Daksha Legal

Harikrishna Holla & S. Basavaraj Senior Advocates, Bangalore.  1. The legislation on copyright in India is the Copyright Act, 1957. Few provisions of the Act are necessary to be extracted to understand the issue in question. 2. Section 2 (a) (iv) defines copyright in relation to a musical work to mean any arrangement or transcription of the work. Section 2 (d) defines ‘author’ in relation to a musical work as the composer. Section 2(p) defines ‘musical work’ to mean a work consisting of music and includes any graphical notation of such work but does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. Section 2 (m) defines ‘infringing copy’ in relation to music to mean a reproduction thereof otherwise. 3. Section 51 says that Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner ...

  Justice Krishna Dixit of the Karnataka High Court has ordered a defaulting party to donate books to the Karnataka State Bar Council Law Academy instead of imposing costs. Courts normally impose costs on the defaulting parties at the time allowing the application for condonation of delay or restoration of petition/appeal which was dismissed for default. The cost amount is paid to Advocates Welfare Fund or Legal Services Authority.  However, directing the defaulting party to donate books to the library of the Karnataka State Bar Council is really admirable.  KSBC Law Academy has received ten books of "Learning The Law" by A.T.H Smith and "Law & Social Transformation" by Shri. P. Ishwara Bhat.  S.Basavaraj, Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council Law Academy. 

  S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru.  The Karnataka Government has taken a decision on 8:10:2022 to increase the quota for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from existing 15% and 3% to 17% and 7%. It also proposes to include the legislation in the 9th schedule of the Constitution of India. The article deals with challenge that can be made to a legislation on the doctrine of basic structure and the development of the doctrine.  Overture: With the Supreme Court recognising Articles 14, 19 and 21 golden triangle as part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1, challenge to amendment of the Constitution on the anvil of Article 13(2) as enunciated in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 has finally reached its original destination at least to a quintessential level. Article 13 which occurs in Part III Fundamental Rights, as it originally enacted in 1950, read thus; 13. Laws inconsistent with o...

  B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka  The decision of the Karnataka Cabinet taken today (08.10.2022) to increase the quota for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from existing 15% and 3% to 17% and 7% without any alteration of other quotas such as Other Backward Class and General Category clearly amounts to flouting the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which renders void any reservation beyond 50%. The law in force in Karnataka already permits for reservation to the fullest extent of 50% in the following ratio: Other Backward Class                35% Scheduled Castes                      17% Scheduled Tribes                        3% Total                                     ...

     Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others. Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:  (i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act? (iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion...

    Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others. Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:  (i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act? (iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ unde...

   Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others. Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:  (i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act? (iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under...

  Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others. Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:  (i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act? (iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Artic...

  Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others. Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022 Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia 23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:  (i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act? (iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under A...