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 held that; railway is a commercial activity and by establishing Yatri Niwas to provide housing and living facilities to passengers on charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union of India and it can’t be equated with Sovereign
The Court in the present case reiterated the principle that basic structure of the Constitution is beyond the amending powers of the Parliament.
Being accused of an offence just because of suspicion or due to false claims and being denied access to speedy justice undermines the existence of an individual. Hence the Court considering the fact that, justice delayed is justice denied made speed
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
It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the facts from all angles whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct.The principle “justice to the cause is equivalent to th
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
In this case it was held that in the guise of passing an order under Section 19(1)(b) of Domestic Violence Act, such women members of the family cannot be directed to be removed from the shared household
The High Court held that the Grandsons would have been liable to pay maintenance to grandmother under Sections 22(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided that their father had not been alive and not capable of paying maintenan
The High Court has held that if wife and husband laves the share households to establish their own household, the domestic relationship comes to an end in respect of parents and therefore complaint under DV Act cannot be maintained against them.