DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA

                                            Patent Act The Patents Act 1970 had a very limited scope of protection wherein the essential elements of invention were new, useful and manner of manufacture. The Act defines 'capable of industrial application' in relation to an invention as capable of being made or used in an industry.            A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent application. Effects of Patent Amendment Act 2005 1. Due to the new patent regime, increased prices of products was considered to be a major hindrance during the time. However, the government has taken proactive measures to ensure low prices for essential drugs, and has used compulsory licensing as a tool to keep exorbitant prices under check. 2. Th

  Lifting the Corporate Veil Meaning and Definition of Corporate Veil A corporate veil is a legal concept that separates the acts done by the companies and organizations from the actions of the shareholders. It protects the shareholders from being liable for the actions done by the company. This is not an absolute right the court depending on the facts of the case can take the decision whether the shareholder is liable or not. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, “shareholders may hide behind the corporate veil, assured that their liability does not extend beyond the value of their shares”  Company: A Separate Legal Entity (Corporate Personality) Corporate personality is the reality expressed by the law that a company is perceived as a legal entity distinct from its members. A company with such recognition and personality will be considered as a separate legal entity having an independent legal existence from the members of the company. A company is known by its own name and has its

  Kehar Singh v Union of India : Case Analysis Facts The Court in Kehar Singh,which is also the main concern of this article, went one step further in this regard. Kehar Singh was convicted of an offence under sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the assassination of Indira Gandhi, who was the Prime Minister at the time. He was convicted at the trial stage by the Additional Sessions Judge, and all his appeals to higher authorities failed, by way of dismissals. On application to the President for the grant of pardon under Article 72, they pleaded that the guilty verdict was erroneous, and it was a prayer for a plea of clemency. It was further urged that they be granted an opportunity of the oral hearing. The President refused to grant pardon, with the reasoning that they cannot go into the merits of the case that has been finally decided by the Highest Court. The petitioner was also not granted an oral hearing. The main issue raised is whether the President

  REVIEW OF BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB          INTRODUCTION   This case marks a watershed moment in the Supreme Court's history, as it was decided by a five-judge bench. The Supreme Court established the "rarest of the rare" doctrine in this decision, which placed significant restrictions on the death penalty. "A genuine and enduring concern for the dignity of human life presupposes resistance to taking a life through the instrumentality of law," the Supreme Court stated. This should only be done in the rarest of circumstances where the opposite opinion is absolutely excluded."   FACTS   Bachan Singh, the appellant, was found guilty of his wife's murder and sentenced to life in jail. He was living with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family after completing his sentence (i.e. after his release), but Hukam Singh's wife and son objected to the appellant's residence in their home. Vidya Bai was woken by an alarm a few days prior to this incide

  CASE COMMENT ON MC MEHTA VS UOI INTRODUCTION This case has played a vital role in framing rather guiding the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; it deals with the functioning of factories and other enterprises dealing with hazardous resources or materials. FACTS M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, filed a writ suit seeking the closure of Shriram Industries, which was involved in the manufacture of hazardous substances and was located in a highly populated area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi. While the petition was pending, a leak of oleum gas from one of its units occurred on December 4, 1985, killing one advocate and affecting the health of numerous others. A number of mechanical and human mistakes led to the leaking.  This leak was caused by the rupture of an oleum gas tank as a result of the collapse of the structure on which it was mounted, and it caused panic among the residents of the region. After the population had hardly recovered from the shock of the calamity, another leak occurre

   ANTITRUST LAW AGAINST GOOGLE INTRODUCTION Google had been sued by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for antitrust violations. Google was accused by the Department of Justice of illegally establishing a monopoly in general search services and search advertising. According to the DOJ, Google utilises its financial clout to bribe mobile phone manufacturers, carriers, and browsers to keep Google as their default search engine, creating a self-reinforcing dominance cycle.According to the allegations, these illicit trade practises result in an unprecedented concentration of market power in the hands of digital platforms such as Google. ALLEGATIONS In the digital economy, Google is one of the most important companies. It has positioned itself as a global leader in the Internet ecosystem due to its inventiveness. Google has built leading digital products based on a review of this. Google's licenced operating system, Android, for example, dominates the smartphone market, while the Chrom

  Steps to File an FIR FIR stands for ‘First Information Report.’ A First Information Report as the name suggests is the first step towards any criminal proceeding that leads to the trial and subsequent punishment of a criminal. Let us look at the provisions of law which empower this document Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973  deals with the information in cognizable offence. According to this section every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if  given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over the informant and every such information, either given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person given it and the substantive there of shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the state Government may prescribe in this behalf. A copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant of the F

  Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India: Case Analysis Brief Facts The petitioner, an association committed to the reason of the arrival of reinforced workers in the nation, tended to a letter to Hon’ble Bhagwati, J. asserting: (1) that there were a large number of workers from various parts of the nation who were working in some of the stone quarries arrange in area Faridabad, the State of Haryana under “brutal and insufferable conditions; (2) that a large number of them were reinforced workers; (3) that the arrangements of the Constitution and different social welfare laws went to help the said labourers were definitely not being actualized with respect to these labourers. The candidate also referenced in the letter the names of the stone quarries and points of interest of workers who were functioning as fortified workers and implored that a writ is given for legitimate usage of the different provisions of the social welfare enactment, for example,  Mines Act, 1952 Inter-State Migran

 CASE STUDY: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932) Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the ‘snail in the bottle case’, is a significant case in Western law. The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928. While attending a store, Ms May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased for her by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not made of clear glass, Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail. She later fell ill. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking £500 damages. Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased the drink herself. Instead, Donoghue’s la