Importance & Benefits of Using a Legal Research Tool

Legal Research sounds simple and easy, but in reality, it's a veritably tough job. The eligibility to conduct legal Research is essential for attorneys, judges, and legal scholars irrespective of the arena or different practices. The most introductory and pivotal step in law research is to find out the leading case executing the data in question and also do fresh research on it. As utmost experimenters know, this is far more dangerous than it sounds.

 

HOW LEGAL RESEARCH BENEFITS IN LAW

A Person assigned for a Legal research have to be informed and enlightened of the essential concepts and aims, and problems of regulation associated with the subject of studies undertaken. Thorough and exhaustive information will assist in figuring out and identifying the regulation in full-size subjects and facts. The inspiration for efficacious criminal studies is to enhance appropriate evaluation processes and to observe a dynamic approach.

If you run a regulation firm, then you definitely in reality want information evaluation as you will now no longer need to pop out as a idiot in the front of your clients. Through information evaluation, you could expect a sure case`s verdict, keep your firm`s budget, inform how an awful lot time a selected case could take, and plenty of different vital things.

 

The key advantages of using Legal Research Tool for legal research:

 

• Provide specialized studies gear and facts databases for lawyers, such as statutes, trial histories, and unique facts on particular exercise areas

• These Tools can assist decrease the margin of error for the duration of litigation and provide customers an aspect in closing the case and maximizing value.

• Helps attorneys to supply the quickest solutions and acquire the most precious insights, imparting a clear strategic benefit

 

 

CONCLUSION

Research in regulation is an quintessential and precise ingredient of the system of regulation rectification. Legal Research backs up the whole thing with proper sources, evidence, and even historic data. You get to have entire know-how about the issue, and all of that facts may additionally be harnessed professionally. You can't memorize a million cases, and you are now not searching for a needle in a haystack. But you can grasp the usual entire approach of studies.

 

 

 

Bombay High Court- Ravi Shinde, Nagpur and Ors. v.Medical Council of India, Dwarka, New Delhi and Anr.

The Petitioners after passing their 12th standard examination, were selected for MBBS course in the year 2005 in their respective colleges and all of them, thereafter, pursued the first MBBS course. They appeared for the examination conducted in or about 3rd July, 2006. All the Petitioners failed in the said regular examination. Thereafter, they took the next supplementary examination conducted in or about November, 2006 and passed the said examination. The grievance of the Petitioners was that Respondent 2-University ought to have allowed the Petitioners, after passing their first supplementary MBBS examination to join the regular batch or the main batch of the second MBBS course. According to the Petitioners, they should have been allowed to take the second MBBS professional examination along with the students of the regular batch who had passed their first MBBS professional examination. They filed Writ Petition under Regulation 7(7) of Regulations of Medical Council of India against the said refusal of university. Held, Respondent No. 1 Medical Council of India entrusted to ensure quality in medical education and also empowered to make regulations for the said purpose. As per Regulation of 1997 a student must undergo training for 18 months before taking second year medical examination. If student fails in Phase 1 examination he must sit for supplementary exam. By the time failed students cleared their supplementary examination, training of other students had already started. Thus, such students cannot insist on being allowed to take second examination with regular students. University has the liberty to hold supplementary exam any time within six months. Passing the supplementary examination would not relate back to the annual examination. By the time, a student passes the supplementary examination, Phase II training for second MBBS professional examination would have already begun. Such a student, therefore, cannot complete 18 months of mandatory training to be eligible to take second MBBS professional examination, which is held during 5th semester. He cannot join the main batch and take second MBBS professional examination with them. Lowering of eligibility norms would adversely affect Medical Education. As per 1997 Regulation requirement of passing 18 months training cannot be done away with. 1997 Regulations held to be mandatory. Petition dismissed.

Source www.manupatra.com

Delhi High Court- Hawkins cookers limited v. M/s Murugan Enterprises

The Plaintiff is manufacture of pressure cookers and parts thereof under the trademark "HAWKINS" for the last 30 years. The Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant was using the trademark HAWKINS/Hawkins in respect of parts of pressure cooker and therefore, served a Cease and Desist Notice on the Defendant. However, as the Defendant did not pay any heed to the same, the Plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. against the sole Defendant. Defendant refuted the allegation on the ground that they only state on their product/gasket that the same is suitable for Hawkins Pressure Cookers. Held, Defendant has its own well-established trademark MAYUR. No reasonable person or purchaser can ever assume a trade connection between MAYUR brand of gaskets and Hawkins. Use of the expression 'Suitable for Hawkins Pressure Cookers' in front of the Defendants product would clearly fall within the exception carved out under Section 30. Condition of 'Honest use' is satisfied, since one cannot decipher a commercial connection between the plaintiff and the Defendant by use of the word HAWKINS by the defendant. It is not a case where there is dilution of the value of the trademark of the Plaintiff by unfair advantage being taken of its distinctive character or repute by the Defendant. Prominent display of the own trade mark of the Defendant along with prominent display of the address of its manufacturers as against the same indicates suitability of the gaskets for Hawkins pressure cookers and not one of passing off. Petition dismissed.

Source www.manupatra.com

Supreme Court- Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Anr.

Appellant-Company and Respondent No.1- entered into a Joint Venture Agreement. Disputes arose between the parties and a Sole arbitrator was appointed by the London Court of International Arbitration. Arbitrator passed an award directing the Appellant to transfer the shares to Respondent No.1. Thereafter, Appellant filed a suit before the First Additional Chief Judge seeking declaration to set aside the award and permanent injunction on the transfer of shares under the award. District Court passed an ad-interim ex parte Order of injunction. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, present appeal. Held, that provisions of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to all arbitrations including international commercial arbitrations and to all proceedings relating thereto unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions. Further, Judgment-debtor cannot be deprived of his right under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to invoke the public policy of India, to set aside the award. In present case, Award had an intimate and close nexus to India as company was situated in India and transfer of "ownership interests" shall be made in India under the laws of India. Therefore, if Respondent No. 1 was not prepared to enforce the award in spite of this intimate and close nexus to India, the Appellant would certainly not be deprived of the right to challenge the award in Indian Courts.


Source Manupatra

Supreme Court- Bhagwan Dass and Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board

Appellant No. 1 was working with Respondent-Board. While in service he became totally blind. He remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave for more than three years. A chargesheet was issued against Appellant initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for gross misconduct under Regulation 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment & Appeal Regulation 1971. Meanwhile, Appellant requested the Board to retire him from service and also requested that his wife be employed in his place. The chargesheet issued against the Appellant was withdrawn and Appellant was relieved from service. Aggrieved by this, Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, present appeal. Held, that in the letter for retirement, Appellant requested to be retired but at the same time requested that his wife should be given a suitable job. The letter was not a voluntary offer for retirement. Therefore, it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Since they failed to do so the action of the concerned officers was depreciable. Denial of a disabled persons rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large therefore termination was bad and illegal. Appellant entitled to all service benefits.

Manupatra Round up

Who owns Copyright in the Judgments of the Supreme Court?

By Prathiba M.Singh*

In a landmark Judgment in the area of copyright, the Indian Supreme Court has delivered its Judgment in relation to copyright in copy-edited text of Judgments and copyright in derivative works.

The question arose on a petition filed by the publisher of the Law Journal “Supreme Court Cases”. The case of the Journal was that though the text of Supreme Court Judgments is in public domain the various editorial inputs which are incorporated into the text, viz., the copy-edited text of the Judgment is copyrightable. The issue was crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as follows:

13. ...The question, therefore, is whether by introducing certain inputs in a Judgment delivered by a court it becomes “original copy-edited Judgment” and the person or authority or company who did so could claim to have embodied the originality in the said Judgment and the Judgment takes the colour of original Judgment having a copyright therein of its publisher.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the aspects relating to originality, creativity, sweat of the brow, skill, labour and capital etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also reviewed a catena of Judgments in the area of copyright including Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd. [1964 (1) WLR 273], University of London Press Limited v. University of Tutorial Press Limited [1916 (2) Ch 601], which were relied upon by the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Court thereafter considered, on behalf of the defendants the distinction between a law report and a law journal. It then reviewed the decision of the US Supreme Court in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc. [18 USPQ 2d 1275], Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co. [158 F.3d 674], and finally the Judgment of the Canadian Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the test laid down by FEIST that for a work to qualify as being an “original work” apart from being an independent creation, it should also possess a minimal degree of creativity. FEIST had rejected the doctrine of mere “sweat of the brow”. This test laid down in FEIST was followed by the Second Circuit in Matthew Bender wherein it was held that applying FEIST, the inputs incorporated into the text of a Judgment lack the minimal degree of creativity.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also reviewed that Judgment of the Canadian Supreme Court which compared the various doctrines including “sweat of the brow” and “creativity test”. The Canadian Supreme Court had drawn the middle path between the sweat of the brow doctrine and the creativity doctrine.

The Indian Supreme Court in its Judgment, while partially modifying the Judgment of the ld. Single Judge, has accepted the principles laid down by the Canadian Supreme Court in relation to copyright in Judgments. The relevant portion of the Judgment of the Indian Supreme Court hold that Judgments of the courts are in public domain, is reproduced below:

38. … The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction of publication would not infringe the copyright. That being the position, the copy-edited Judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited Judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. Accordingly, original or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright in the author’s work. The principle where there is common source the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the common source from where he borrowed the material, employing his own skill, labour and brain and he did not copy, would not apply to the Judgments of the courts because there is no copyright in the Judgments of the court, unless so made by the court itself… On the face of the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, we think that the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be applicable in copyright of the Judgments of the Apex Court… The derivative work produced by the author must have some distinguishable features and flavour to raw text of the Judgments delivered by the court. The trivial variation or inputs put in the Judgment would not satisfy the test of copyright of an author…

40. The aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the Judgments would have had a copyright had we accepted the principle that any one who by his or her own skill and labour creates an original work of whatever character, shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy that work and no one else would be permitted to reap the crop what the copyright owner had sown. No doubt the appellants have collected the material and improved the readability of the Judgment by putting inputs in the original text of the Judgment by considerable labour and arranged it in their own style, but that does not give the flavour of minimum requirement of creativity. The exercise of the skill and Judgment required to produce the work is trivial and is on account of the labour and the capital invested and could be characterized as purely a work which has been brought about by putting some amount of labour by the appellants. Although for establishing a copyright, the creativity standard applies is not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the work to claim a copyright is required… In our view, the aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the copy-edited Judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required for the copyright…

Thus, in so far as India is concerned, the following are the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to Copyright in derivative works;

(a) Judgments are works in public domain;
(b) Reproduction of a Judgment is not infringement of copyright;
(c) The edited form of the Judgment does not satisfy the test of copyright;
(d) Original or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright;
(e) When works are in public domain there cannot be insistence on relying only on the common source i.e., a certified copy of the Judgment;
(f) A derivative work, in order to enjoy copyright, ought to possess a flavour of creativity;
(g) The principles laid down by the Canadian Supreme Court would apply to texts of Judgments in India;
(h) To claim copyright in a compilation, apart from skill and Judgment some amount of creativity and novelty would be required which may even be minimal;
(i) Trivial variations do not satisfy the test of copyright;
(j) The copy-edited text of SCC, though has considerable labour and unique arrangement but does not have the flavour of minimum requirement of creativity;
(k) The selections of SCC are typical but the same lack minimal creativity;
(l) The same does not display originality;

After having laid down the above principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court protected two aspects of the editing incorporated by SCC, viz., paragraph references and Judgment of editors regarding opinions expressed by judges by usage of terminology - “concurring”, “dissenting” etc.

This Judgment is of enormous significance, inasmuch as this is the first Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on derivative works and works which are in public domain. This Judgment comes after a gap of 30 years after the first Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 1970s in the area of Copyright. The view of the Indian Supreme Court seems to be consistent with the view taken in other common law countries, especially that of Canada. Judgments having been written by Hon’ble Judges, are meant to be disseminated to the widest section of the population and any copyright protection on the ground of copy-editing would have created shackles and multiple monopolies in favour of different publishers. In order to ensure the larger dissemination of Judgments of courts, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has clearly laid down that the text of the Judgments are in public domain. It is not necessary for everyone who wishes to reproduce the text of a Judgment to go to the original source, i.e., the certified copy issued by the court. Thus, the entire purpose and intention behind the Legislature having put Judgments as works in public domain has been fully upheld and satisfied by the instant Judgment. The test for originality in derivative works having been clearly laid down, the Judgment would serve as a guiding force in the area of copyrights.

Copyright © Prathiba M.Singh

Prathiba M.Singh is LL.M. (Cantab), Patent & Trade Mark Attorney at Singh & Singh Advocates. She can be contacted at prathiba@singhandsingh.com

International Legal Cases and News

• Boudin, CJ, Craig Goulet, Vs. New Penn Motor Express, INC., and Teamsters Local 25
  Craig Goulet appeals from the verdict in favor of defendant New Penn Motor Express, by the United States District Court. He alleged for reinstatement of his employment and for breach of a labor agreement by New Penn. Held, The jury was aware of the requirements for reinstatement set out by the NEJAGC's resolution of Goulet's grievance. Further, evidence at trial strongly suggested that Goulet remained severely disabled, and the jury was free to draw further inferences from this as to the likelihood of his having been reinstated. It would have been reasonable for the jury to conclude that Goulet had never satisfied the conditions of the award provisionally allowing his reinstatement, that he was not physically capable of work during the period the call list was in effect, and that the unexplained appearance of his name on the November 2001 list was an aberration rather than reflective of his actual reinstatement. The question of Goulet's ability to work affected whether his grievance was meritorious reinstatement. Thus the jury affirms the judgment of the District court.

• Lynch, CJ, John D. Require Vs. American Airlines, INC
  A suit alleging that the removal of the plaintiff from a flight and subsequent denial of re-booking violated his rights to be free of race discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a jury verdict for plaintiff is vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant where:
  1) the district court failed to instruct the jury on the statutory permission given to air carriers to remove passengers under 49 U.S.C. section 44902(b);
  2) the court otherwise erroneously instructed the jury; and
  3) no properly instructed jury could return a verdict against the air carrier, and therefore the district court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Manupatra- Legal Database
Manupatra Round Up