Section 482 of the Code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. CBI, ACB, MUMBAI . NARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS. 3. On the basis of two FIRs dated 22.03.1993, R.C. No. 21(A) of 1993 and R.C. No.22 (A) of 1993 were registered against the accused-respondents and several officers of the Bank of Maharashtra. 4. While the criminal cases were being investigated the bank had instituted suits for recovery of the amounts claimed to be due from the respondents. 5. Applications for discharge were filed by the accused respondents which were rejected by the learned Trial Court by order dated 04.09.2011. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to frame charges against the accused.
6. We have heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7. Shri Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, has taken us through the order passed by the High Court. 10. In the present case, as already seen, the offence with which the accused-respondents had been charged are under Section 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The civil liability of the respondents to pay the amount to the bank has already been settled amicably. The terms of such settlement have been extracted above. No subsisting grievance of the bank in this regard has been brought to the notice of the Court. While the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable the offence under Section 120-B is not. To the latter offence the ratio laid down in B.S. Joshi (supra) and Nikhil Merchant (supra) would apply if the facts of the given case would so justify. The observation in Gian Singh (supra) (para 61) will not be attracted in the present case in view of the offences alleged i.e. under Sections 420/120B IPC. 12. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court and dismiss this appeal. We, however, make it clear that the proceedings in Special Case No. 15/95 and 20/95 stands interfered with by the present order only in respect of accused-respondents Narendra Lal Jain and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain.
Chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies and inventors spend countless number of hours and a lot of money to come up with a drug for curing killer diseases like cancer or diabetes or a new catalyst to make a wonder plastic. They protect their inventions by securing a patent. For one reason or another, the patent owner may not be ready to make or sell the patented invention. The answer may be surprising. The courts are not always sympathetic to the patent owner. In proving that things are lining up in his favor, one question that would come up is how strong the patent is – i.e., can it survive an attack on its validity. A weak or vague patent is of little use. In the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, “the potential vagueness and suspect validity of … the patents may affect” the outcome. Securing a strong patent is not trivial. It is important that the patent is filed promptly and accurately. If the patent was filed long after the invention was published in a magazine or displayed as a poster, its validity or vitality comes into question. Or the patent may have been filed promptly but the patent may not cover the invention adequately. In some instances, important information may have been hidden from the Patent Office. To succeed in stopping the infringer, or getting a sizable royalty or settlement, it is critical that the patent is strong and robust.
Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that retaliation claims brought under the petition clause of the First Amendment must relate to a matter of public concern to liability. Borough of Duryea, Pa. Chief Guarnieri successfully grieved his termination through the applicable collective bargaining agreement. After being awarded reinstatement, the governing body issued eleven directives controlling the manner in which he performed his duties. Chief Guarnieri then proceeded to bring a Federal action against the governing body and certain of its members under section 1983 based upon his allegation that the directives constituted retaliation for the filing of his initial grievance. Perhaps, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling limiting the First Amendment speech protections of public employees (Garcetti v. Ceballos), Guarnieri brought his claims under the Petition Clause, rather than the speech clause, of the First Amendment. The Petition Clause protects the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” He also added claims for retaliation based upon denial of overtime payments.
142,000.00 in damages and fees. The defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that Guarnieri’s grievances did not involve matters of public concern and, therefore, should be afforded no First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that a public employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern in order for the protections of the petition clause to apply. In so doing, the Court, essentially applied the standards set forth in Garcetti v. Ceballos to Petition Clause claims. Garcetti had held that, in order to prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must show that the speech involved matter of public concern, in that the speech was not part of the employee’s official duties. Guarnieri had unsuccessfully argued that the public concern requirement did not apply to the petition clause-based claims. Justice Kennedy explained the rationale for his decision by asserting that public employees must accept certain limitations on their freedom, and that the public concern requirement is intended to protect the government’s interest. The Court noted that applying a different standard to petition clause claims would allow public employees to circumvent the protections the Court had afforded to governmental interests in Garcetti. The Court’s opinion did elaborate on the definition of “public concern” in suggesting that it related matters such as communication to the public or advancing a political or social point of view beyond the employment context. The Supreme Court’s decision further limits the scope of constitutional protection afforded to public employees under the first amendment. However, this case involved claims under the United States Constitution, not state or federal labor law. In California, it remains unlawful under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act for a local government agency to interfere with or retaliate against represented public employees for pursuing a grievance process or other concerted activity such as arbitration.
For four years, American Jewish groups debated President Bush’s proposals to mix faith with social services. Now the fight is over whether the administration’s programs should be made permanent. Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) introduced legislation earlier this year to make the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives permanent and codify its activities into law. The move has rekindled a long-smoldering debate in the Jewish community. Many view “charitable choice” provisions — which require government agencies to evaluate religious institutions on an equal footing with secular counterparts when it comes to issuing grants — as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. They say faith groups potentially could discriminate in hiring or could proselytize with federal money. But others, especially in the Orthodox community, welcome the chance to receive federal funding on a level playing field with other social-service providers. 1.7 million grant to the Jewish Renaissance Medical Center in Perth Amboy, N.J., among the office’s accomplishments.
Bush has been pushing for the program to become law. But Congress has yet to codify any faith-based program, and advocates fear the initiative could be wiped out if a future president chooses not to follow the Bush administration’s lead. An executive order can be repealed at any time. The Tools for Community Initiatives Act would create a permanent faith-based office in the White House and task a director with developing programs to expand the incorporation of faith initiatives through legislation, executive action and private partnerships. Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union’s Institute for Public Affairs, said direct government funding would help combat years of alleged discrimination against religious people and institutions. For example, Seattle’s Orthodox Hebrew Academy was denied federal funds after its facilities were severely damaged by a 2000 earthquake. Diament said the faith-based initiative’s equal-treatment philosophy helped reverse the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s policy, and won the school rebuilding money. “The earthquake did not discriminate among which institutions to strike, yet FEMA was discriminating in its relief efforts,” Diament told a congressional panel last year.
“Never has the Supreme Court upheld direct funding of religious institutions,” Saperstein told JTA. He expressed concern that the legislation would lend credence to a legal vision that treats religion the same as anything else. In the hearing, Saperstein said a leader of the evangelical Christian group Teen Challenge admitted to him that his program had the effect of converting — or, in his words, “completing” — Jewish children. He worried that the conversion process could be government-funded in the future. “That any taxpayer should fund her own discrimination or proselytizing betrays every principle of our democracy,” Saperstein said. But Diament said the question is whether religious groups are allowed to compete with non-religious organizations for government funding. Diament denied that any real difference exists between religious groups and religiously affiliated organizations such as the Jewish federation system, which uses federal dollars for social-service programming. One compromise could be the imposition of regulations against proselytizing. Diament said such regulations would not excessively interfere with religious groups’ autonomy.
Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington director and counsel of the Orthodox Agudath Israel of America, said organizations could decide whether regulations against proselytizing would cause them to compromise their beliefs or somehow impede their activities. If they felt compromised, they could opt out, “but if they can live with it, they should be able to do so,” he said. Suggesting that organizations can’t determine on their own whether or not they can control proselytizing “is being paternalistic and condescending,” he said. Cohen said his organization is against programs that would lead to proselytizing, and their support of the bill is contingent on proper safeguards against conversion efforts. He said he believes such safeguards are workable. But officials in other Jewish groups have their doubts. They say codifying the office may be unobjectionable, but the legislation dances around controversial issues. “The bill is a backdoor way of ratifying the president’s charitable choice program without discussing it as a policy,” said Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress. The Anti-Defamation League also has opposed the bill, in part because it lacks safeguards against discrimination in hiring. Religious groups are exempt from some hiring regulations, and there is fear that groups could choose only staff of their faith with government money. The ADL also expressed concern that faith-based aid recipients are allowed to use religious art and symbols on their walls, and it’s unclear whether social-service beneficiaries could be denied benefits if they decline to participate in a group’s religious practices.
Before being allowed to argue in the Supreme Court, advocate must practice for at least two years in a trial court and three years in a high court in India. As per the rules, the advocate’s certificate of practice will have to be renewed in every five years with the State Bar Council. The application for the same should be filled six months before the certificate’s expiry. Before an advocate could practice law in higher courts, there is need that he is exposed to real court experience in lower courts/trial courts. This will help in integrating the whole judicial system from the perspective of the bar”. Advocates of all the categories can appear before the Supreme Court but Supreme Court advocates on record (AOR), who cleared the Supreme Court AOR exam, are only eligible to appear and to plead for a party in the Supreme Court. Non AORs cannot file their matter in Supreme Court without the help of AOR.
JUDGE GARLAND: Thank you, Mr. President. This is the greatest honor of my life — other than Lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. It’s also the greatest gift I’ve ever received except — and there’s another caveat — the birth of our daughters, Jessie and Becky. As my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. And for me, there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the United States Supreme Court. My family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. My grandparents left the Pale of Settlement at the border of Western Russian and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s, fleeing anti-Semitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in America. They settled in the Midwest, eventually making their way to Chicago.
There, my father, who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement, took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers, always impressing upon me the importance of hard work and fair dealing. There, my mother headed the local PTA and school board and directed a volunteer services agency, all the while instilling in my sister and me the understanding that service to the community is a responsibility above all others. Even now, my sisters honor that example by serving the children of their communities. I know that my mother is watching this on television and crying her eyes out. So are my sisters, who have supported me in every step I have ever taken. I only wish that my father were here to see this today. I also wish that we hadn’t taught my older daughter to be so adventurous that she wouldn’t be hiking in the mountains, out of cell service range when the President called.
What can I say – I forgot my own blog-iversary. A post by Prof. David Yamane at the Gun Culture 2.0 blog about the 5th anniversary of the starting of his own blog prodded my memory cells. Congratulations to David on this milestone and on his always informative blog. As to me, I started No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money on May 19th, 2010. This after 4,761 posts, approximately 4.6 million pageviews, and 1,898,996 visitors if StatCounter is correct. Looking back at those seven tumultuous years, we have seen a lot of changes. Alan Gura won both the McDonald and Ezell cases bringing the Second Amendment as an individual right to the nation and Chicago respectfully. Both Wisconsin and Illinois have passed shall-issue concealed carry. Instead of just Vermont having constitutional carry, there are now a total of 13 states with permitless concealed carry. Gun owners may have been the winning margin for an ostensibly pro-gun President Trump whom no one could have predicted would win the election.
We have seen a surge in gun sales which became a tidal wave after the Newtown school shooting. 200 tax stamp and an interminable wait. On the downside, we have seen more and more Federal judges parsing the Heller decision to denigrate the Second Amendment as an individual right. The Supreme Court has allowed this to continue as they haven’t taken another Second Amendment case since McDonald. My own 4th Circuit is now battling the 9th Circuit in terms of disrespect for the Second Amendment. Finally, among other things, we are now seeing a well-funded attack by gun prohibitionists on civil rights thanks to Mike Bloomberg. The only excuse I can give for forgetting my own blog-iversary is that I’ve been busy with work and getting my late mother’s house ready for closing. So far, I’ve forgotten the anniversary of her death nine years ago and that of my dad 36 years ago. However, I won’t be forgetting the anniversary of my wedding to the Complementary Spouse. My trick and one that I encourage other men to follow is to make it your ATM pin number. It’s a number you need to remember and one that you don’t have on papers in your wallet.