{"id":97561,"date":"2017-01-09T09:56:49","date_gmt":"2017-01-09T04:26:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=97561"},"modified":"2017-01-09T09:56:49","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T04:26:49","slug":"2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Copyright Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 51, 14 and 55 \u2014 Infringement of copyright in copy-edited version of judgments published in\u00a0Supreme Court Cases (SCC):<\/strong> Copyrights in copyedited versions of judgments published in Supreme Court Cases (SCC) as\u00a0recognized and upheld in Eastern Book Company<\/em> v. D.B. Modak<\/em>, (2008) 1 SCC 1<\/a>, affirmed by the directions to appellant-defendants to follow the law laid down in Modak case while publishing, selling and distributing the raw judgments of the\u00a0Supreme Court with their own inputs. [Relx India (P) Ltd. (Formerly Reed Elsevier India (P) Ltd.) v. Eastern Book Co., (2017)\u00a01 SCC 1<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Tort Law \u2014 Employees\u2019 Compensation Act, 1923 \u2014 Ss. 30 and 4(1) (c)(ii) \u2014 Appeal to High Court \u2014 Interference with\u00a0findings of facts by High Court \u2014 When permissible:<\/strong> When there is no perversity in findings of fact of authorities below,\u00a0interference with findings of fact, impermissible in such circumstances. [Golla Rajanna v. Divl. Manager, (2017) 1 SCC 45<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Retirement\/Superannuation \u2014 Retiral benefits \u2014 Gratuity and pension:<\/strong> As there were no departmental\u00a0proceedings initiated against respondent for alleged discrepancy in stock in store of Department which was noticed after more\u00a0than five months of retirement of respondent nor any proceedings as envisaged under Art. 351-A resorted to, hence, no\u00a0interference with impugned judgment affirming order of Single Judge of High Court directing release of remaining amount of\u00a0pension and gratuity called for. [State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 49<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 \u2014 Ss. 13(2), 17\u00a0and 34 r\/w S. 1(4) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 \u2014 Jurisdiction of Debts\u00a0Recovery Tribunal (DRT) where amount of debt due is less than Rs 10 lakhs:<\/strong> DRT has no original jurisdiction to entertain\u00a0suit or application where debt is less than Rs 10 lakhs, but, it can exercise appellate jurisdiction in terms of S. 17 of 2002 Act\u00a0even if amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakhs. In view of specific bar under S. 34 of 2002 Act, no civil court has jurisdiction\u00a0to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered to determine the dispute under\u00a02002 Act. Thus, civil court has no right to issue any injunction with reference to any action taken under 2002 Act or under 1993\u00a0Act. [State Bank of Patiala v. Mukesh Jain, (2017) 1 SCC 53<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963) \u2014 S. 5(2) \u2014 First sale of goods \u2014 When can be inferred \u2014 Second sale\u00a0exemption \u2014 Entitlement to:<\/strong> For being considered as first sale of goods under S. 5(2), the following conditions are to be satisfied: (i) sale is of manufactured goods being other than tea; (ii) sale of the said goods is under a trade mark or brand name;\u00a0and (iii) sale is by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the State. Further, the objective of S. 5(2) of KGST\u00a0Act is to assess the sale of branded goods by the brand name holder to the market and the inter se sale between brand name\u00a0holders is not intended to be covered by S. 5(2) of the KGST Act. In present case purported \u201cfirst sale\u201d was only a device to\u00a0reduce tax liability, hence assessee not entitled to second sale exemption. [Kail Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2017) 1 SCC 60<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 19, 13, 7, 10, 11 and 15 \u2014 Sanction for prosecution:<\/strong> For IRS officer cadre\u00a0controlling authority is Finance Minister of India and as such sanction for prosecution granted by him was valid sanction.\u00a0Further held, fact that in administrative notings different authorities like CVC, DoPT had opined differently, is inconsequential\u00a0since business of State being complicated, it has necessarily to be conducted through agency of large number of officials and\u00a0authorities. Besides, ultimate decision to accord sanction was taken by Finance Minister who was the competent authority.Moreover, sanction was accorded after proper application of mind and at no point there was decision not to grant sanction so as\u00a0to give decision to grant sanction colour of review. Opinion of CVC which was reaffirmed and ultimately prevailed in according\u00a0sanction cannot be said to be irrelevant. [Vivek Batra v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 69<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Contempt of Court \u2014 Civil Contempt \u2014 Interpretation\/doubt as to order \u2014 Contempt petition \u2014 When can be\u00a0considered as review petition to clarify such doubt:<\/strong> As dispute between the parties required determination of date from which\u00a0interest was required to be paid in terms of court order which was omitted in said order, therefore, issue considered not under\u00a0contempt jurisdiction but in review jurisdiction. [Dravya Finance (P) Ltd. v. S.K. Roy, (2017) 1 SCC 75<\/a>]<\/p>\n

M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) \u2014 S. 3(1) \u2014 Term \u201cprocessing\u201d as used in definition of \u201cmines\u201d \u2014\u00a0Interpretation of:<\/strong> In Expln. (b) to S. 3(1) words, \u201ccrushing\u201d, \u201ctreating\u201d and \u201ctransporting\u201d are words of narrower significance\u00a0and the word \u201cprocessing\u201d used between these words should not be given a very wide meaning, for the legislative intent, is\u00a0narrower. Further, the word \u201cprocessing\u201d would mean those processes with the help of hands or machineries connected and\u00a0linked to mining activity and would not include process by which a new or different article other than the one which has been\u00a0mined, is produced. Therefore, \u201cprocessing\u201d in the said context would mean activities in order to make the mineral mined\u00a0marketable, saleable and transportable, without substantially changing the identity of the mineral, as mined. S. 3(1) prescribed\u00a0different rates of duty depending on the purpose for which the electrical energy is sold and the \u201crate of duty as percentage of the\u00a0electricity tariff per unit\u201d for mines was specified as 40. Further, ferromanganese alloy manufactured by the appellant using the\u00a0mineral manganese at its ferromanganese plant was an entirely different product from its mineral raw material (manganese ore)\u00a0both physically and even chemically. Also, unlike manganese ore a ferromanganese alloy can never be found in the natural state\u00a0and it has to be manufactured from the manganese ore and other minerals only. The same logic applied to copper concentrate also, as a different and distinct product comes into existence. Hence, conversion of mineral ores i.e. manganese ore to\u00a0ferromanganese and copper ore to copper amounts to \u201cmanufacturing\u201d and hence was liable to tariff applicable to manufacturing\u00a0units. [Manganese Ore India Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2017) 1 SCC 81<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 304-B and 498-A r\/w S. 113-B, Evidence Act, 1872 \u2014 Dowry death \u2014 Presumption under S. 113-B \u2014 Invocation of:<\/strong> Mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient\u00a0to convict accused under Ss. 304-B and 498-A. Only when prosecution proves beyond doubt that deceased was subjected to\u00a0cruelty\/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, presumption under S. 113-B can be invoked.\u00a0[Baijnath v. State of M.P., (2017) 1 SCC 101<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 340 & 195 \u2014 Initiation of prosecution for perjury \u2014 Preconditions therefor:<\/strong> Mere fact\u00a0that a contradictory statement was made in judicial proceeding is not by itself sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury. It\u00a0must be established that such act was committed intentionally. [Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC\u00a0113<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Infrastructure Laws \u2014 Water and Water Resources \u2014 Interlinking of river projects\/Networking of rivers \u2014 Sutlej- Yamuna Canal link \u2014 Sharing of river water by State of Punjab with State of Haryana:<\/strong> Haryana is constructing canal on\u00a0its side by making huge investments but State of Punjab delaying in constructing canal in spite of valid agreements and decree\u00a0under Art. 131 and orders of Supreme Court to complete it within specified time period, instead State of Punjab enacting the\u00a0Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 to discharge itself of its obligations under said agreements and decree and final\u00a0order of Supreme Court, hence, Punjab Act, held, invalid. [Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, In Re, (2017) 1 SCC\u00a0121<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 \u2014 S. 12(c) \u2014 Applicability:<\/strong> After vesting of undivided shares of other heirs in\u00a0the said other heirs, adoption has no effect on such vested undivided shares. [Saheb Reddy v. Sharanappa, (2017) 1 SCC 142<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Copyright Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 51, 14 and 55 \u2014 Infringement of copyright in copy-edited version of judgments published in\u00a0Supreme Court Cases <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[13041],"class_list":["post-97561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-cases-reported-in-scc"],"yoast_head":"\n2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Copyright Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 51, 14 and 55 \u2014 Infringement of copyright in copy-edited version of judgments published in\u00a0Supreme Court Cases\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-01-09T04:26:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/\",\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-09T04:26:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1","og_description":"Copyright Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 51, 14 and 55 \u2014 Infringement of copyright in copy-edited version of judgments published in\u00a0Supreme Court Cases","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-01-09T04:26:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/","name":"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2017-01-09T04:26:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/2017-scc-vol-1-january-7-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 7, 2017 Part 1"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":87891,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/25\/supreme-court-confirms-injunction-against-lexisnexis-in-the-ebc-copyright-infringement-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court confirms injunction against LexisNexis in the EBC copyright infringement case","author":"SM","date":"November 25, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by LexisNexis against the\u00a0injunction granted by the Allahabad High Court on 1.4.2014 in favour of Eastern Book Company, a Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and R.V. Ramana, JJ disposed of the appeal by\u00a0a short order in the following manner: \u201cThe appellants will be at liberty\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":109171,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/28\/allahabad-hc-confirms-injunction-against-thomson-reuters-in-scc-copyright-matter\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":1},"title":"Allahabad HC confirms injunction against Thomson Reuters in SCC copyright infringement matter","author":"SM","date":"February 28, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed by Thomson Reuters South Asia against the\u00a0injunction granted by the District Judge, Lucknow\u00a0on 29.3.2013 in favour of Eastern Book Company, a Division Bench of Sudhir Agarwal and Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. disposed of the appeal following the Supreme Court's order in Relx India\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":266648,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/11\/2022-scc-vol-3-part-5-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":2},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 3 Part 5","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Read four articles and nine significant decisions of Supreme Court in Part 5 of 2022 SCC Volume 3. Appointment of Arbitrators: In this article, the author discusses the issue of validity of party appointed arbitrators in the case of multi-arbitrator tribunals, such as a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. Unilateral Appointment of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271583,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/12\/chief-justice-of-india-nv-ramana-releases-scc-pre-69-volumes-by-ebc\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":3},"title":"Chief Justice of India NV Ramana releases SCC Pre 69 Volumes by EBC","author":"Editor","date":"August 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"SCC Pre 69 Volumes were released by the Chief Justice of India, Justice NV Ramana on August 10, 2022 at The Claridges, New Delhi.\u00a0 Justice BV Nagarathna, Judge, Supreme Court of India and Mr Arvind P Datar, Senior Advocate were the special guests for the evening.\u00a0\u00a0 The event also witnessed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "New releases"","block_context":{"text":"New releases","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/book-releases\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Untitled-design.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Untitled-design.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Untitled-design.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Untitled-design.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Untitled-design.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":99101,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/17\/cases-reported-in-scc-2017-scc-vol-1-january-14-2017-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":4},"title":"Cases reported in SCC : 2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 14, 2017 Part 2","author":"Saba","date":"January 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 243-ZD: Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme as introduced by State of U.P. similar to MPLADS, not violative of Art. 243-ZD and U.P. District Planning Committee Act, 1999 (32 of 1999). [Lok Prahari v. State of U.P.,\u00a0(2017) 1 SCC 244] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 156, 157\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266015,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/27\/2022-scc-vol-3-part-3-supreme-court-cases-cases-reported\/","url_meta":{"origin":97561,"position":5},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 3 Part 3","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In this Part, read a very interesting Supreme Court decision, held that, wherein the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users\/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers\/suppliers, as consideration for the resale\/use of the computer software through EULAs\/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97561\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}