<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1588 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459185</link>
    <description>Section 3(1) of the Sports Broadcast Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 was read to require a clean live sports broadcast signal shared without advertisements, including advertisements inserted by the event organiser or broadcaster. The phrase &quot;without its advertisements&quot; was treated as plain and contextually linked to the signal itself, so the sharing obligation extends to the broadcast in advertisement-free form. Rule 5 of the 2007 Rules was upheld as an enabling and clarificatory provision because it only requires arrangements to comply with the Act. The challenge to the rule therefore failed, and no declaration was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 21:50:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1588 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459185</link>
      <description>Section 3(1) of the Sports Broadcast Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 was read to require a clean live sports broadcast signal shared without advertisements, including advertisements inserted by the event organiser or broadcaster. The phrase &quot;without its advertisements&quot; was treated as plain and contextually linked to the signal itself, so the sharing obligation extends to the broadcast in advertisement-free form. Rule 5 of the 2007 Rules was upheld as an enabling and clarificatory provision because it only requires arrangements to comply with the Act. The challenge to the rule therefore failed, and no declaration was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>