It can be concluded from the present judgment that the terms “assignment” and “licence” are distinct and not interchangeable. Section 19 of the Copyright Act mentions the conditions to be fulfilled for the assignment of copyright whereas Section 30 o..
The present case puts forward the principle of breach of confidentiality very explicitly in the case of copying a concept or creative idea...
It is concluded from the present judgment that the exclusive right available to the copyright owner under Section 14(d) of the Act is to copy the recording of a film. It is, therefore, clear that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ means maki..
According to the SC, the HC also erred in granting a sum of Rs 50,000/- only towards future medical expenses. The SC has pointed out that the appellant would require 3 more replacement of the artificial left leg during his life time. The SC considere..
Section 188 CrPC deals with offences committed outside India. In the present case it was held by the Supreme Court that if the accused is not an Indian citizen and the crime committed overseas, then none of the conditions given under Section 4 of the..
The Supreme Court unanimously held that amendments adding new laws in 9th Schedule after Keshavnanda judgment in 1973 were subject to basic structure requirement but fundamental rights especially Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 are parts of basic structur..
The present case deals with the defence of fair dealing available under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. The court has gone further and summarized the broad principles of law on “ fair dealing” enunciated in various judgments...
The Court in the present case reiterated the principle that basic structure of the Constitution is beyond the amending powers of the Parliament...
The Court by upholding the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act,1964 held that the Parliament has complete authority to amend all parts of the Constitution including the Fundamental rights. However, this decision of the SC was ov..
The court held that the plea had been raised on the wrong impressions under Disabled Persons Act. The Indian railways stand not liable on the basis of contract which was admittedly made with a foreign railway. The burden of proving that the car was l..
The court held that the contentions of the defendant do not appear to be correct in the facts of the present case. The contract in itself had indicated the terms in which the respective obligations were to be performed by the parties. The court provi..
The present case revolves around the issue whether version recordings protected under Section 52(1)(j) can be considered as original musical work...
Cover versions refer to a sound recording made following Section 31C of the Copyright Act. The provision was added to the Act by the 2012 amendment. Before the 2012 amendment, making cover versions was permitted under Section 52(1)(j). The 2012 amend..
The rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 are always subject to public order, morality and health. Since Tandava dance performed by the petitioner’s group in the present case was against public order and morality the Court obstructed their perf..
Not all religious practices are obligatory only those which form the core principle of the religion becomes obligatory in nature. And only such practices are given protection under Article 25 of the Constitution. ..
Though the Court upheld the validity of Article 323A and various provisions of the Administrative tribunals Act in Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, the decision was overruled by the SC in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India holding that, j..
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality among equals. Classifying a group of pensioners who did the same work on basis of retirement date is pure discrimination under Article 14. Hence the Rules were rightly struck down in the pre..
It was held that tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible. Tape recorded evidence is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. ..
The court held that the business was a joint venture and not the sole proprietary concern of the Appellant No. 1. There is no document in writing to prove partnership. Accounts had not been demanded by the plaintiffs or the defendant no. 3 for a long..
In the case of Mukesh Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan, a petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 ..
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
