[Commons-Law] relay

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

Hi,
A more interesting decision by the CIC on this matter.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_18092007_06.pdf
Prashant

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/27/stories/2007092761941500.htm



National

Information Act will not apply to judicial proceedings: Commission

Legal Correspondent

Intrusion into judicial work unnecessary, it says

New Delhi: The Right to Information Act will not apply to furnishing
of information on judicial proceedings in courts or tribunals, the
Central Information Commission has held.

"Apparently all judicial proceedings are conducted in the open and
transparency is the hallmark of all such proceedings. There is no
element of secrecy whatsoever. But at the same time, it has to be
borne in mind that the judiciary is independent and all judicial
authorities including all courts and tribunals must work independently
and without any interference insofar as their judicial work is
concerned," said the Full Commission, comprising Chief Information
Officer Wajahat Habibullah and Information Officers A.N. Tiwari and
Padma Balasubramanian.

"The independence of a judicial authority is all pervasive and any
amount of interference is neither desirable nor should ever be
encouraged in any manner."

The Commission rejected the plea by appellant Rakesh Kumar Gupta of
Delhi, who wanted certain information including the notes or minutes
of the proceedings maintained by members of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal before the pronouncement of the order, inspection of case
records and a copy of the decision in a particular case.

"The jottings and notes made by the judges while hearing a case can
never, and by no stretch of imagination, be treated as final views
expressed by them on the case. Such noting cannot therefore be held
part of a record 'held' by the public authority."

Any intrusion into the judicial work under the RTI Act was
unnecessary, the Commission said.

"The independence of the judicial authority flows from the discretion
given to that authority to take all decisions in matters properly
brought within the purview of that authority.

"In other words, it would not be appropriate for the Commission or any
entity functioning as part of the RTI regime to pronounce on the
disclosure of a given set of information, if it is found that under
another law (such as the Income Tax Act), this disclosure function is
exercisable as part of the judicial function by a judiciary authority,
such as the ITAT."

The Commission said, "Given that a judicial authority must function
with total independence and freedom, should it be found that an action
initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that
judicial body, the Commission will not authorise the use of the RTI
Act for any such disclosure requirement."

An information seeker should, therefore, approach the court or the
tribunal concerned "if he intends to have some information concerning
a judicial proceeding and it is for the court or tribunal concerned to
take a decision whether the information can be given or not."

(c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

Hi,
The CIC has held that the provisions of the RTI will not apply in
cases where statutes already provide for inspection of records and
prescribe a procedure to be followed to obtain them. This was held in
the context of a petition for details of certain cases in the Supreme
Court. The CIC held that since the Supreme Court Rules already
provided a procedure for inspection of records the provisions of the
RTI Act would not apply.

"U/s 22 of the RTI Act the provisions of the RTI Act have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
time being enforced or instrument having effect by virtue in law other
than this Act. However, since both the Act and Order XII of the
Supreme Court Rules
provide for disclosure of information of the kind sought in the present case we
find that there is nothing inconsistent in the rules. It is only that
Supreme Court
Rules 1966 through Order XII, Rule 2 prescribe the procedure for obtaining the
information. This procedure together with fees is in the province of the
prescribed authority u/s 28 of the RTI Act. This issue is disposed of
accordingly."

The text of the decision is available on the CIC website
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_24092007_01.pdf
Prashant

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

Hi,
Here's a chart comparing the prices of Brand Drugs vs. Generic Drugs
in the US with a row devoted to Neurontin - Pfizer's drug.
http://www.regencerx.com/prescriptions/physicianTools/generics/comparison/index.html

Just to get a sense of the amounts involved.
Prashant

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/09/26/stories/2007092652421700.htm

Pfizer will be eligible for full damages if it wins


BL Research Bureau

With the Washington Court of Appeals saying that a lower court had
erred in 2005 by saying that generic Neurontin would not infringe on
Pfizer Inc's patent for its blockbuster anti-convulsant.

Indian companies — both bulk drug makers and generics— might pay a
high price for their association with the drug.

Presently, nine companies including the three Indian drug makers have
FDA approvals for Gabapentin, the active pharmaceutical ingredient
(API) for the drug. Glenmark Pharma, Ranbaxy and Sun Pharma have
already launched the drug 'at-risk' while bulk drug makers like Hikal
and Shasun Chemicals are involved in manufacturing the active
pharmaceutical ingredient.

An 'at-risk launch' is a high risk-high gain strategy where pharma
companies launch a generic version of a drug which is under patent
challenge, before the expiry of that patent.

If it ends up losing the case, under US law, the generic maker can be
liable for triple the damages incurred by the patent holder.

However, this may not be a concern for Hikal and Shasun Chemicals, as
API suppliers.

Shasun Chemicals is a supplier to US based Alpharma Inc, it makes
generic prescription products and active pharmaceutical ingredients
for exclusive sale by Alpharma, which has an agreement with Teva on
gabapentin capsules and tablets. Hikal had entered into an agreement
with an unnamed US-based pharmaceutical company to supply gabapentin
and has begun selling the API to the US market from May 2005.

As a result of this development, Pfizer Inc will be eligible for full
damages if it wins in the patent trial. The patent(s) in question do
not expire until 2017.

Gabapentin is best known under the brand name Neurontin, which once
had sales of $2 billion annually for Pfizer.

In 2006, sales were at $496 million after cheaper generics entered the market.

As of now, the generic-drug companies can again contest that their
versions infringe the patent.

While Indian companies might be reviewing their courses of action, a
full trial is likely to be held on the allegations of patent
infringement.

(c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu Business Line

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/24/stories/2007092455381400.htm

International


John Vidal and Owen Bowcott

New islands off India among territories up for grabs

London: Britain is poised to get much bigger. South Africa, Russia,
France, Brazil, Australia and Ireland are hoping to expand too. In
fact, 45 countries with coastlines qualify for potential "extended
underwater territory" rights under the new U.N. Law of the Sea
Convention.

This new law, due to come into force in a few years time, has provoked
a scramble for underwater land almost as fierce as the one for Africa
in the 19th century when European countries divided up the continent
between them.

The 21st century land rush is likely to be the last big shift in land
ownership in centuries and reflects the necessity to claim new seams
of the Earth's resources.

In total, as much as 4.35 million sqkm — an area similar in size to
Australia — is believed to be at stake. It includes the Arctic where
Russia recently claimed land below the North Pole, new islands off
India which have emerged from the sea, and Pacific Ocean islands
claimed by Australia. But to claim the new underwater land, countries
must be able to show that it is an extension of their own topography,
and not just a gratuitous land grab. All claims must be staked by
spring 2009, which is why there is a rush to gather scientific
evidence to support submissions.
Lure of the frontiers

The new U.N. law means that specks in the oceans, such as Ascension
Island and the Falklands have acquired new diplomatic significance.
With each landfall comes the possibility of a 550 km circle of
hydrocarbon and mineral potential. The lure of the Earth's final
frontiers is the possibility of oil, gas and minerals deposits.
Shrinking resources and growing energy needs mean any new territory is
at a premium, particularly as new technologies are changing the face
of exploration. The idea of drilling for diamonds off South Africa, or
for oil 9 km deep off Australia seemed impossible only a decade ago.
Today they are real possibilities.

There is also growing awareness of "oil peak", the point when global
demand for oil will outstrip supply. This week Lord Oxburgh, former
chairman of Shell, told a conference in Ireland the tipping point
could come within 20 years as production levelled and new deposits
became harder to find. "The world may be sleepwalking into a problem
which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to
do anything about it by the time we are fully aware," he said.

Britain has long been aware of the potential of three of its
territorial gains. Its companies have seismically tested the seabed
off Ascension Island, Rockall and the Falklands. However, geologists
are optimistic that a large area of seabed running from the Bay of
Biscay past the west coast of Ireland and into the Atlantic could be
hiding a massive new oilfield. — (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2007

(c) Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu

Via: "Sarah Turner"

Via: "Pranesh Prakash"

Via: "Pranesh Prakash"

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

Hi,
Here's the ink to SC judgment on plagiarism that I'd posted about earlier.
http://www.openarchive.in/newcases/29532.htm

Prashant

Via: "Prashant Iyengar"

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/09/22/stories/2007092250520901.htm

Law on `borrowed words'

Write what you know

In a recent taxation case, the apex court had to also consider a
complaint of plagiarism. The issue was about a land deal - with the
assessee saying that the sale consideration was Rs 4.10 lakh, as in
the documents, and the taxman arguing that the amount was Rs 34.85
lakh, as found in some loose papers captured during a raid operation.

The High Court had relied heavily on the order of the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) and that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT), and held that no substantial questions of law had been raised.
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. Which, therefore, resulted in
the Department bringing up the case before the Supreme Court.

"Mr G. N. Vahanvati, the learned Solicitor General has at the very
outset raised serious objection to the order of the High Court
pointing out that Division Bench had merely plagiarised substantial
portions from the order of the Commissioner and Tribunal in arriving
at its conclusion and no independent assessment on the questions of
law that arose for consideration, had been made," reads the text of
the apex court verdict dated September 14.

"It is true that the Division Bench of the High Court has borrowed
extensively from the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner and
passed them off as if they were themselves the author's," noted the
apex court. "We feel that quoting from an order of some authority
particularly a specialised one cannot per se be faulted as this
procedure can often help in making for brevity and precision, but we
agree with Mr Vahanavati to the extent that any `borrowed words' used
in a judgment must be acknowledged as such in any appropriate manner
as a courtesy to the true author(s)."

Yet, the apex court had to ultimately dismiss the taxman's appeal,
with there being no infirmity in the order of the High Court.

Via: Anil Deshpande