News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

15 December 2014

The Bombay High Court refused to entertain a Writ filed by an advocate challenging the imposition of service tax on advocates. So the business clients of individual lawyers and law firms will continue to pay service tax as mandated by the Finance Act.

16 December 2014

In the case of Italian Marines who are accused of killing two Indian fishermen, the Supreme Court denied the plea of one Italian Marine to extend the stay in Italy on health grounds and the plea of the other Marine to travel to Italy for Christmas. The Court held that they want the system to work and that the relief cannot be granted even though the trial has not commenced. Therefore, the accused must come to India and the charge-sheet be filed.

17 December 2014

The Delhi High Court which had earlier passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Chinese manufacturer, Xiaomi, allowed the company to sell and import handsets which have chipsets of Qualcomm Inc., till 5 February 2015. Xiaomi argued that Erricsson had suppressed the facts to obtain an injunction. Qualcomm has a license from Erricsson and therefore the license does not make Xiaomi an infringer of Ericsson’s patent rights.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on 17 December ordered that information relating to the death of the former Chief Justice of India J S Verma be disclosed to RTI activist Mr. S C Agrawal. The Commissioner, M Sridhar Acharyulu said, “Such letters (documents) from eminent citizens from all walks of life on death of a devoted and honest jurist who spent his post-retirement life in a rented house is indeed a matter of serious concern”.

18 December 2014

The Supreme Court bench has extended the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalthaa’s bail by 4 months and directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a special bench to hear her appeal expeditiously and decide it within 3 months, till 18 April 2015. The former CM challenged her conviction in Karnataka High Court in a ‘Disproportionate Assets Case’ after being found guilty.

19 December 2014

Three judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in relation to the Coal Ordinance. The deadline to pay the penalty is 31 December which was marked from 24 September judgment in which the 214 of the 218 coal blocks allocations was quashed.

22 December 2014

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed praying for protection as a married couple as they had tied the knot after the girls got their religion converted from Hindu to Islam and then performed Nikah. The court observed that “Conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will, with what he/she regards as cosmos, his/her Make or Creator, which he/she believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of Universe.”

24 December 2014

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has released the 1^st draft on the National IPR Policy submitted by the ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan. The draft policy can be accessed here.

26 December 2014

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to RBI on the decision to impose a limit of five transactions per month from the customers’ own bank ATM and charging Rs. 20/- per transaction beyond it. RBI had also imposed a limit of three transactions per month from ATMs of other banks, located in the six metro centres- Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. During the hearing, the court said, “You (banks) are unnecessary taxing your account holders.” The response has been sought by 18 February 2015.

The Delhi High Court distinguished between Uber and Ola cabs and refused to give a similar order in favor or Uber. Ola was given relief as they are only a technology platform and not a radio taxi operator. The court observed that ‘You (Uber) take money from customers and give it to drivers. So you are providing the service.’ By the virtue of December 8 Government Order, Uber had been effectively banned in India.

We hope that this summarizes the News from 15th to 27th December . Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Wishing you all a very delightful and successful New Year. 

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Weekly Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

8^th December 2014:

The division bench of Supreme Court has struck down the legality of provisions in certain circulars which banned hookah smoking and sale of cigarettes in designated smoking areas. With this three High Court (Bombay, Gujarat and Madras) decisions is overturned. The illegality of circulars was found on the basis of it being violative of COTPA Act, 2003 and Rules.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea challenging the recent ordinance on Coal Block Allocations which is to be heard on 6^th December. The Court had earlier declined a batch of petition by private companies seeking that it re-look its September 24 order cancelling 214 coal blocks allocated from 1993 to 2011.

9^th December 2014:

A Delhi Court has held fourmen guilty for murdering L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minster in a bomb blast on January 2, 1975. This trial is one of the longest drawn trials in India. Over 200 witnesses were examined in the case. Though the charge-sheet was filed in 1977 in a CBI court in Patna, the conviction has come only after about 40 years of the murder. Earlier in 2012, the accused approached the Supreme Court for quashing the trial against them as the case has not been concluded even after 37 years, which was not accepted by the apex court and was returned to the Delhi Court. The quantum of sentence would be pronounced on 15th December.

10^th December 2014:

The Central Government announced that section 309, attempt to commit suicide, will be deleted from Indian Penal Code (IPC) which will decriminalize the act of commitment of suicide. The decision is based on the request by 18 states and 44 Union territories to implement the Recommendations made in this regard by the Law Commission of India in its 210^th Report. The report made reference to P. Rathinam v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India held that Section 309 of IPC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The same was overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, however The Mental Health Bill of 2013 did attempt to decriminalize the same by putting presumption of mental illness on the persons attempting to commit suicide.

The Kerala High Court has concluded that the DLF violated the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ Notification) and therefore ordered the demolition of the construction under DLF project in Kochi. The Court held that:

“Authorities are constituted under various enactments to see that the environment is protected and to see that the present topography which keeps the ecological balance is not disturbed. The purpose of these laws is to preserve nature for posterity. If the violation of these laws is allowed to become the order of the day, the existence of life would be at peril. Right to life guaranteed by our Constitution takes in innumerable rights, including the right to enjoy nature in the present form. Indiscriminate invasion of nature to the detriment of others is an invasion of right to life. Nature which is the property of the nation cannot be allowed to be scrambled by a minority violating all laws.”

11^th December 2014:

The Delhi High Court injuncted Xiaomi, a Chinese phone manufacturer, from selling, advertising, manufacturing or importing devices that infringe the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in question. The same SEPs are also a subject matter of a pending litigation between Ericsson and Micromax, Gionee, Intex.  In an ex-parte order passed against Xiaomi, the court also directed Customs Department to stop import of such products as per the IPR Rules, 2007. It is worth noting that Xiaomi managed to sell out its 50,000 handset in just 6 seconds on 8^th December.

12^th December:

Hearing an appeal filed by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) against a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the Supreme Court had to decide the question of benefits of an extra amount in pensions on account of disability due to service conditions of the ex-servicemen of the Army. The Bench headed by HL Dattu, CJI, said:

“They are in the line of fire. They sacrifice their life for you and for us. This is the least you could do for them. The government can have at least this much of budget for its soldiers who are dying for the people of this country everyday. What is the point of having these memorials and placards saluting our defence personnel if you litigate against the disabled soldiers till the Supreme Court. You should pay them,”

The Government agreed to comply with the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the matter, as a result disposing 880 appeals on the issue. It has also been reported that around 15,000 retired soldiers will be benefited due to the order.

The Social Justice Bench constituted to hear cases pertaining to “Social Justice” matters began with the division bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit. The bench will take up fresh matters alongside the pending matters and will sit every Friday at 2PM at the Supreme Court. The bench was constituted to achieve the Constitutional goal of securing social justice for the citizens of the country.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Bayer’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the decision of the Bombay High Court. This dismissal will continue the effectiveness of grant of compulsory license to Natco for Bayer’s anticancer drug Nexavar. This has continued the Indian Courts’ stand to ensure the access to medicine across the country.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

A Tribute to Justice Krishna Iyer

Author: Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has been hailed as the “judicial conscience of India” and credited with the responsibility of “humanizing law in India”. He was a ceaseless crusader of human rights and had a passion for compassion. He was a rare combination of a legislator, a minster and a judge.

Justice Krishna Iyer was born on November 15, 1915 to a leading criminal lawyer V.V. Rama Ayyar in Thalassery. He had his education at the Basel Mission School, Thalassery, Victoria College, Palakkad, Annamalai University and Madras Law College. He started legal practice in 1937 under his father in the Thalassery and appeared for workers and peasants in several agrarian struggle-related cases in his early years of practice.He became a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly in 1952. After the 1957 Kerala Assembly Elections, when the first Communist government in Kerala headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad came to power, he held portfolios such as law, justice, home, irrigation, power, prisons, social welfare and inland navigation in the. He passed several pieces of people-oriented legislations during his tenure as a minister. He resumed his legal practice in August 1959 and continued the legal profession after he lost the 1965 Assembly election. He was appointed a judge of the Kerala High Court on July 2, 1968. He served as a Member of the Law Commission from 1971 to 1973.He was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court on July 17, 1973, and retired on November, 14, 1980.

Justice Krishna Iyer’s has delivered landmark judgments during his tenure as a judge.His judgments are considered to be a thesis on the subject. His judgments have a human touch and are presented in an artistic manner. Let us have a look at some of his judgments that have created history and revolutionized the legal world.

He threw open the doors of the judiciary to every person of the country by emphasizing on the need for relaxing the rule of locus standi, in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, he declared the practice of keeping undertrials with convicts in jail as inhumane, which earned him the title of “Father of prison jurisprudence”.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, Justice Iyer noted, “Personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile.” He expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the liberty to travel.

The jurisprudence of bail was humanized by Justice Iyer, which has been a lasting contribution to the liberation of under trial prisoners. In G Narasimhulu judgment, he observed, “It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one rendered to custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted."

By interpreting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Justice Iyer’s Bench directed the State to provide free legal services to an accused person in custody. He profoundly contributed to prison jurisprudence and humanisation of the sentencing system in India.

His greatest contribution to our constitutional jurisprudence is his landmark judgment in Samsher Singh. In whether the President or Governor have independent power than the Cabinet Justice Krishna Iyer observed, "the President, like the King, has not merely been constitutionally romanticized but actually vested with a pervasive and persuasive role…he is not rival center of power in any sense…the President and Governor shall exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well-known exceptional situations like (a) the choice of Prime Minister (Chief Minister), restricted though this choice is by the paramount consideration that he should command a majority in the House; (b) the dismissal of a Government which has lost its majority in the House but refuses to quit office; (c) the dissolution of the House where an appeal to the country is necessitous."

Summing up in the words of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, a former Attorney General of India:

"Mr. Krishna Iyer has a heart whose natural generosity and glowing warmth would scorch out any trace of malice or meanness. He cannot nurture a grudge towards any one, including unkind critics who have approached him with singular lack of humanity and understanding and who in learned tomes have raged and raged against the spreading of the light. Like Newman’s True Gentleman, he had too much good sense to be affronted by insults and was too well employed to remember injuries…There are judges who are more erudite than Justice Krishna Iyer, judges who have an excellent memory for Supreme Court and House of Lord citations, judges who can master the record of a case in a few minutes. But the one essential quality that distinguishes him from his judicial brethren and puts him in a class of his own is compassion. He took human suffering seriously and dispensed justice with compassion, which he possessed in abundance .”

His loss is a great loss to the legal fraternity.  He was not only a legislator, a minister and a judge but he was humane too. The humaneness made him stand apart from his peers. Let us all pay our tributes to such a great personality. Let us all pledge that we will be compassionate to our fellow human beings and work for the holistic development of the society at large.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Legal News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 23rd November to 07 November 2014.

The Supreme Court has constituted a Special Bench christened ‘Social Justice Bench’ to achieve the Constitutional  goal of securing ‘social justice for the citizens of the country. The bench comprising of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit will hear all cases in the Supreme Court falling within the domain of “social justice”. The Bench will start functioning from December 12 and will sit at 2 pm on every Friday.

The Centre is planning to partially open up legal market to foreign firms. According to the proposal put forward by the Centre, foreign lawyers could be permitted to practice in India in conjunction with Indian lawyers, as a joint venture, with a cap on foreign participation. Also, advisory or non-litigious services in Indian law could be opened up subject to foreign lawyers going through a prequalification examination in various aspects of Indian law. However, the Bar Council of India and Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) have voiced their opposition to this proposal.

The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR filed against three men who tried to molest a Delhi Police Constable. The woman registered an FIR against the three persons, who incidentally lived in her locality only. She later agreed to take back her complaint, after the intermediation of some people. When the matter reached the Delhi High Court for quashing of FIR, Justice Pratibha Rani, refusing to quash the FIR said, ‘if a woman police officer can’t walk on the street what will happen to common girls?’

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister has approved the introduction of the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2014 in Parliament to make certain amendments in the Companies Act, 2013. The Companies Act, 2013 (Act) was notified on 29.8.2013. Out of 470 sections in the Act, 283 sections and 22 sets of Rules corresponding to such sections have so far been brought into force. In order to address some issues raised by stakeholders such as Chartered Accountants and professionals, some amendments have been proposed.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging Rule 7 of the recently released Bar Council of India Rules, 2014. Under Rule 7, a lawyer must practice for two years in a trial court and three in a high court before being allowed to practice before the apex court. It was dismissed not on merits, but on the ground that Rule 7 has still not been notified and therefore it would be an exercise in futility if the petition is examined on merits.

The Delhi High Court has held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the right to file an appeal in cases where its probes have been stayed by courts. The order came after a CCI appeal in a dispute involving JCB India Ltd, in which all CCI proceedings, including the probe, were stayed by the HC after its director general raided JCB’s premises. Doubts were raised whether CCI could file such an appeal, as it was the CCI that ordered the probe against JCB in the first place; the court ruled that CCI has the right. The court also held that “the interference by us at this stage is unwarranted”. It asked both parties to raise their issues before the single judge who is hearing the case.

The Delhi High Court recently interpreted S.107A expansively to conclude that it is applicable when a party exports a patented product to a third party outside India as long as the purpose of export is the facilitation of research. The case relates to the Compulsory License granted by the Court to Natco for the compound Sorafenib tosylate. One of the conditions was that Natco should use the licensed product “solely for the purpose of making, using, offering for sale and selling the drug covered by the patent for the purpose of treating HCC and RCC in humans within the territory of India”. However, Bayer found that Natco was exporting the product outside India. In March this year, an interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court preventing Natco from such export. The present application was filed by Natco to seek permission from the Court to export 1 kilogram of Sorafenib to a Chinese Pharmaceutical Company for preparation of a trial batch of the generic drug in China.

The application filed by Venus Remedies Ltd. (the applicant) for an invention titled “Parenteral Composition Comprising Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin for Bacterial Resistance and Process of Preparation Thereof” was opposed in a pre grant opposition by (Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals) on the grounds of lack of inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja) and 2(1)(l) and also on the grounds of section 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patent Act. The opposition, however, was not successful. The invention was a single unit combination of two incompatible antibiotics (Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin) which are combined together with stabilizing agents, such as L-arginine, EDTA and Na₂CO_3.  The Controller observed that the claimed invention was held not to be a mere aggregation of property/features since Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin are made compatible, due to the existence of a chemical stabilizing and solubizing agent. The opponent also contended that various studies have shown the concomitant use of vancomycin and ceftriaxone and cited two documents.  However, both these documents failed to form ‘prior art’ because they were published on 3/3/2006 and 20/12/2005 after the filing of the present patent application in 14/2/2005. Moreover, the prior art failed to contemplate the problem of incompatibility between Ceftriaxone and Vancomycin. Also, the contention on Section 3(d) was dismissed on the ground that nothing in the prior art qualified as a “known substance” and hence Section 3(d) was not attracted.  The Controller declared that that the invention was both a technical advance as well as economically significant and therefore qualified the inventiveness criteria.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Legal News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 03rd November to 22nd November 2014.

In an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court, Micromax has to pay a royalty that amounts up to 1% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson. Ericsson had alleged that Micromax had refused to enter into a licensing agreement covering its patented innovations across several wireless technology standards such as GSM, EDGE and third generation (3G). The patents in question are a part of what are called “standards-essential” patents and holders are expected to license them on Free Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Micromax was said to have keen on negotiating a FRAND license with Ericsson but the companies could not come to a suitable conclusion.

The E-Committee of the Supreme Court has rejected the Government’s proposal to record the Court proceedings in a subordinate court.  The E-Committee rejected the proposal saying it was not acceptable at present. The proposal to record court proceedings was made by the government after an advisory council meeting of the Law Ministry held in August this year. This was as a part of the E-court project under which the government had sought to initiate recording of the proceedings in lower courts and subsequently bring the High Courts and the Supreme Court under its ambit.

The Supreme Court is facing an interesting case of murder where the accused was tried as an adult though the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence.  Since, the accused was a juvenile when the offence was committed, the criminal trial stands vitiated and a fresh trial will have to be held before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).  The Court has sought the assistance of the Attorney General to resolve the issue.

In a letter to the High Courts, Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu has asked for the judgments delivered by the Judges of the High Courts, in order to “ascertain quantitative as well as qualitative disposal of cases”. So far Reported Judgments have been accepted as one of the parameters for ascertaining “qualitative disposal”. Now as per this letter, the details of all judgments will have to be provided. The letter also demands resumes of the Chief Justices and the Judges in a specified format. It also demands details of total and reported judgments.

In Criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, the Petitioner was seeking criminal prosecution of a Judge in respect of acts discharged during judicial functions. It was held no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. The Court also held that no Judge can be prosecuted without a prior sanction, whether the alleged offence is punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law.

The Central Information Commission has held that refusing to give details of foreign tours by ministers and officers, and staff particulars of AG without hearing the appellant was wrong.  It set aside the order of First Appellate Authority of Department of Legal Affairs as it was given without hearing the appellant.  CIC also recommended action against the officer for this ‘illegal’ order.

The Bar Council of India has recently notified the Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules of 2014. Under these rules, a lawyer must practice for two years in a trial court and three in a high court before being allowed to practice before the apex court. The new rules also mandate the renewal of licenses every five years, in an attempt to “weed out” those lawyers who are no longer practicing.

In accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, the Ministry of Law and Justice has decided on the formation of a separate High Court for Andhra Pradesh. According to section 30 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the Act.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is all set to slash the prices of popular medicines for stress, hypertension, HIV, pain and pneumonia. The move seeks to cover as many as 100 new drugs and would apply to drugs of varying strengths. This is the second time that NPPA has proposed regulating the price of drugs outside the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), 2011. The announcement by NPPA comes in light of its findings that certain “anomalies or discrepancies” exist in the description/specification of drugs in NLEM.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Of Assignments, Licenses and other Demons thereof

Author: Narayanan MH, 3rd Year student of IIT Law School, IIT Kharagpur

The title of this blog post amuses the author as much as it amuses its readers, as the author during his initial year in law school always got confronted by one question,
“What is the difference between an agreement and a contract?”

Being from a non legal family background the author answered:

“Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act: an agreement enforceable by law is a contract”

But nearing the last few months of his legal studies, after few fruitful classes, discussions, and internships, the author learned that it is not as simple as stating section 2(h).

The author considers the Contract Act, 1872, to be one of the essential guide for a law student to begin his/her/third gender’s (Supreme Court now recognizes them) legal journey and hence would like to share his limited understanding of the answer to the above question before venturing into the title.

In layman’s words section 2 states that a Person A who for the purpose of getting assent of Person B proposes to do an act (includes abstinence) and Person B accepts it, then Person A becomes the promisor and Person B becomes the promisee. The accepted proposal becomes a promise.

For example the owner of this blog offering the author to publish his article and the author accepting the proposal makes it a promise.

Section 2(d) states consideration as an act, abstinence or promise of the promisee—Person B (past, present and future of doing) at the desire of promisor—Person A.

 

If a promise accepted by Person B has a counterpart of consideration to Person A it is an agreement. (Section 2(e)).

Continuing with the example stated above the author agreeing to pay Rs. 200  as publishing charge to the owner of blog makes the promise an agreement and the promise or act of paying Rs. 200 becomes consideration.

Now that agreement is understood the important section for understanding the meaning the section 2(h) (legally enforceable agreements) is section 10 of the Contract Act.

Section 10 seeks compliance of 4 conditions from an agreement to make it a contract:

·           Free consent (Section 14)

·           Competency of Parties (Section 11)

·           Lawful consideration (Section 23)

·           Lawful object. (Section 23)

Both the author and the blog owner are of legal age (competent) and gave free consent for the agreement. Hence, it is now enforceable by law becoming a contract. If the author does not pay Rs. 200 to the blog owner after this article gets published then the blog owner can move the court to enforce the contract.

From the above explanation, the author understood the difficulty in comprehending one of the shortest bare acts in law school and hence restricts himself to the question without going into further legal intricacies like consensus adidum, if the readers are interested they can do research on the following questions:

       Difference between void, voidable and illegal agreements and contracts?

       Difference between a deed and an agreement?

Coming back to the title, hindu mythology being one of the most fascinating mythologies of the world often portrayed demons as powerful as gods. In one such mythology, demons have the power of rising from the blood spilled from another demon and also have the power to deceive the seer. But the seer can find the demons if he knows what to look for amidst their varied appearances, hence the use of demons in the title.

The motive of the author here is to make the reader aware of these demons namely, assignments and license and their ability to deceive the seer.

Now that the author has researched and wrote this article, he cannot just like that give away this article to the blog owner for publication without being aware of his rights. The author by virtue of Copyright Act, section 14 has several rights from now on called “Bundle of Rights” (as used by the author’s Copyright law professor).

The 200 rupees given to the blog owner has 20-10 rupees note, likewise the bundle of rights have many individual rights like right to communication to public, right to translate, right to sell copies etc.

Assignments, licenses are the instruments used to legally transfer/permit the others to use one’s right.

License can be simply termed as permission from the way it is used in daily life like driving license, shop license etc. When a license is granted the main thing to be remembered is the licensee is not the owner, he just has permission to use the right.

If the author permits the blog owner to publish this article in his blog, the blog owner can do so only in this blog, while the author holds the rights to publish this article anywhere else.

Assignment on the other hand is assigning a right, if the author assigns the right to publish to this blog owner, then the author can never publish this article anywhere, but that does not take away the authors other rights in the bundle.

Thus, the essential elements in understanding licenses and assignments are that there are multiple rights, they can be either assigned fully or grant permission to others to use.

The reader must also note that there can be many varieties of this assignments and licenses based on the term of the contract like time, name of right, area, and others.

As an end to this article the author would term contract law as ‘Nothing’ with two quotes.

Quote 1: “You ain't seen nothin' yet.”  -AL JOLSON

Quote 2: “Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly esteemed by writers of an existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with anxiety, nausea, or panic.” - P. L. HEATH- 

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 2nd November to 8th November 2014.

2^nd November:

Delhi Police has approached the Supreme Court with the plea to modify the December 2013 order in which the Apex Court had said, “The men in uniform; operational agencies which require unhindered access to roads for performance of their duty; those engaged in emergency duties such as ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc.; and, police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or for law and order duties shall not be entitled to have red light but lights of other colours, eg, blue, white, multi-coloured etc.” The Supreme Court had ordered on 2^nd November that only “high dignitaries” can use the red beacon, and only when on duty.

3^rd November:

The CIC, Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu, held on 3rd November 2014 that ‘charge-sheet’ has to be disclosed after separating non-disclosable portions, if any, as per restrictions prescribed under RTI Act. The CIC was hearing an appeal by Ms. Usha Kanth Asiwal who sought to know of complaint (charge-sheet) made to Anti Corruption Bureau on 25-04-2001 and  inquiry leading to registration of case against 13 persons under Prevention of Corruption Act, which is now under prosecution in Tis Hazari Courts.

Roche and Cipla have failed to reach an agreement over the Erlotinib patent dispute. At the instance of Delhi High Court, in around April this year, Roche and Cipla got engage in mediation. The mediator submitted the failure report after discussions between the two parties failed to fructify. It was highly suspected that any compromise may happen considering the nature of the dispute and patent at stake. The proceeding will now resume in Delhi High Court.

Cipla has brazenly launched a cheaper generic version of Novartis’ Indacetorol (a drug used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Cipla has further petitioned to the DIPP to revoke to revoke Novartis’ patents in public interest under S.66 of the Indian patent act. This would be the first time when a plea for revocation of patent will be entertained solely on the ground of public interest.  Cipla has taken two grounds for revocation that it is very costly and that it is not sufficiently produced in India, thus it is pre-judicial to the public.

4^th November:

The decision rendered by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Pradeep Nadrajog in a rape case has been a highlight this week in all forms of media. The accused Achey Lal was acquitted of the offences of murder and rape in view that the prosecution was not able to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused has committed the offence so charged against him. The controversy that arouse is mostly because the judgment spoke of the deceased aged 65-70 is beyond the age of menopause and any sexual intercourse, which is forceful and not forcible, is not rape.

It has recently come to the notice of the Indian Government that a German company is using the term ‘khadi’ in its trademark. Khadi being a popular symbol in     India, mostly because of Gandhian Movement and has established itself as Swaraj and Self-sufficiency during Indian Freedom Fight. The German company, ‘Khadi Naturprodukte’ is in the business of selling various Indian-origin products such as shampoos, soaps and oils in Europe. Incidentally, these are products which Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), an arm of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), sells in addition to fabric. This will open a new gate for the Government of India to protect its IP across the seas. It is also note-worthy that a GI application on Khadi is also on the way.

5^th November:

Release of ‘Rang rasiya’, a movie directed by Ketan Mehta claimed to be based on the life of renowned painter Raja Ravi Varma has been stayed by the Mavelikkara munsiff court in Alapuzha district in Kerala. She had stated that the film is depicting a false image of the artist and she called the movie a ‘direct assault’ on Indian culture and womanhood. She also alleged the violation of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Justice D. Hariparanthaman of the Madras High Court has ruled that a married daughter of a deceased government employee is eligible for appointment under compassionate grounds. The Court ruled, “There cannot be any discrimination between a married son and a married daughter. Making discrimination between a son and a daughter on the ground of marriage is arbitrary and violative of fundamental right to equality.”

The Economic Times reports that Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has set up a think tank to advise the Government on a gamut of issues related to patents and to also draft a national IPR policy. The think-tank is a six member panel headed by Justice Prabha Sridevan, a former judge (Madras High Court) and former chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). This is a follow up step of  bilateral US-India Trade Policy Forum announced by Narendra Modi and Barack Obama.

7^th November:

The Supreme Court has demanded details from the Central Government with respect to individuals residing in Government accommodations. It urged the Government to render information regarding the categories of bungalows existing in Delhi, their allotment under discretionary and people who have been overstaying in the same. On vacation of government bungalows by judges of the apex court and HCs, the bench said, “Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another month.”

The SC ruled that the judiciary cannot direct the government to conduct census ina particular manner and that would amount to ‘colossal transgression’ of the power of judicial review, thus overruling the Madras HC judgment in which Hon’ble HC had directed the central govt to conduct  caste based census.  Three judge bench categorically ruled that issuing a mandamus directing the State to conduct census in a particular manner would be in excess of its power of judicial re view. The Hon’ble SC held that “The order is exceptionally cryptical. That apart, it is legally wholly unsustainable.  The High Court, to say the least, had no justification to pave such a path and we have no hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible.”

The European Patent Office (EPO) announced on its website today that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Intellectual Property Office of India (IPO India) on co-operation on patents to promote innovation in India and the European Union. The MoU calls for bilateral co-operation between EPO & IPO and it seeks to establish a framework for structured work relations between both the offices for a minimum of four years.

The Delhi High Court in Sukesh Behl v. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics (Division Bench. Maj. Behl Vs Philips-DB1-DHC 7.11.2014) passed a significant decision with regard to Section 8 of the Patent Act 1970. It ruled that a patentee’s non compliance with Section 8 of the Patent Act will not lead to an automatic revocation of its patent under Section 64(1)(m). As per the decision, it is necessary to check whether the omission to disclose information under Section 8 was deliberate/intentional or whether it was a mere clerical/bona fide error.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More