12-March-2021 to 22-March-2021
TO SEEK PROTECTION ORDERS, REGISTRATION OF COPYRIGHT IS NOT MANDATORY UNDER THE ACT: BOMBAY HC
Sanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. v. Narayani Trading Company
In the recent judgement of Bombay High Court, the hon’ble court has held that to sustain a suit for infringement of copyright, registration under the Copyright Act,1957 is not mandatory.
The Single Bench of Justice GS Patel observed that the Copyright Act gives a wide range of rights and privileges to the first owner of copyright without requiring prior registration.
In Asian Paints (I) Ltd v. M/s Jaikishan Paints & Allied Products, 2002, it was held that Registration under the Copyright Act is optional and not compulsory.
JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER COMMISSIONS UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE
Narinder Chopra v Jai Prakash associates ltd
The National Dispute Redressal Commission has held that provisions regarding Jurisdiction of Consumer commissions under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 are prospective in operation and not retrospective. The Commission observed that a new enactment, bringing significant alterations in jurisdiction provisions, does not have effect to the pending proceedings under the old Act. Therefore, the complaints instituted before Act 2019 came into force are to be adjudicated by the District, State and National Consumer Commissions in accordance with provisions of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Recently in Neena Aneja vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd, 2021, The Supreme Court ordered that all proceedings instituted before July 20, 2020 shall continue to be heard by the fora constituted under the 1986 Act and they are not to be transferred to the new fora as per the pecuniary jurisdiction as per the 2019 Act.
NOTE: The 2019 Act had increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer fora as follows :
District Forum :-Increased to Rs.One Crore from Rs. Twenty Lakhs.
State Commission :- Increased to Rs. Ten Crores from Rs. One Crore.
National Commission :- Above Rs. Ten Crores from Rs.One Crores.
REQUEST VICTIM TO TIE RAKHI AS BAIL CONDITION FOR ACCUSED IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE: SC
Aparna Bhat v State of Madhya Pradesh
The hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court order asking a suspected sexual offender to visit his victim at her home and request her to tie rakhi around his wrist for the bail. The court said that the effect of such order is of diluting and eroding the offence of sexual harassment which is against the object of laws related to sexual offences.
The court in this case also issued a set of guidelines meant to sensitise the judiciary in the cases concerning offences committed against women and also forbids the court to expressing any stereotypical comments, such as, “good” women are sexually chaste,women are physically weak and need protection, women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own, etc. The Supreme Court suggested that gender sensitization training should be imparted to Judges and public prosecutors and also directed the Bar Council of India to take steps to include such courses as part of LLB and AIBE syllabus.
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER MUST NOT UNDER ANY OFFICE OF CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT: SC
State of Goa v Fouzia Imtiaz Shaik
The hon’ble Supreme Court held that a government officer serving a State government or the Central Government cannot be appointed as the State Election Commissioner. To ensure the independence of the State Election Commission, the court passed this significant judgement.
By issuing the direction under Article 142, the bench of the Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy directed that all states and territories in India shall henceforth ensure that it has an Independent State Election Commissioner as mandated under Article 243(k) of the Constitution. The Court gave this ruling in a case related to Goa where the law secretary was given the charge as State Election Commissioner.
PLEA FILED IN SUPREME COURT TO DIRECT CENTRE TO FRAME GUIDELINES TO COMPENSATE VICTIMS OF WRONGFUL PROSECUTION
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the States to implement Centre’s Guideline for Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Prosecution and give compensation to innocent people in spirit of the recommendations of the Law Commission Report No-277 on Miscarriage of Justice. It has further urged the Court to use its plenary constitutional power to frame the guidelines for compensation to victims of wrongful prosecutions and direct the Centre and States to implement them.
The petition has stated that the absence of an effective statutory or legal scheme for providing mandatory compensatory scheme to victims of wrongful malicious prosecutions and incarceration of innocents, infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.