Appellant and also a few banks and organizations, in accordance with some basic honesty on the whole contributed an aggregate of US $70 million for obtaining value of Iridium Inc and additionally spent a total of about Rs. 150 crores in setting up a door at Deghi in Pune. The portrayals made by the Respondent turned out to be false, untrustworthy, fake and misleading as it was found that the Iridium Project was an entire disappointment and the Project ended up being to be a total non-starter and innovative …show more content…
Focal Bureau of Investigation
An opposite situation with regards to the decision set down in the Iridium case is examined in the Sunil Bharti case. This case examines the suggestion with reference to whether the executives (or any one speaking to the adjust sense of self of the organization) can be indicted on the record of criminal demonstrations of the organization. This case relates to the affirmed abnormalities in connection to the concede of permit and allotment of the range in the 2G band wherein CBI had issued summons to the executives of the organizations included once the offenses were set down in the chargesheet.
The SC in the said case completely investigates whether and under what conditions the rule of attribution (change sense of self) be utilized to make the general population responsible for the organization at risk for the demonstrations (offenses conferred) of the