Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-18-2007
Gonzales v. Carhart - 05-380 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 GONZALES V. CARHART SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v . CARHART etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 05380.Argued November 8, 2006Decided April 18, 2007 Following this Courts Stenberg v. Carhart , 530 U. S. 914 , decision that Nebraskas partial birth abortion statute violated the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey , 505 U. S. 833 , and Roe v. Wade , 410 U. S. 113 , Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in the later stages of pregnancy. The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, dilation and evacuation (D&E;), the doctor dilates the cervix and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-2007
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. - 05-608 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIMMUNE, INC. v . GENENTECH, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05608.Argued October 4, 2006Decided January 9, 2007 After the parties entered into a patent license agreement covering, inter alia , respondents then-pending patent application, the application matured into the Cabilly II patent. Respondent Genentech, Inc., sent petitioner a letter stating that Synagis, a drug petitioner manufactured, was covered by the Cabilly II patent and that petitioner owed royalties under the agreement. Although petitioner believed no royalties were due because the patent was invalid and unenforceable and because Synagis did not infringe the patents claims, petitioner considered the letter a clear threat to enforce the patent, terminate the license agreement, and bring a patent infringe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T; Corp. - 05-1056 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T; CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICROSOFT CORP. v . AT&T; CORP. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 051056.Argued February 21, 2007Decided April 30, 2007 It is the general rule under United States patent law that no infringement occurs when a patented product is made and sold in another country. There is an exception. Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, adopted in 1984, provides that infringement does occur when one suppl[ies] from the United States, for combination abroad, a patented inventions components. 35 U. S.C. 271(f)(1). This case concerns the applicability of 271(f) to computer software first sent from the United States to a foreign manufacturer on a master disk, or by electronic transmission, then copied by the foreign recipient for installation on computers made and sold abroad. AT&T; holds a patent on a computer us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-27-2007
Reported in : JT2007(6)SC509; 2007(5)KarLJ321; 2007(6)SCALE206; 2007AIRSCW2635
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants herein have filed this statutory appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 9.6.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 1999(A) whereby and whereunder, a judgment of acquittal passed by a III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad acquitting the appellants herein for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 342, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., was reversed.2. The alleged occurrence took place at about 10.30 A.M. on 13.12.1994 near the Bus stand at Village Ichangi situated in the District of Dharwad. A First Information Report was lodged by one Devendrappa (PW-25). He is the brother of appellants 1 and 2 herein being original accused nos.1 and 2. Appellant No. 4 is married to the sister of the appellants 1 and 2. Appellants 1 and 2 and the first informant allegedl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-15-2007
Reported in : AIR2007SC2599; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)447; 2007(2)BLJR2218; JT2007(7)SC127; 2007(7)SCALE278; (2007)10SCC306
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Central Act') is in question herein.3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:(a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short to be referred as 'the State Veterinary Act') are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-23-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)BomCR467; [2007(113)FLR972]; JT2007(6)SC67; (2007)2LLJ1032SC; 2007(6)SCALE110; (2007)5SCC273; 2007IILLJ1032(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing reference to the Industrial Tribunal and granting interim protection to the workers in the Civil Appeal relating to SLP(C ) No. 594 of 2004.3. First Respondent-General Employees Association (in short the 'Association') had questioned legality of the Circular dated 8.11.2000 issued by the Central Government conveying its decision refusing to abolish and prohibit contract labour in the Civil Works and Carpentry establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No. 1, in W.P. No.7543/2000. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition (who are non-official respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal) were dummy and sham contractors. It was conceded by the writ petitioner that the said issue cannot be considered by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-10-2007
Reported in : [2007]137CompCas1(SC); 2007CriLJ2417; (2008)1GLR307; JT2007(6)SC204; 2008(1)MhLj22; 2007(11)OLR(SC)263; 2007(5)SCALE452; (2007)6SCC528
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code', for short) vis--vis the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act', for short), as regards power to impose sentence of fine is involved in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2006.3. Accused No. 1-M/s. Good value Marketing Co. Ltd., a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Accused No. 2-Appellant herein were convicted for commission of an offence involving Section 138 of the Act by a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.2.2006 holding:The accused No. 1 company M/s. Good value Marketing Co. Ltd. stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 r.w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.The accused No. 1 company, is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In default of paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-10-2007
Reported in : AIR2008SC309; 2008(1)AWC989(SC); I(2008)BC151; (2008)1CompLJ90(SC); JT2007(12)SC27; 2007(11)SCALE750
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This contempt petition arises in a somewhat peculiar circumstance. Petitioner herein is manufacturer of cars. Alleged contemnors were Directors of a Company known as M/s. Mahalaxmi Motors Limited (Company). The Company obtained various advances from the customers on behalf of the petitioner. It, however, did not pay the amount to petitioner herein. Respondents admitted their liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7.63 crores in respect of supply of vehicles made by it, as would appear from the minutes of the meeting dated 5.04.1997 which is as under:7. MML also provided a letter No. 021/MML/97 dated 5.4.1997 wherein they admitted that there was a shortfall of Rs. 7.63 Cr. Respondents also by an affidavit filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted their liability stating:15. In this instance also the Petitioner company had on its own given the particulars of the amounts due from it to the complainant company by its letter dated 5th April, 1997 wherein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-18-2007
Reported in : AIR2007SC2129; [2007(114)FLR413]; JT2007(8)SC581; RLW2007(3)SC1979; 2007(8)SCALE255; (2007)6SCC694; 2008(1)SLJ262(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 08.09.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of 2006, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in CWP No. 1902 of 2001 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders dated 27.09.1999 and 01.12.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively, was allowed in part by converting the punishment of removal from the service of the respondent into compulsory retirement with effect from the date of superannuation i.e. 01.11.1996. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant No.1 herein is a Nationalised Bank. It framed several regulations in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 19(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-19-2007
Reported in : AIR2007SC1828; 2007(4)ALLMR(SC)324; 2007(4)CTC232; JT2007(5)SC12; (2007)6MLJ992(SC); 2007(5)SCALE34; 2008(4)LH(SC)2880
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted.1. The first of the Civil Appeals challenges the decree of the High Court of Karnakata in R.S.A. Nos. 472 and 435 of 1998, both arising out of O.S. No. 67 of 1975. The second challenges the decree in R.S.A. No. 865 of 2000, arising out of O.S. No. 800 of 1992. Both the suits were for redemption and the decrees passed therein are questioned in these appeals by the common plaintiff in them.2. Three items of properties situated in Hubli City in the State of Karnataka are the subject matters of these two suits. Whereas in the first suit O.S. No. 67 of 1975, we are concerned with C.T.S. No. 1015/A/20 having an extent of 29.38 square yards, in O.S. No. 800 of 1992 we are concerned with C.T.S. No. 1015/A/19 having an extent of 14.7 square yards and 1028/2A having an extent of 75 square yards. As seen recited in a deed of partition dated 14.2.1961 entered into by three brothers belonging to a Hindu Mitakshara Family, the said items along with other items b...
Tag this Judgment!