Union of India the Supreme Court had observed that from the words ‘expressed to be made’ and ‘executed’ in Article 299 it is clear that the Government contract should be made by a formal written contract. The court also held these formalities under Article 299 are of mandatory nature and they cannot be skipped by the contracting parties. If there is any contravention of these provisions then the contract will be nullified it will not be enforceable against the Government. These provisions have been made to safeguard the Government against fake contracts which may be made on their behalf to defraud the people and this is the reason why implied contracts do not have any scope in cases of Government contracts.
Union of India. The copyright of applications that depended on the Shrinkwrap software packaging was decided by the Madras High Court. It demonstrated how a DVD/CD produced can be included with more than one hardware and how time-consuming and complex it is to distribute physical copies of licenses to various places where clients are located.
Union of India. 1. The Republic of Indica (hereinafter referred to as Indica) is a democratic country situated in the Southern part of the Asian Sub Continent. It is the most populous country, the seventh-largest country in the area, and the biggest democracy in the world. It is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multi-ethnic society. The beginning of the 21st Century witnessed a boom in Indica in trade and commerce, infrastructural development, education, healthcare, and so on.
Union of India. Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 2706-2716 of 2013 (Apr. 1, 2013). See Xxxxxx & Shadlen, supra note 161, at 1. 163. Promoting Access, supra note 99, at 178. XXXXXXX 2.3 AT 1030AM .DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/3/21 10:59 AM 32 Gonzaga Journal of International Law Vol. 24: 1 The view that Article 31bis is ahead of its time, and that more compulsory licenses (both as a part of and outside the framework provided by the Article) would be granted, however, is challenged by recent data that show that the issuance of compulsory licenses have actually decreased in the years since 2006, the year of the Doha Declaration.164 Therefore, it is possible that, in time, this may turn out to be the case, but currently, it is not clear that we are headed in this direction. Articles 65 and 66 of the TRIPS Agreement, pertaining to transitional agreements and least-developed country members, allow for various transition periods after the adoption of the WTO and TRIPS frameworks.165 In short, these expiration periods are soon to expire (on July 1, 2021, if they are not extended), meaning that the provisions will be in full force, thereby theoretically allowing for potential importing members to fully take advantage of the compulsory licensing framework provided for in Article 31bis.166 It remains to be seen whether the expiration of the transitional grace period will actually result in more usage of the Article 31bis provisions, or whether the negative reception of Rwanda-Canada will play a role in preventing this from coming to fruition. In summary, there are reasonable arguments suggesting that Article 31bis is working as planned and that it may pick up speed in the coming years, yet upon a careful analysis of these contentions, the arguments do not stand, and the shortcomings of Article 31bis are revealed in even xxxxxx force. At this point, it becomes important to ask what potential solutions can be achieved, and what lessons can be learned from the first-ever amendment to the TRIPS agreement.
Union of India. AIR 2005 SC 4256. Xxxxxxxx is a command issued by a court asking a public authority to perform a public duty belonging to its office. “For example, when a tribunal omits to decide a matter which it is bound to decide, it can be commanded to determine the question which it has left undecided. Xxxxxxxx can be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on the authority in question and the petitioner has a legal right to compel the performance of his duty”. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Writ of Mandamus: A Brief Analysis, xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xx/blogs/entry/writ-of-mandamus--a-brief-analysis; Mysore vs. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, AIR 1965 SC 532; NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2351; N.S. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx vs.Union of India, AIR 1995 Mad 129; X. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1995 Mad.197; Xxxxx & Co., vs. Commercial Employees Ass., AIR 1952 SC 179; Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 182; Madhya Pradesh vs. Mandavar, AIR 1954 SC 493; XxxxxXxx vs .India, AIR 1957 SC 529; K.V. Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx vs. Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993; T.G. Goakarvs.X.X. Xxxxxx, AIR 1968 SC 1050; Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617. issues, such as, the Atomic Energy Act592 and the Wild Life Protection Act,593 which were passed. The Atomic Energy Act governs the regulation of nuclear energy and radioactive substances. Under this Act the Union Government is required to prevent radiation hazards, guarantee safety of public and of workers handling radioactive substances, and ensure the disposal of radioactive wastes. The Wild Life Protection Act provides a statutory framework for protecting wild animals, plants and their habitats. The Act adopts a two–pronged conservation strategy: protecting specific endangered species regardless of location, and protecting all species in designated areas called sanctuaries and national parks.594 The Indian judiciary has also been proactive and quick enough to underline the importance of the emerging environmental principles, namely, the Polluter Pays and Precautionary Principle which have assumed a great significance as part of sustainable development in the recent times with a growing awareness amongst the common masses for the preservation of environment and biological diversities.595 Beginning from the State of Himachal Pradesh V. Xxxxxx Xxxx Products case in 1995, the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has included within the purview of sustainable development the Polluter Pays Principle ...
Union of India. [Oleum Gas Leak case]638 for the first time. It was used for determining the amount of compensation and fixing the liability of the polluter in absolute terms. In the words of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, “such an activity can be tolerated only on the condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not”.639 The Constitution Xxxxx also assigned the reason for stating the law in the said terms that the enterprise [carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity] alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers - and not the person affected - and the practical difficulty [on the part of the affected person] in establishing the absence of reasonable care. The Court appreciated the suggestions put forth by the Report and went on to discuss the principle. It observed, “The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.”640 The Court emphatically held that the law stated by Supreme Court in Oleum Gas Leak Case was by far the more appropriate one - apart from the fact that it is binding upon the present. It held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The Court went to the extent of straightforwardly holding that the law declared in the said decision was the law governing this case. The Court recognized the principle as an internationally accepted one and thus acknowledged its Indian obligation. The polluter industries were asked to close down and pay the amount for the 638 X.X. Xxxxx v. UOI, 1987 1 SCR 819. 639 Ibid. 640 Ibid.
Union of India. 642 The Court held that as the polluters are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers, soil and the underground water in the affected area, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying there. The Polluter Pays’ principle as interpreted by Court meant that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also to restore the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable development and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Court went on to declare the Principles as having been accepted as part of the law of the land. It referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India which aims to guarantee protection of life and personal liberty. Xxxxxx was also paid to Article 47,643 48A7644 and 51A (g)645 of the Constitution which are the duties of state for protecting the environment and maintaining a decent standard of living.
Union of India wherein the Court reiterated that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. The Supreme Court has thus settled that one who pollutes the environment must pay to reverse the damages caused by his acts. The 641 AIR 1996 SC 2715. 642 1996 (5) SCC 281. 643 Article 47- Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except from medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. 644 Article 47- Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except from medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. 645 Article 51A(g)- To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Union of India. 657 The Supreme Court, referring to Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution of India, observed that the aforementioned principles are part of the constitutional law. It also referred to Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v.
