Delhi HC organises National Seminar on Adjudication of IPR Disputes in India.
Chief Guest NV Ramana, Chief Justice of India and Guest of Honour Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs. @nsitharaman
Chief Justice DN Patel, Delhi High Court welcoming the guests.
Justice Prathiba M Singh, Chairperson, IP Division Delhi informing about the vision said, an IP friendly adjudication regime will encourage local businesses and also recognise foreign IP owners.
Guest of Honour Nirmala Sitharaman, Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs addressing the gathering said, "India is a State where growth and the focus on development has got to be strengthened from every side and IPR plays a very important role in that.
Sitharaman: The boost that is given through the support of Judiciary has actually encouraged more innovation, more copyrights and more patents in India.
Chief Guest, NV Ramana, Chief Justice of India speaking at the event said that in the field of IP a big background in the development of law should be looked into.
Justice Ramana further said that there is a emergent need to fill up the vacancies and there is also a need to increase the number of Judges, with better service conditions we may be able to attract more. Judicial infrastructure also needs to be improved.
Justice Ramana said, "Judicial infrastructure needs to be improved, unfortunately we are not even meeting the basic minimum standards in this area, it has been my endeavour since assuming the office of CJI, to put in place a mechanism."
Justice Sanjiv Narula, Delhi High Court, delivering the vote of thanks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Supreme Court to shortly pronounce its verdict in the batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
CJI Surya Kant begins reading from the judgment.
CJI: SIR is NOT IN CONFLICT with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned SIR does not supplant the Representation of the People Act and the Rules. Rather, it breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324 within the precise statutory contours provided by Section 21(3). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted in excess of its statutory powers.
🚨In Delhi High Court today: Justice Manoj Jain to hear the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and all accused in the liquor policy case.
The matter was reassigned after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against them and transferred the case.
Matter taken up.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appears for CBI.
Advocate Zoheb Hossian appears for ED.
Court: Taking note of the counsels who are present for the respondents. There is no representation for Respondents 3, 8, 18, 19.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: We have filed an affidavit stating that the notice of March 9 is served on all the respondents. Parties had appeared, filed an application and argued. Not going into merits of the case. This is a case of serious allegations, chargesheet was filed. Respondents filed discharge applications.
Judges of the Supreme Court of Bhutan along with other court officials to attend hearing in courtroom 1 today.
Senior Adv Jaideep Gupta: As far as social welfare and reform are concerned, I only wish to make one submission. Why are these concepts located within the constitutional provisions dealing with religion at all?
Gupta: The reason is that many social rules and practices historically came to be sanctified as religious customs. Therefore, if the State wishes to undertake social reform, it may inevitably have to engage with religion itself. That is why Constitution grants power to the State.
BREAKING: After Arvind Kejriwal, now Manish Sisodia (@msisodia) writes to Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, says HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE further in PERSON OR THROUGH COUNSEL in CBI’s appeal challenging discharge in the Excise Policy case, citing “conscience” and concerns over appearance of impartiality.
🚨Manish Sisodia backs Arvind Kejriwal’s stand, says he is in “respectful agreement” with his Satyagraha-based refusal. Flags concerns over judge’s association with ABAP and children’s engagement with Union Govt panels linked to Solicitor GeneralTushar Mehta.
"I wish to state that two aspects of this case trouble me a lot. The first is the issue arising from Your Ladyship's repeated public attendance of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers' organisation publicly understood to belong to the RSS. The second is the issue arising from the professional engagement of Your Ladyship's children on multiple Union Government panels, and the resulting appearance of closeness to the very law officers who now appear against me on the other side. Mr. Kejriwal's letter factually sets out the professional dependence of your children on Mr. Tushar Mehta who is solely responsible for marking the large number of case dockets to them, particularly your son,” Manish Sisodia’s letter reads.
Supreme Court lambasts West Bengal government over indefinite delay in completing Kolkata Metro’s Orange Line.
State of WB: Please give us time till May. Now elections are there.
CJI: Do not politicise everything.. this is a development issue.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi: For you festival is more important than development! You told High Court that you have festivals to take care of. Festival is more important than construction of transport. We do not expect democratically elected government to knock on our doors for this. We will not allow the state to use this to stall development again.
CJI: This was a fit case where your Chief Secretary, DGP should have been subjected to action. This shows complete deriliction of your constitutional duty. This is just an attempt to politicise an issue..
#MadrasHighCourt to continue hearing appeals challenging a single judge order of December 1 that permitted lighting of #KarthigaiDeepam atop an ancient pillar (#deepathoon) on #ThiruparankundramHill
Bench: Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan
Senior Advocate S Sriram (for Hindu devotee): The right to worship cannot be confined only to Article 25. It is also a facet of the right to expression under Article 19.