Month: July 2020

Copyright Law–Dramatic work–Provisions of the Act make a distinction between the ‘literary work’ and ‘dramatic work’–Copyright in respect of performance of ‘dance’ would not come within the purview of the literary work but would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’–Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(h) and

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1000 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan…

Service Matters

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – Section 68 – Qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff – HELD 2016 Act actually replaces the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. But the Act does not override the Special Rules. Petition dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde,…

Conditions For Transferring Cases from High Courts Under Article 139A To Apex Court: SCOI HELD “The points involved in the said Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition pending in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana require adjudication of substantially the same questions of law. These questions have arisen in two different States and in my opinion these are substantial questions of general importance.”,

The Supreme Court has withdrawn to itself a writ petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging a notification issued by the State of Haryana providing for 10%…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea – Article 5(1) – No permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Assessee was wholly or partly carried on.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

S C O I  Directs Compassionate Appointment In 21 Yrs Old Case, HELD Section 108 Evidence Act, stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.

   Section 108 stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years…

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 – Rule 4 – Fixation of fees – The interim fee fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Government without following the drill of Rule 4 has correctly been found to be prima facie illegal and has therefore correctly been suspended

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

IMP :: WILL proof when both attesting witness are dead.HELD in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of one of the attesting witness is in his handwriting. The language of the Section is clear and unambiguous. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as interpreted by this Court, contemplates attestation of both attesting witnesses to be proved. But that is not the requirement in Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

HELD “in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.