Copyright Act includes all copying done for academic use if“justified by the demands of the course” #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Delhi High Court Division Bench in a landmark judgment has held that photocopying of copyrighted material for use “in the course of instruction” that is allowed under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act would include all copying done for academic use in a university, as long as the text being copied was “justified by the demands of the course”. The Division Bench upheld the expanded scope of interpretation of “course of instruction” under Section 52(1)(i) to include the entire academic exercise from the setting of the syllabus to the actual classroom teaching.




Is suit for Partition maintainable in presence of a Will? #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


Delhi High Court in this case had to decide questions relating to whether legal heirs can maintain a suit for partition when the parent has left a will, and second one related to payment of ad valorem court fee when the plaintiff was not in possession of suit property? The court held that there exists in law a doctrine of election. It means that if two or more rights are available to a party on the same subject, it would be open to a party to elect which one right it would like to avail of.




Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is applicable only when there is sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


Delhi High Court in a recent judgment has held that for application of the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and, in particular, the proviso thereto, before the further period of 30 days is triggered, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period of three months.




Court cannot decide disputed questions of fact under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Supreme Court has held that the bank guarantee is an independent contract between the guarantor-bank and the guarantee-appellant. The guarantee is unconditional. Though the performance guarantee is against the breach by the lead promoter, viz., the first Respondent, but between the bank and the Appellant, the specific condition incorporated in the bank guarantee is that the decision of the Appellant as to the breach is binding on the bank.




Cheque given as ‘Security’ is covered within the ambit of Section 138 of N.I Act #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in September has held that the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as "security" in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Contention of the Appellant in support of his case was that the cheques were given by way of security as mentioned in the agreement and that on the date the cheques were issued, no debt or liability was due.




Meaning of Seat of Arbitration#indianlaws

Jun
21
2016


The term "subject matter of the arbitration" cannot be confused with "subject matter of the suit". The term "subject matter" in Section 2(1)(e) is confined to Part I. It has a reference and connection with the process of dispute resolution. Its purpose is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the arbitration proceedings. Hence, it refers to a court which would essentially be a court of the seat of the arbitration process.The provision in Section 2(1)(e)has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recognition to party autonomy. The legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process.




Transfer of the minor's immovable property without the permission of the Court is not binding on the minor# indianlaws

Jun
21
2016


Any transfer of the nature mentioned in sub- Section 2 of Section 8 Hindu Succession Act, of the minor's immovable property without the permission of the Court is not binding on the minor irrespective of the fact whether it was necessary or for an evident advantage to him/her and that such a transfer even made with Court's permission shall be voidable at the instance of the minor if he/she can show it does not fall in the category of acts which were necessary or reasonable or proper for the benefit of the minor or for realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate.




No service tax chargeable in respect of composite contracts like the ones between property buyers and builder# indianlaws

Jun
21
2016


The arrangement between the buyer and the builder is a composite one which involves not only the element of services but also goods and immovable property. In order to sustain the levy of service tax on services, it is essential that the machinery provisions provide for a mechanism for ascertaining the measure of tax, that is, the value of services which are charged to service tax. Service tax since  is a tax on value addition and charges for preferential location in one sense embody the value of the satisfaction derived by a customer from certain additional attributes of the property developed. Such charges cannot be traced directly to the value of any goods or value of land but are as a result of the development of the complex as a whole and the position of a particular unit in the context of the complex. Court accordingly held that no service tax under section 66 of the Act read with Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act could be charged in respect of composite contracts such as the ones entered into by the Petitioners with the builder. 




True scope and ambit of the term Judgment #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


Every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the Trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment.




Apex Court interprets applicability of Sector 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


Section 3(1), mandates sharing of live broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati has to be 'without its advertisements'. Exception is, however, made in sub-section (2) of Section 3 which enables the broadcasting service provider to even share the contents along with advertisements, but subject to the condition that there has to be a sharing of revenue in the proportion prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 3. When live broadcasting signal is shared containing advertisements, those advertisements have much larger viewership because of its telecast/broadcast on Prasar Bharati. The benefit of advertisement in such a case would accrue to those who have booked the advertisements and the service provider, in such an eventuality would definitely be in a position to charge much more from the advertisers. The rates of advertisement go up when circulation thereof is enhanced. 








© 2010-15