<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Supreme Court Rules No Unfair Trade Practice in HSHS Contest SMS Charges Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51868</link>
    <description>Charging higher for SMS - participants in the HSHS contest were required to pay &amp;#8377; 2.40 per SMS message to Airtel, which was higher than the normal rate for SMSes - Whether an unfair trade practice has been committed by the Appellants in the conduct of the HSHS contest, in terms of Section 2(1)(r)(3) of the 1986 Act? - Held No - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:24:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:24:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court Rules No Unfair Trade Practice in HSHS Contest SMS Charges Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51868</link>
      <description>Charging higher for SMS - participants in the HSHS contest were required to pay &amp;#8377; 2.40 per SMS message to Airtel, which was higher than the normal rate for SMSes - Whether an unfair trade practice has been committed by the Appellants in the conduct of the HSHS contest, in terms of Section 2(1)(r)(3) of the 1986 Act? - Held No - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:24:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>