Trace Your Case

Author: TYC

Categories
Environmental Ethics

Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 547

ISSUE:

Whether bullock-cart races and Jallikattu taking place in the states of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are violative of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter PCA Act)?

Whether the Animal welfare board has the authority to exclude and include any animal in the list?

Did the practice of Jallikattu and Bollock-cart races violate the international principles on violation of rights of animals?

RULE:

Section 3 has two limbs, namely:
a. Duty cast on persons-in-charge or care to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of the animal
b. Duty to take reasonable measures to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain and suffering.

To interpret the phrase “unnecessary suffering”, one must look at whether the suffering could have been reasonable avoided or reduced, whether the conduct causing suffering was in compliance with the Act and whether the conduct causing suffering was for a legitimate purpose.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction

Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh & Sons, (1981) 4 SCC 634

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding? Pursuant to the procedural history, which is the court having jurisdiction in which the Award should be filed by the arbitrator?

RULE:

Section 31(4) not only confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to which an application is made in any reference but simultaneously ousts the jurisdiction of any other court which may as well have jurisdiction in this behalf.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Copyright

Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1879)

ISSUE:

Whether Baker had infringed copyrights held by Selden?

Whether Selden had an exclusive right to the use of the system explained in his book?

RULE:

Idea-Expression Dichotomy: A copyright can be obtained only over a particular expression of an idea, it does not protect the idea that underlies that expression and this is what limits copyrights and differentiates it from patents. An idea/art/method can be patented whereas the expression of an idea/art/method can be copyrighted.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Copyright

Amar Nath Sehgal v. UOI 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the special rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act even after the copyrights are vested in the interest of the defendants?

Whether there are any damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work, which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright?

RULE:

Moral rights - The right of the author to claim ownership of his work along with his right to restrain or
claim ownership of his work along with the right to restrain or claim damages. The same has been mentioned in section 57 of the copyright act.

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention urges the members of the Berne Union to provide legal recognition for the moral rights of attribution and integrity in a work in which copyright exists.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044

ISSUE:

Whether the state legislature is competent to enact the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960?

RULE:

Entry 24 and 25 in the state list says that the State legislature has exclusive power to pass laws relating to "industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List and Gas and gas-works" respectively. Entry 24 needs to read along with Entry 7 and 52 of the list.

Entry 52 of the state lists includes "Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein."

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, AIR 2002 SC 852

ISSUE:

Whether the Tobacco Board Act enacted by the Parliament under Entry 52 of List I can be held to be constitutionally valid and within the legislative competence of the Parliament?

Can both the Acts, namely the tobacco board act and the Agricultural Produce Market Act, be allowed to operate?

If there is a repugnancy between the two, then whether the Central Act would prevail?

RULE:

Entry 52 of the Union List says that the Union can legislate on “Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.”

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 465

ISSUE:

Whether the Armed Forces [Special Powers] Act and the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955, unconstitutional?

Whether by conferring itself the power to declare an area as a "disturbed area", the centre is legislating on the matter of public order, which has been mentioned as an entry under the State List.

RULE:

Article 248 of the Constitution states that the parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List.

Moreover, by the 42nd amendment, Entry 2A was added to the Union lists, which is as follows- "deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any state in aid of the civil power, powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment."

Public order has been mentioned as an entry in the state list.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

State of Kerala v. Mar Apparem Kuri Company, AIR 2012 SC 2375

ISSUE:

Whether the making of the law or its commencement brings about repugnancy or inconsistency as envisaged in Article 254(1) of the Constitution?

What would be the effect of law if such an act is repealed on the grounds of repugnancy?

RULE:

Article 254 (1) of the Constitution essentially states that if there is any inconsistency between laws passed by Parliament and those passed by a state legislature, the former should prevail.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Territory and Reorganisation

Babulal Parate v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 51)

ISSUE:

Whether section 8 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 stands in contravention of Article 3 of the constitution?

Whether the word " proposal" mentioned in the proviso of Article 3 also includes subsequent amendments made to the proposal?

RULE:

Article 3 lists down the powers of the parliament to make a law in respect of any of the five matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) thereof. These powers include the power to make laws to increase the area of any State; diminish the area of any State, and alter the name of any State.

But, the proviso to this article lays down two conditions for the exercise of this power. It states that no bill shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Territory and Reorganisation

In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 1962 SC 845

ISSUE:

Whether there is a need for legislative action for the implementation of an agreement relating to the Berubari union?

When there is such a need, is a law of Parliament in relation to Article 3 of the Constitution of India sufficient for the purpose or is an amendment of the Constitution necessary?

Will a law enacted by Parliament under Article 3 of our Constitution be sufficient for the execution of the Agreement regarding the Exchange of Enclaves, or is an amendment to the Constitution under Article 368 of our Constitution required? And if necessary, should it be considered in addition or as an alternative?

RULE:

Article 3(c) of the Constitution of India, 1950 states that Parliament may by law ‘diminish the area of any state’. Even the widest interpretation of this Article would be insufficient to accept the argument that any territory of India may be transferred to a foreign State.

Article 368 of the Constitution of India, 1950 includes the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and consists of the procedure for the same. With the help of this Article, the Parliament may make a law with which the Agreement can be enforced for the transfer of enclaves of Berubari Union to Pakistan.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now