Prashant Bhushan, the Supreme Court lawyer who is famous for filing public interest litigation in Supreme Court on almost every matter and who has difficulty in hiding his political distaste for present regime has been issued notice of show cause over his two scandalous tweets.
Offending tweets of Prashant Bhushan:
Twitter has withheld the tweets of Prashant Bhushan but Prashant’s friend Yogendra Yadav has retweeted following screenshots of the offending tweets. This is the screen shot:
Validity of 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India?
The Governor in the exercise of powers under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the legislature of the State. The Governor can direct that such law shall not apply tothe Scheduled Areas or any part thereof. The Governor is empowered to apply such law to the Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify148in the notification and can also issue a notification with retrospective effect.
2(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?
The Governor is empowered under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions and modifications.The Governor can make a provision within the parameters of amendment/ modification of the Act of Parliament or State legislature.The power to make new laws/regulations, is provided in Para 5(2),Fifth Schedule of the Constitution for the purpose mentioned therein,not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?
Merely disowning a son by late father or by the family, is not going to deprive him of any right in the property to which he may be otherwise entitled in accordance with the law. The pertinent question needs to be tried in a civil suit and adjudicated finally, it cannot be decided by NCLT in proceedings in question. Hence, we refrain from deciding the aforesaid question raised on behalf of the appellants in the present proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, it would not be appropriate to permit respondent No.1 to continue the proceedings for mismanagement initiated under sections 241 and 242, that too in the absence of having 10% shareholding and firmly establishing his rights in civil proceedings to the extent he is claiming in the shareholding of the companies.
With regard to the dispute as to right, title, and interest in the securities, the finding of the civil Court is going to be final and conclusive and binding on parties. The decision of such a question has to be eschewed in instant proceedings.It would not be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant a waiver to the respondent of the requirement under the proviso to section 244 of the Act, as ordered by the NCLAT.
We are of the opinion that the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.The entitlement of respondent No.1 is under a cloud of pending civil dispute. We deem it appropriate to direct the dropping of the proceedings filed before the NCLT regarding oppression and mismanagement under sections 241 and 242 of the Act with the liberty to file afresh, on all the questions, in case of necessity, if the suit is decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and shareholding of respondent No.1 increases to the extent of 10% required under section 244.
A generic name is the name of a class of products or services, is ineligible for trademark registration.
Booking.com, a travel-reservation website, sought federal registration of marks including the term “Booking.com.” USA Supreme Court Concluded that “Booking.com” was a generic name for online hotel-reservation services, not eligible to registration as Trademark.
Held: A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers.
(a) Whether a compound term is generic turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers a class of goods or services. The courts below determined, and the PTO no longer disputes, that consumers do not in fact perceive the term “Booking.com” that way. Because “Booking.com” is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic.
This is a legal guide written in accordance with Indian Law but it may generally be correct for all countries following Anglo-Saxon laws. Further, succession to immovable properties situated in India, shall be regulated by Indian Laws, irrespective of the domicile of such person. In other words, foreigners who own immovable assets in India, shall have to confirm to Indian Laws to make a legally competent and operative Will. This book is intended to act only as a brief introduction to the laws relating to Wills and is not intended to replace legal advice from a competent practitioner of law. This book is intended to remove doubts and myths about Wills which are compounded by free misinformation available on the Internet either as a web page or guide-lines in pdf format. The target readers are law students and amateur beginners who wish to draft their own Will. Various specimen of Wills are also included with the book. It is however strongly advised that after drafting a Will in accordance with this book, do consult a Lawyer of your choice and get it vetted from him/her. Caution: This book is generally applicable to Hindus, Sikh, Jain etc. domiciled in India. Most part of this Book may not be applicable to Indian Christians, Muslims and Parsees who are governed by separate customary law. It also do not apply to armymen, airmen and marines who are entitled to execute privileged (oral) Wills.
This is the self-help book on drafting of Wills:
Click at any of the following links to a free sample of this book on Wills: