08 December, 2009

SC: Do Mont Blanc and Mahatma go together?

Can Mahatma Gandhi be the poster boy for driving home the message that a super-expensive Mont Blanc “pen is mightier than the sword?” To this question of a PIL petitioner, the Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre and the retail outlet of the pen-maker in Delhi.
Though a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan had some reservations in entertaining the PIL filed by Harsh Vardhan Surna and Sandeep Singh, it issued notices to the Centre and Mont Blanc Boutique after they pointed out that use of Mahatma Gandhi’s pictures was in violation of Emblem Act.
However, the Bench declined to issue notice to Mahatma Gandhi Foundation. The petitioners had alleged that Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of the Father of the Nation, had accepted a cheque of Rs 70-75 lakh to lend the name of the organisation to the pen brand.
“The foundation will further receive between $200 and $1,000 for each pen sold. The maker of Mont Blanc is offering the ‘Mahatma Gandhi Pens’ at an unbelievable price of approximately Rs 12 lakh per pen. Mahatma Gandhi’s images are being displayed in hoardings conveying messages that the pen is mightier than the sword,” the petitioners said.
Associating Mahatma Gandhi’s name with the expensive pen rebelled against the values and ideals in which the Father of the Nation believed in, the petitioners said. When this blatant commercial use of Mahtama Gandhi’s name and pictures in violation of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, was taking place, “the government, the ruling political party and the Opposition are silent,” they said.
All That Glitters
‘Mont Blanc’s Limited Edition 241’ marks the 241 miles that the Mahatma Gandhi covered during the Dandi March in 1930
241 such pens on offer, with gold wire entwined, to signify the yarn Gandhi spun on a charkha
Rhodium plated 18-carat gold nib depicts Gandhiji holding a lathi, all in gold
Source:- The Times of India 8th December 2009 Page No:- 15 Delhi

02 December, 2009

ICL facing legal action over player dues: FICA

Indian Cricket League (ICL) might have started taking legal action against the ICC and BCCI but the ‘rebel’ entity itself is in danger of facing a court case from its disgruntled players who have not been paid their fees amounting to “millions of dollars”.
Federation of International Cricketers Associations (FICA) chief executive Tim May said sick and tired of being repeatedly informed that the outstanding dues would be given, the players, including eight from Australia, are mulling legal action against the ICL.
“For a number of months, FICA (on behalf of a number of players from numerous countries) has been in discussions with ICL in relation to outstanding payments to players, officials and support staff, relating as far back to 2008. These outstanding monies amount to millions of dollars,” May said.
“FICA and the players have constantly been informed by ICL that they will meet these obligations on specified dates. But these dates continually pass without any sign of payment.
“The players are sick and tired of the broken commitments from ICL and now they believe they have no other option than to contemplate legal action against ICL for the recovery of these payments,” May was quoted as saying in a website.
Eight Australians — Jason Gillespie, Damien Martyn, Jimmy Maher, Matthew Elliott, Michael Kasprowicz, Stuart Law, Ian Harvey and Ryan Campbell — are among more than 100 worldwide ICL players owed millions of dollars by the ICL.
There are also coaches from the eight teams, including Australians Michael Bevan and Steve Rixon, along with dozens of other support staff yet to be paid. Some of the Australians, including Kasprowicz, has severed ties with ICL to start commentating in official tournaments.
Set up in 2007, the ICL has not played a tournament since its second season was abandoned following the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year.
Source:- The Times of India 2 December 2009 Page No.26 Delhi
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

Supreme Court of India frowns on attempt to pick judge :Calls Move, Coming From A Sr Advocate, Unfortunate

It was done earlier by senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Shanti Bhushan to get a case out of the docket of a Bench, but on Tuesday senior advocate A M Singhvi drew flak from the Supreme Court for seeking the inclusion of a particular judge on a Bench.
Recounting that Justice Aftab Alam had been part of the Bench which passed interim orders staying work at numerous projects by the Mayawati government for Dalit leaders including installation of their statues at Lucknow, Singhvi requested a Bench comprising Justices H S Bedi and T S Thakur for putting the case for hearing before a Bench that also had Justice Alam.
The Bench headed by Justice Bedi took strong exception to the request and said: “It is not for us to decide the composition of a Bench. And it is not for you to request for a particular composition of a Bench. To say the least, it is a very uncharitable request. It is very unkind of you to have made such a request.” Seizing the opportunity, UP government’s counsel — senior advocates S C Mishra and R N Trivedi — joined the Bench in expressing their deep distress at such an “intimidatory request” being made by a senior person. “The Bench should not succumb to such intimidatory tactics,” they suggested.
Quick to sense the Bench’s annoyance, Singhvi sought to smartly tweak his request and said: “I am sorry. I never made a request for change of Bench. Given the fact that Justice Alam had been part of the Bench that passed all the interim orders, my suggestion was to include him so as to make it a threejudge Bench. I can never suggest that the matter be not heard by this Bench.”
But, the arrow had already left the quiver and the Bench fired a riposte at him: “Can we pass an order directing inclusion of Justice Alam in the Bench? You are here in the Supreme Court for a long time and know the procedure how and where matters are fixed for hearing.
This request should never have been made in the first place. It is very, very unfortunate.”
On February 9 this year, former law minister and senior counsel Shanti Bhushan had virtually forced Justice Arijit Pasayat to recuse himself from hearing a case concerning former PM H D Deve Gowda saying he apprehended some bias as during an earlier hearing the judge had severely criticised Gowda for writing letters to judges in the Bangalore-Mysore expressway case.
On January 23, Ram Jethmalani, another ex-law minister and senior advocate, while appearing for the Ansals who wanted bail in the Uphaar fire case, had got Justice B N Agrawal to recuse himself from hearing the bail petition of Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal.
Source:- The Times of India 2 December 2009 Page No.17 Delhi
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

Coming, a law which gives directors film copyright :1957 Act Only Recognizes A Producer’s Ownership

Call it the director’s cut. The HRD ministry has come up with a bill which confers copyright of a film not just upon the producer, but also on the director. For films made after the proposed law comes into force, the producer and director will be ‘‘treated jointly as the first owner of copyright’’. Thus, the director is finally getting his due as the creator.
The joint ownership redresses an anomaly in the Copyright Act 1957, which in the case of books, confers copyright on the author leaving out the publisher but in the case of films, on the producer leaving out the director. The existing law treats a director as an employee of the producer and consequently denies him any intellectual right over the film he creates. Since the proposed clause equating the director with the producer will apply prospectively (from the day the law is enacted), the directors of films already produced will not get the full benefit of this reform. The bill seeks to compensate them by extending the copyright term for such films from 60 years to 70 years after the death of their first copyright owners.
The additional copyright term of 10 years is however ‘‘subject to the principal director entering into a written agreement with the owner of the copyright in the film during the subsistence of copyright’’. The accompanying note explains that this is meant ‘‘to extend the copyright term for the producer for another 10 years if he enters into an agreement with the director’’.
The implication is that for the additional term of 10 years, the producer and director will jointly enjoy copyright on films already made. The intention, clearly, is to confer some benefit on the director even in the case of films made before the commencement of the proposed law.
The proposed Copyright Act Amendment Bill 2009 is now being vetted by law ministry. Later, after Cabinet clearance, it will be introduced in Parliament. Law ministry is now examining the bill to see if is valid to increase the copyright term by 10 years only for films, discriminating against other artistic and literary works.
The note prepared by the HRD ministry justifies the preferential treatment arguing that ‘‘old Indian classical films, especially Bollywood films, are falling into public domain and these are being exploited by TV channels’’. This is part of a slew of amendments being made to the 1957 act affecting the business of films, music, radio and TV.
While much as its attempt to give the director his due is laudable, the bill is not clear on how the term of the copyright for the new films will be computed when both the director and producer are the ‘‘first owners’’. It is not clear whether it will be 60 years after the death of the director or the producer, or whoever dies last.
Source:- The Times of India 2 December 2009 Page No.15 Delhi