Pages

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Listing Agreement amended by SEBI - sebiupdates.blogspot.com

SEBI has made some significant changes to the equities listing agreement (the “Listing Agreement”) by a circular (available here) on 16th December, 2010. The changes introduced are as under:

1. Changes to clause 35
Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement mandates companies to file the details of their shareholding pattern with stock exchanges on a quarterly basis within 21 days of end of each quarter. SEBI has now added two more reporting requirements in clause 35 which are (i) companies should disclose their shareholding one day prior to the listing of its securities and the stock exchanges are required to disseminate these details before the first trade (this ensures wider public dissemination of shareholding pattern), and (ii) companies should report within 10 days any capital restructuring resulting in a change exceeding +/-2% of the total paid-up share capital.

Another change introduced in clause 35 is with respect to the details of ‘shares held by custodians and against which DRs(depositary receipts) have been issued', which are presently required to be disclosed in Table (I) (a) of Clause 35, should from now on be further segregated as those pertaining to the ‘promoter/promoter group’ and to the ‘public’.

This will ensure a holistic and true picture of the promoter/promoter group holding.

2. Changes to clause 5A
Clause 5A of the Listing Agreement contains the procedure to be followed by the companies with respect to the unclaimed shares pursuant to public or any other issue. Before the amendment, the clause only dealt with the shares issued in electronic and provided nothing for shares issued in the past in physical mode. Vide this amendment, SEBI has inserted specific provision for procedure to be followed in respect of unclaimed shares issued in physical form.

This will end the difficulties faced by the companies which have in the past issued shares in physical form.

3. Changes to clause 20
Clause 20 of the Listing Agreement mandates the companies to intimate the exchange of the outcome of the board meeting to consider payment of dividends or buyback. The existing clause does not require the companies to intimate the date of payment/dispatch of dividends to the exchange. Vide this amendment, SEBI has made it mandatory for the companies to also inform the exchange the date on which dividend would be paid.

This will enhance transparency and enable the investors to manage their cash/securities flows efficiently

4. Changes to clause 22
Clause 22 of the Listing Agreement mandates the companies to intimate the exchange within 15 minutes of the closure of the Board meeting the particulars of the decisions taken therein pertaining to increase of capital by issue of bonus shares, re-issue of forfeited shares/securities or any other alterations of capital. Vide this amendment, SEBI has made it mandatory for the companies to also inform the exchange the date on which the bonus shares would be credited/ dispatched.

5. Changes to clause 40A
Clause 40A of the Listing Agreement contains the condition for minimum public float to be adhered to by a listed company. The Government in June 2010 through the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (a copy of which is availablehere), had mandated listed companies to achieve at a 25 percent public shareholding in the next three years. This amendment had also prescribed annual floors of 10%/ 5% by which the listed companies should reach the 25% public shareholding. However, there was a further amendment in August 2010 vide Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 (notification no. GSR662(E) dated 9th August 2010 available at MANU/EAF/0142/2010), whereby the 25% requirement was reduced to 10% for public sector enterprises and flexibility was provided to the listed companies to attain the 25%(10% for public sector enterprises) within three years without any annual floor.

Clause 40A has now been amended to bring it in alignment with this second amendment to the Securities Contract (Regulation) Rules, 2010 (the “Rules”). The amended clause 40A now specifically provides that a listed company has to comply with the requirements of the Rules and can reach the required level of public shareholding by issuance of shares to public through prospectus/offer of promoters’ shares to public through prospectus/sale of promoters’ shares through secondary market.

6. Insertion of new clause 53 and 54
The following new clauses have been inserted in the Listing Agreement by this amendment:
• “53. The issuer company agrees to notify the stock exchange and also disseminate through its own website, immediately upon entering into agreements with media companies and/or their associates, the following information:-
a. Disclosures regarding the shareholding (if any) of such media companies/associates in the issuer company.
b. Any other disclosures related to such agreements, viz., details of nominee of the media companies on the Board of the issuer company, any management control or potential conflict of interest arising out of such agreements, etc.
c. Disclosures regarding any other back to back treaties/contracts/agreements/MoUs or similar instruments entered into by the issuer company with media companies and/or their associates for the purpose of advertising, publicity, etc.


• “54. The issuer company agrees to maintain a functional website containing basic information about the company e.g. details of its business, financial information, shareholding pattern, compliance with corporate governance, contact information of the designated officials of the company who are responsible for assisting and handling investor grievances, details of agreements entered into with the media companies and/or their associates, etc. The issuer company also agrees to ensure that the contents of the said website are updated at any given point of time.

These added clauses seek to ensure public dissemination of details of agreements entered into by corporates with media companies. This change is basically a bye-product of an earlier SEBI press release available here, which has been discussed in a previous post.

The amendments to clauses 5A, 35, 40A and insertion of clause 53 comes with immediate effect, while the amendments to clauses 20, 21 and 22 would be applicable for all board/shareholders meetings held on or after 1st January, 2011. The insertion of clause 54 is to take effect from 1st April, 2011.


Source - http://sebiupdates.blogspot.com/2010/12/sebi-amends-listing-agreement.html

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case Read more: CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case - The Times of India http://timesofindia.ind

The CID, which probed into the missing ore at Belikere port near Karwar in February/March this year, filed its first chargesheet on December 24, naming seven accused. They were allegedly responsible for illegal export of seized iron ore 1.05 lakh MT, causing loss of over Rs 44 crore to the government.

In the chargesheet filed before CJM & JMFC Ankola, the CID has charged that the port conservator of Belikere Mahesh Billiye had connived with export companies Stevedore, Salagaonkar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd., and helped them export the iron ore seized by the forest department officials, says a press release.

As per the chargesheet, Salagaonkar company had illegally exported 50,250.610 MT of iron ore, while its sister company Tungabhadra Minerals had sold 23,504.300 MT of iron ore to them. Besides, Gimpex Ltd had illegally exported 31,884.850 of iron ore.

The chargesheet has named Mahesh Billiye, representatives of Salagaonkar Mining industries, Tungabhadra Minerals, Gimpex Ltd., Tungabhadra Minerals executive director Ramasubba Reddy, Salagaonkar Mining Industries senior manager Ramachandra Vasu Nayak, Gimpex Supervisor K Chandran in this case.

In the press release, CID DGP D V Guruprasad has said that the investigation into in the case was still in progress and this was the first chargesheet.

The case came to light in February when the Lokayukta unearthed illegal transport of over 8 million tonnes at Belikere port. The forest department was asked to seize the ore and file a complaint with local police.

Later, 10 mining companies had approached the high court seeking release of the iron ore. When they did not get a favourable ruling, they just exported 5.5 million tonnes of iron ore, worth over Rs 250 crore, without even paying customs duty.

When this came to light, Karwar DCF Gokul, through ACF Hithalamakki, lodged a complaint with local police. When local police were reluctant to book a case, Gokul approached the SP and threatened to file a private complaint in the court if they did not register the case for `breech of trust' and `theft' against the mining companies.

Karwar police registered the case and wrote to the state police chief to hand over the case to CID.


Read more
:
CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/CID-files-charges-names-7-in-missing-ore-case/articleshow/7174838.cms#ixzz19TeZHNk5

Saturday, December 25, 2010

The Laws of Ultimate Reality

The Laws of Ultimate Reality


They say facts are more surprising then fiction. Life and Nature has its own realities. Here are some of the ultimate laws of nature. I have not written them, I have just collected them, selected them, organised them and presented on a pallete for you to try and get a smile on your face on a serious day. Most of you might have read this or a part of this before. But at the cost of repitition also, go through them, they might help you somewhere in the future.


Law of Mechanical Repair - After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you’ll have to pee.

Law of Gravity - Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.

Law of Probability - The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.

Law of Random Numbers - If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal and someone always answers.

Law of the Alibi - If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the very next morning you will have a flat tire..

Variation Law - If you change lines (or traffic lanes), the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (works every time)

Law of the Bath - When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.

Law of Close Encounters - The probability of meeting someone you know increases dramatically when you are with someone you don’t want to be seen with.

Law of the Result - When you try to prove to someone that a machine won’t work, it will.

Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.

Law of the Theater - At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle arrive last.

The Starbucks Law - As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.

Murphy’s Law of Lockers - If there are only two people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.

Law of Physical Surfaces - The chances of an open-faced jelly sandwich landing face down on a floor covering are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet/rug.

Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Brown’s Law of Physical Appearance - If the shoe fits, it’s ugly



Oliver’s Law of Public Speaking - A closed mouth gathers no feet

Wilson’s Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy - As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it

Doctors’ Law - If you don’t feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you’ll feel better. Don’t make an appointment and you’ll stay sick

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

High Flying Lawyers - India Today Article

The New Nawabs

By Priya Sahgal and Kaveree Bamzai | India Today


When Ratan Tata moved the Supreme Court, claiming his right to privacy had been violated, he called Harish Salve. The choice was not surprising. The former solicitor general has been topping the legal charts ever since he scripted a surprising win for Mukesh Ambani against his brother Anil. That dispute set the gold standard for legal fees. On Mukesh’s side were Salve, Rohinton Nariman andAbhishek Manu Singhvi. The younger brother had an equally formidable line-up led by Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohatgi.

The dispute dated back three-and-a-half years to when Anil filed a case against his brother for reneging on an agreement to supply 28 million cubic metres of gas per day from its Krishna-Godavari basin fields at a rate of $2.34 for 17 years. The average legal fee was Rs 25 lakh for a full day’s appearance, not to mention the overnight stays at Mumbai’s five-star suites, business class travel, and on occasion, use of the private jet. Little wonder though that Salve agreed to take on Tata’s case pro bono. He could afford philanthropy with one of India’s wealthiest tycoons.

Welcome to the world of new nawabs. The lawyers’ fees alone, at a conservative estimate, must have cost the Ambanis at least Rs 15 crore each. Both the brothers had booked their legal teams in the same hotel, first the Oberoi and, after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the Trident. “Well, if you’re going to write all this, then you can also add that Mukesh bought me a pair of pyjamas as well,” laughs Salve, recalling how he was called to Mumbai suddenly from Orissa where he had gone for a day’s hearing. “I told Mukesh I had packed nothing. He insisted on buying me the essentials.”

It’s not the essentials as much as the frills that raise eyebrows. The veteran Jethmalani is surprisingly the most modest in his fees since he does not charge rates according to the strength of the client’s purse. But as the crises have multiplied, lawyers’ fees have exploded.

**************************************************
Harish Salve, 54- Landmark case: Won the gas dispute for Mukesh Ambani, though what he enjoys most is being amicus curiae in the Forest Case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and Others.- Legal Style: Is a master strategist. Gives a balanced argument rather than an aggressive, one-sided view.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it’s Rs 25 lakh.- The indulgence: Drives a Bentley.
**************************************************
Ram Jethmalani, 87- Landmark case: Got the Jain Hawala case against L. K. Advani squashed; is currently defending former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah.- Legal Style: Argues forcefully. Has an acerbic wit.- Fee per appearance: Rs 5 lakh.- The indulgence: Has an indoor badminton court built in his MP bungalow that is the envy of Lutyens’ Delhi.
**************************************************
Mukul Rohatgi, 55- Landmark case: Represented Anil Ambani in the gas dispute.- Legal Style: Is a slogger. Argues aggressively and goes straight to the point.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh and Rs 25 lakh for a full day.- The indulgence: Drives a black Bentley, has Souza on his walls, a holiday home in Goa.
**************************************************
Majid Memon, 55- Landmark case: He represented Yakub Memon but could not set him free.- Legal Style: He argues in the court with his right leg on a chair.- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh. Charges Rs 2 lakh for a bail application.- The indulgence: Likes to travel, makes frequent trips to exotic locations.
**************************************************
Satish Maneshinde, 50- Landmark case: He secured bail for Sanjay Dutt in the Bombay blast case and for Salman Khan who allegedly killed one person while driving drunk.- Legal Style: Argues calmly in court and looks straight into the judge’s eyes.- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh.- The indulgence: His Mercedes and a passion for Page 3 parties.
**************************************************
Aryama Sundaram, 53- Landmark case: Represented the West Bengal Government against Haldia Petrochemicals and UBS Securities against sebi.- Legal Style: Persuasive speaker, argues his case in a measured tone.- Fee per appearance: Rs 3.5 lakh
**************************************************
Arvind Datar, 53- Landmark case: Was one of the lawyers in the Vodafone vs Income Tax case.- Legal Style: Says one lesson he learnt is to never antagonise a judge. It’s not only your bread and butter but your client’s life.- Fee per appearance: Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh.- The indulgence: His first car was a Toyota Corona in 1990. Now he drives an Audi. Has penned a three-volume commentary on Constitutional law.
**************************************************
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, 51- Landmark case: Won the right to fly the tricolour for Navin Jindal.- Legal Style: From logical in court to rhetorical flourish in Parliament to snappy sound bites for the media on tv.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it’s Rs 25 lakh.- The indulgence: A limited-edition Visconti pen with a custom-made nib and watches from every luxury brand.
**************************************************

The 50 court hearings in the Haldia Petrochemicals vs the West Bengal Government cost the former a total of Rs 25 crore in lawyer fees and the 20 hearings in the Bombay Mill Case, which dragged on for three years, cost the mill owners almost Rs 10 crore. Large corporate firms, which engage star counsels on behalf of the client, also need to know their quirks.

For instance, Salve will only accept the first brief. He will never be the second counsel in a case. Some lawyers prefer to be paid partly in cash but the best are content with cheques. Some expect the client not to blink while picking up a dinner tab of Rs 1.75 lakh at a Chennai five star. A lawyer is known to carry his home linen and curtains with him while travelling on work. A firm may even have to pick up a hot Vertu phone of the moment or a Jaeger-LeCoutre watch of the hour to keep a lawyer in good humour.

Some are even paid to not appear at all for the other side – Aryama Sundaram was retained by Anil Ambani in the gas feud but he did not fight the case. Or take Raytheon when it was fighting the Jindals. Raytheon had paid seven top lawyers a retainer fee of Rs 2.5 lakh each just to ensure that the Jindals would not be able to make a proper case on a taxation issue.

They miscalculated when a star lawyer fought the case at the last minute. “I don’t take negative retainers,” shrugs Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general. “A lawyer’s job is to appear for any client that comes to him. It’s not for the lawyers to judge if a client is good or bad but the court.” Indeed. He is, after all, the lawyer who argued so famously in court that B. Ramalinga Raju did not fudge any account in the Satyam Case. All he did was “window dressing”.

Some high profile cases have continued for years, providing a steady source of income, from the Scindia succession battle which dates to 1989, to the JetLite Sahara battle now in taxation arbitration to the BCCI which is currently in litigation with Lalit Modi, Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab.

Think of the large law firms as the big Hollywood studios and the senior counsel as the superstar. There are a few familiar faces to be found in most of the big ticket cases, whether it is the Ambani gas case, Vodafone taxation or Bombay Mills case.

Explains Salve, “There is a reason why we have more than one senior advocate on a case. When you’re arguing, he’s reading the court. He picks up a point or a vibe that you may have missed.” Says Raian Karanjawala whose firm has prepared the briefs for cases ranging from the Tata’s recent right to privacy case to Karisma Kapoor’s divorce, “The four jewels in the crown today are Salve, Rohatgi, Rohinton Nariman and Singhvi.

They have replaced the old guard of Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, Ashok Desai and K.K. Venugopal.” He adds, “The one person who defies the generational gap is Jethmalani who was India’s leading criminal lawyer in the 1960s and is so today.”

The demand for superstar lawyers has far outstripped the supply. So a one-man show by, say, Rohatgi can run up billings of Rs 40 crore, the same as a mid-sized corporate law firm like Titus and Co that employs 28 juniors. The big law firms such as AZB or Amarchand & Mangaldas or Luthra & Luthra have to do all the groundwork for the counsel, from humouring the clerk to ensure the A-lister turns up on the hearing day to sourcing appropriate foreign judgments in emerging areas such as environmental and patent laws. “We are partners in this. There are so few lawyers and so many matters,” points out Diljeet Titus.

As the trust between individuals has broken down, governments have questioned corporates and corporates are questioning each other, and an array of new issues has come up. And as the government has weakened, the courts have become stronger. The lawyer, says Sundaram, with the flourish that has seen him pick up many Dhurandhares and Senakas at pricey art auctions, has emerged as the modern day purohit.

Each purohit is head priest of a particular style. Says Karanjawala, “Harish is the closest example in today’s bar to Fali Nariman; Rohinton has the best law library in his brain; Mukul is easily India’s busiest lawyer while Manu Singhvi is the greatest multi-tasker.” Salve has managed a fine balancing act where he has represented Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, Parkash Singh Badal and Amarinder Singh, Lalit Modi and Subhash Chandra and even the Ambani brothers, of course in different cases. Singhvi is Sonia Gandhi’s go-to-guy on most legal issues, whether it is citizenship or filing a case against a publication.

Jethmalani is the man to call for anyone in trouble. In judicial circles he is known as the first resort for the last resort. Even Jethmalani’s junior Satish Maneshinde, who came to Mumbai in 1993 as a penniless law graduate from Karnataka, shot to fame (and wealth) after he got bail for Sanjay Dutt in 1996. Now he owns a plush office in Worli and has become a one-stop shop for celebrities in trouble, from getting bail for Rakhi Sawant when a youth committed suicide after she called him namard (impotent) to representing Salman Khan in a drunken driving case.

With wealth come perks. In 1992, Karanjawala and Desai were chatting in the Supreme Court car park when former law minister Ashoke Sen zipped by in his Fiat. “What Ashoke, small car?” asked Desai to which Sen replied, “In Bangla we have a saying: known Brahmins need not wear the sacred thread.” Now the car park is filled with Bentleys, Mercedes and at the very least, an upmarket Toyota. The symbols of success include a holiday home in Goa, Souzas on the office walls, shopping expeditions to Bond Street (where they can expect to bump into other lawyers). As Salve says, “Only Brioni and Canali make boring suits for lawyers, the blacks and dark greys.” Also the pens, the watches, and in Arun Jaitley and Rohatgi’s case, the jamewars. Then there is the public profile, amplified by talking head status on tv channels every other night.

Most of the prized lawyers such as Salve, Jethmalani, Sundaram and Rohatgi do some pro bono work as well, if the cause is right. But in all this, the pil bar has come crashing down, upheld only by men such as Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan. “I subsidise my pil work by taking on commercial cases, which I needed when I had to send my daughters to study in the US,” says Dhavan. In many cases, it’s the take-off point for a job in the government like Indira Jaising’s work with Mumbai’s homeless pavement dwellers which has got her the additional solicitor general’s job. As Dhavan notes, the dense gravity of private marketing lawyering has created black holes in activist lawyering.

Says an angry Sorabjee, “To charge Rs 30 to 40 lakh per day is nothing short of extortion. It is no excuse to say that the client can afford it. Lawyers are professionals, not tradesmen in a market place. I get mad if a client says fees are no question. You think you can buy me? You can charge heavy fees but not extortionist fees.” The octogenarian constitutional expert charges Rs 2 lakh per appearance as opposed to the going rate of Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh charged by younger lawyers. Sometimes, if the court breaks for lunch at 1 p.m. and the matter has come up for hearing at 12.45, the lawyer even bills the client for two separate appearances.

In Mumbai, for instance, veteran criminal lawyer Majid Memon charges Rs 2 lakh simply for securing bail in a sessions court. There are those who recall him coming to the tada court in 1996 on an old scooter. He now drives a Mercedes. In Chennai, Arvind Datar charges anything between Rs 50,000 and Rs 5 lakh per appearance.

As for the chartered flights, they all claim that this is a necessity rather than a privilege. “The advocates come to us with that offer (of chartered flights). It’s not flaunting of power but the idea is to return the same day from a badly connected destination, says Singhvi, putting on his most earnest expression. Rohatgi complains of being claustrophobic on small planes. “During peak hours, chartered flights don’t get preference over commercial,” he adds with the jaded fatigue of a seasonal traveller.

There is a reason for this exorbitant fee structure. In recent years, the stakes in corporate litigation have hit the roof, as in the Rs 12,000-crore Vodafone vs the Income Tax department case. Moreover, the legal fraternity argues that when clients don’t mind paying investment bankers fees worth millions of dollars, then why are only lawyers coming up for censure? The fate of several crucial corporate battles hangs on the slender thread of which matter is listed before which court and which lawyer would work there. “Why should we earn less than the CEO of a big corporation?” asks Sundaram. Except that this CEO often goes on to become a minister in the government-law as a profession offers immense mobility-and deal with the same organisations he once represented.

Most corporate bosses also have their legal favourites. For instance, Nusli Wadia’s favourite lawyer is Fali Nariman who hates “skullduggery”; ITC’s was Desai but he has since been replaced by Salve; the late Madhav Rao Scindia’s family favours Singhvi. Of course, the Ambani brothers too have their chosen legal soldiers: while Anil’s first choice is usually Rohatgi, his brother opts for Salve. As does Ratan Tata. The Birlas go with Sen. Many have created mini-dynasties, whether it is Singhvi, Salve or Rohinton Nariman.

“Sometimes, it’s the thrill of the forensic complexity that counts, not winning or losing,” says Singhvi. He recalls how during the Ambani gas case, a friend called and asked him, “The stocks are fluctuating wildly. You’re the oracle: which way will it go?” Singhvi laughed and said he had no idea. Salve agrees. “Mukesh called me that morning and said we have done our best. The rest is up to God,” he recalls.
However, Rohatgi who appeared for Anil says, “I had a premonition we would lose. But Anil thought otherwise.” Salve adds, “After the judgment, Mukesh was too choked to speak. Nita said they had one more request. I should handle the media. She said, Harish bhai bahut negativity ho gaya. There should be no loose comments.” Clearly a lawyer’s brief is not just limited to courtrooms.

Ironically, it was during the Battle of the Brothers last year that Salve told the Supreme Court how Mukesh Ambani had told him about the millions of dollars demanded by laptop consultants just to create holding companies, resulting companies and other such complexities. Quick to retort, Rohatgi had quipped, “Is this how Salve justifies his high fees?” Grinning, a sheepish Salve said, “I plead guilty on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues.” But it was Justice R.V. Raveendran who had the last word, “The only difference between Salve and the consultants is the laptop.” And perhaps the Bentley, the BMW and the Mercedes.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/the-new-nawabs.html

Monday, December 13, 2010

Indian-origin Paul Grewal named magistrate judge in San Jose

Indian-origin Paul Grewal named magistrate judge in San Jose

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California announced that Paul Singh Grewal, a 39-year-old Indian origin trial attorney, has been appointed a magistrate judge in the San Jose division. Grewal, who focuses on technology litigation, taking a seat vacated by the retirement of Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Grewal is leaving his post as a partner in the Howrey law firm, which merged with the Day, Casebeer, Madrid and Batchelder law firm last year, where he had been for 10 years practicing civil intellectual property law.

This appointment follows closely the naming of Indian American Jay Gandhi as a federal magistrate judge in the Central District of California. Gandhi took the oath of office Nov. 19 in Los Angeles. He holds a under graduation degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993 and has a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996.

Finishing the law school, he served as a judicial clerk to District Judge Samuel H. Bell of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and for Circuit Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Magistrate judges earn about $160,000 a year, and that position often leads the way to becoming a district judge.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Indian Judicial Service and Indian Legal Service on the anvil - TOI News

The Centre is finalising creation of two new all-India services -- Indian Judicial Service (IJS) and Indian Legal Service (ILS) -- to fulfil its promise to create 15,000 additional courts by 2012 and meet the demand for services of legal professionals from various departments of the Union and state governments.

"We will create two all-India services -- IJS and ILS -- mainly aimed at capacity building at the lower levels of judiciary and to provide professional legal advice to various departments," law minister M Veerappa Moily told TOI.

Though he was tight-lipped about the timeframe of the plan, the minister said the IJS would help attract talent from all over the country for appointment at the sessions judge level.

The ministry's Vision Document prepared last year had promised creation of 15,000 posts of judges for two years to tackle the huge backlog of nearly 2.5 crore cases in the trial courts. But, with that apparently not working out, the government is keen to add to the number of nearly 17,000 existing trial court judges by creating the IJS.

Explaining the need for ILS, the law minister said there was dearth of professional legal hands in various departments of the state governments and the Centre when it comes to seeking legal opinion on various day-to-day issues.

"On complex and constitutional issues, the Centre has the Attorney General, Solicitor General and a team of additional solicitors general to seek opinion from. The states too have the advocate general and a team of legal professionals. But they being required to attend the courts daily hardly have time to give opinions on all issues on the plate of various departments. Hence, creation of an all-India legal service would fill the void," he said.

The first law commission had proposed setting up of an All India Judicial Service, but the proposal was shot down in the law ministers' meeting in 1960. The All India Services Act, 1951, was amended in 1963 to include five more services other than IAS, IFS and IPS. However, by the Constitution 44th Amendment in 1976, it was provided in Article 312 that Parliament may by law provide for creation of one or more all-India service (including an All-India Judicial Service) common to Union and states.

A decade later in 1986, the law commission by its 116th report by then chairperson D A Desai to the Centre proposed a detailed draft of an All-India Judicial Service saying "what was considered unnecessary in 1946, after a lapse of three decades became a compelling necessity. And it does not require long arguments or a detailed analysis to reach the conclusion that a service organisation on an all-India level attracting talent from whole country would provide more competent service than the service organized at state level".

It is to be seen whether after 25 years of the law commission recommendation and several departmental proposals, the Centre would be able to put in place the two new all-India services.


Read more: Govt to create two new all-India services to meet legal demand - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-to-create-two-new-all-India-services-to-meet-legal-demand/articleshow/6873044.cms#ixzz14nWV5omj

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Transformation via Mobile Internet - www.economist.com

Mobile internet in emerging markets - How the mobile internet will transform the BRICI countries

BUYING a mobile phone was the wisest $20 Ranvir Singh ever spent. Mr Singh, a farmer in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, used to make appointments in person, in advance, to deliver fresh buffalo milk to his 40-odd neighbours. Now his customers just call when they want some. Mr Singh’s income has risen by 25%, to 7,000 rupees ($149) a month. And he hears rumours of an even more bountiful technology. He has heard that “something on mobile phones” can tell him the current market price of his wheat. Mr Singh does not know that that “something” is the internet, because, like most Indians, he has never seen or used it. But the phone in his calloused hand hints at how hundreds of millions of people in emerging markets—perhaps even billions—will one day log on. 

Only 81m Indians (7% of the population) regularly use the internet. But brutal price wars mean that 507m own mobile phones. Calls cost as little as $0.006 per minute. Indian operators such as Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications sign up 20m new subscribers a month.
In other developing countries, too, there are many more mobile phones than internet connections. In Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia (the so-called BRICI countries), there are 610m regular internet users but a staggering 1.8 billion mobile-phone connections, according to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). In a report called “The Internet’s New Billion”, BCG predicts that by 2015 there will be 1.2 billion internet users in these countries—dwarfing the total in America and Japan (see chart).

These new internet users will mostly log on via their mobile phones. This tends to be cheaper and easier than any other option. In Brazil, fixed-line broadband is often prohibitively expensive; in Russia, where it can be much cheaper, it is often unavailable. In India, where infrastructure is always a headache, it is hard to get a good basic landline, let alone broadband.

Poor people seldom have personal computers. In the BRICI countries, whose combined population is more than 3 billion, there are only 440m PCs. Many people use internet cafés, but these are inaccessible to rural folk. A connection in your pocket is far more convenient. 

Hordes of Indians will start using their mobiles to access the internet early next year when third-generation (3G) services, which allow subscribers to access the web, arrive. Kunal Bajaj, India director of Analysys Mason, a British consultancy, expects the take-up to be as fast—and as revolutionary—as it has been for mobile phones. “The telecoms companies have seen what happens when they drop prices. They’ve already tasted blood. The price wars will be just as aggressive,” he says.

The stakes are high. In developing countries, every 10 percentage-point increase in mobile-phone penetration yields an extra 0.81 percentage points of annual economic growth, according to a 2009 World Bank study. The mobile internet could be even more powerful. The unemployed will search for jobs online. Farmers in remote areas will find customised advice on crop planting.
The drawback of the internet is that you have to be literate to use it. That is a huge problem in India, where the literacy rate is only 60% (in China and Russia, it is over 90%). Mr Singh, the farmer, cannot read, so he cannot send text messages. He says he often needs help dialling numbers correctly, too.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Trademark - Descriptiveness and Registration - from - Legal Blog.in

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that a descriptive word cannot be registered as a trademark. The decision was rendered in the matter Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods.


Marico, which uses the expressions “losorb” and “Lo-sorb” for its product Saffola and Sweekar, had filed the injunction application stating that it has coined the word and got the registration of it. However, the court held that the word was a common descriptive expression and while rejecting the appeal, held as under;

19. Our conclusion is that we have in fact totally failed to appreciate the argument as raised on behalf of the appellant. Surely, when rights are claimed over a word mark as a trademark and which word mark is in fact a mere tweak of a descriptive word indicative of the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of the goods, it is not open to urge that although the respondent is using the descriptive word mark in fact only as a part of sentence as a description (and even assuming for the sake of argument only the descriptive word mark in itself) alongwith another independent trademark, yet the use of descriptive words are to be injuncted against. How can it at all be argued that though the respondent is in fact shown to be using the disputed word(s) only with a descriptive intendment, yet, such use should be taken not in a descriptive manner but as a trademark. If we permit such an argument to prevail then what will happen is that what cannot be directly done will be indirectly done i.e., whereas the appellant is not entitled to succeed in the infringement action because the use by the respondent is in furtherance of its statutory rights of the user of the words which are descriptive of the kind, quality, intended purpose or characteristic of the goods, yet, merely because the appellant states that the respondent is using the same as a trademark, the same should be taken as infringement of the trademark of the appellant. Not only the plaintiff has no exclusive rights whatsoever to the trademarks because they are such which fall within the mischief of Section 30(2)(a), the respondent/defendant is always fully justified and entitled to use the descriptive words in any and every manner that it so chooses and pleases to do. If there are no rights of the plaintiff to exclusive user of the trademark then where does arise the question of disentitlement of a defendant to use the trademark of the appellant inasmuch as any person who adopts a descriptive word mark does so at its own peril in that any other person will also be fully entitled to use the same in view of a specific statutory rights thereto, and there are various other statutory rights including that under Section 30(2) (a), and which is what is being done by the respondent in the facts of the present case and its rights being further stronger because of the use alongwith the simultaneous use of its trademark "Sundrop". In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 30(2)(a) clearly applies in entitling the respondent to use the expression "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" because that is only a descriptive use by normal English words in the English language indicative of the kind, quality, intended purpose of characteristic of the goods. There is no use of the expression "bonafide" in Section 30(2)(a) as is found in Section 35, and we do not propose to import in Section 30(2)(a) the expression "bonafide" because the subject matters of the two Sections i.e. Section 32(a) and Section 35 are though common on certain limited aspects, however the two sections do in fact operate in separate fields. Also looking at the issue in another way, "bonafide" aspect can in a way be said to be very much included in Section 30(2)(a) because the use of words which indicate their relation to the goods for the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics etc. of the goods, is clearly only a bonafide user of the same and which "bonafideness" does not have to be additionally proved. In fact, there is ordinarily not only no lack of bonafides in using the normal descriptive word, and on the contrary there is in fact malafides of a plaintiff in adopting otherwise a descriptive word mark and for which adaption there is ordinarily an absolute ground for refusal of registration of the trademark. There is no malafides of the respondent as alleged by the appellant because the respondent is using the expression "LOW ABSORB" as part of a sentence in a descriptive manner and the respondent is also prominently using its own trademark "Sundrop", an aspect we have repeatedly referred to otherwise in this judgment. Merely because the respondent used "TM" earlier after the expression "LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" is not such as to wipe out statutory rights/defences of the respondent. We are also of the opinion that once the person, against whom a suit is filed on the ground of infringement of a trademark which is in fact a descriptive word, then, if a defendant is using his own word mark as a trademark prominently in addition to the descriptive word mark which the plaintiff claims to be his trademark, nothing further is required to show the bonafides of the defendant against whom infringement of a registered trademark is alleged. In the facts of the present case, we have already adverted to in detail the prominent use by the respondent of its independent trademark "Sundrop", and, the fact that the expression "LOW ABSORB" is being used only as part of the sentence which reads "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY".
20. We may however note that when two identical trademarks are used by two parties in the market, or that a use of a descriptive word by a defendant can be confused with the trademark of a plaintiff, then a Court is always entitled to ensure that such distinction is brought or conditions are imposed qua the two identical or deceptively similar trademarks by imposing such conditions of use on both or either of the parties so that a third vital/important stakeholder in these Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disputes viz. the public, is not in any manner deceived/confused and whose rights are not prejudicially affected. This has been held by us in a recent judgment in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Diat Foods (India) decided on 29.9.2010, in which this Court (speaking through Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J) has relied upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Goenka Institute of Education and Research Vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr. AIR 2009 (Delhi) 139: 2009 (160) DLT 417 as also Section 12 of the Act and held the entitlement of a Court to issue directions to ensure that there is no confusion in the public with respect to two separate products which are sold under identical or deceptively similar trademarks. Of course, in this case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. use by the respondent/defendant was not as a trademark but only in the descriptive sense, and yet, to avoid confusion to the public, directions were issued. Similar would be the entitlement of a Court afortiorari when two parties use same or deceptively similar descriptive word marks as trademarks.
CONCLUSIONS
21. The following conclusions thus emerge:-
(i) A mark which is sought to used as a trade mark, if, is one falling under Section 9(1)(a) to (c), then the same ordinarily ought not to be afforded protection as a trade mark.
(ii) Before the marks which fall under Section 9(1) (a) to (c) are given protection as a trade mark, the distinctiveness must of an undisturbed user of a very large/considerable number of years, with the emphasis being on discouragement on appropriation of such marks which fall under Section 9(1) (a) to (c).
(iii) A civil court in a suit filed for infringement of a registered trade mark is entitled (if there is no earlier judgment which has achieved finality in cancellation proceedings) to consider the validity of registration for the purpose of passing an interlocutory order including of grant or refusal of an interim injunction- once the objection as to invalidity of registration is taken up in the pleading/written statement.
(iv) A trademark which falls under Section 9(1) (a) to (c) cannot be registered on proposed to be used basis. Evidence on distinctiveness with respect to trade marks falling under Section 9(1) (a) to (c) should be the evidence of user evidencing distinctiveness as on the date of application for registration or at the best of evidence up to the date of registration.
(v) In infringement actions the court is entitled to consider the evidence of distinctiveness up to the date of registration for the purpose of passing any interlocutory order and not evidence showing distinctiveness post registration. However, in cancellation proceedings evidence of distinctiveness post registration of the trade mark can also be considered.
(vi) Even if there is finality to registration of a trade mark, yet the defendant in infringement action can take statutory defences under Sections 30 to 35 to defeat the infringement action.
22. In view of the above, we find that the appeal is not liable to succeed. The appellant does not have a prima facie case in its favour in view of the above discussion. The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent who will be caused grave and irreparable injury if the injunction as prayed for is granted. The law is that as an appellate Court we should not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of learned Single Judge in terms of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited Vs. S.L. Vaswani and Another (2010) 2 SCC 142. The appeal is therefore dismissed. We may state that ordinarily being a commercial matter where giant companies can afford to pay costs we would have imposed actual costs on the appellant, however, we desist from doing so because there is no authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court on certain aspects we have dealt with in this judgment including with respect to an entitlement of a plaintiff to an infringement action with respect to a descriptive word trademark and related word marks which are otherwise such for which there is an absolute ground for refusal of registration.

Friday, November 19, 2010

International Law of Drones - From "Legalperspectives"

Viewed in multi-dimensional perspective, law follows the society. This proposition stands affirmed with the law being examined as a tool of social regulation and thus requiring adaptation such as to meet the changed social dynamics. Thus law evolves along with the evolution of law. A recent article entitled "The International Law of Drones" published by Mary Ellen OʼConnell under the aegis of American Society of International Law in this context "surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones". Tracing the rise of drones and particularly 'attack drones' in recent times, the paper goes on to explore the need for 'special rules for drones' under International law.

In all, the paper provides interesting insights in the law-making process which culminates into rules of international standards and thus international law itself in the context of this new-found weapon of destruction. While the paper concludes that "drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs" and that "the current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones", the paper does advocate further research to be undertaken in order

"
to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks". In all, an insightful discussion.

Source - http://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/11/international-law-of-drones.html

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Res Judicata and Special Statutes - From :- indiacorplaw.blogspot.com

The rapid proliferation of Tribunals in India has perhaps masked an allied, and yet facially less controversial feature of adjudication – the growth of special statutes and the creation of jurisdictional courts to resolve disputes arising out of those statutes. Facially, no constitutional vice attaches to such statutes – indeed, it is often the ordinary civil court that is designated as the jurisdictional court under the special statute. This, however, has at times obscured the important point that although the same court hears the dispute, it exercises a different type of jurisdiction. This has interesting consequences on a wide gamut of procedural and substantive stages of litigation – one of which the Supreme Court considered recently, in Md. Nooman v Md. Jabed Alam.

The issue before the Court in Nooman was whether a finding as to title in a suit for eviction operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of title. To illustrate the implications of this judgment on the impact of findings under special statutes, it is necessary to give a somewhat elaborate account of the facts. In Nooman, a suit for eviction was instituted in 1973 in the Munsif Court in Arrah by the plaintiff. Her case was that she had acquired the suit property from her mother-in-law through a Registered Sale Deed in 1957, and relied on mutation in the revenue and municipal records to support title. The defendant tenant, her brother-in-law, ran the opposite case, claiming that the property in fact belonged to him, as it had been gifted to him by his mother. The Trial Court framed seven issues, of which Issues 3 and 4 were, respectively: “Has the plaintiff got title to the suit land” and “Is the sale deed valid… Both parties adduced detailed evidence in support of these claims and examined witnesses.

The Trial Court found for the plaintiff on Issues 3 and 4 above, but dismissed the suit because she had not proved the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and since it is a rule of procedure that an eviction suit cannot be converted into a declaratory suit. Appeals were dismissed. In 1979, the plaintiff filed a Title Suit against the defendant tenant, seeking declaration and recovery of possession. The parties ran exactly the same case, and the issues the Trial Court framed were, inter alia, Has the Plaintiff got title over suit property” and “Is there any relationship of landlord-tenant”. The Trial Court once again found for the plaintiff on the title issue, and decreed the suit, finding that she had proved the landlord-tenant relationship. An appeal was filed against that judgment, and the appellate court, after reappraising the evidence, held that the plaintiff had not proved title, and dismissed the suit. The High Court reversed, finding that the judgment of the Rent Court operated as res judicata on the question of title. By the time the Supreme Court considered this question, both parties had died, and been substituted by legal representatives.

The short issue before the Supreme Court was res judicata. As is well known, res judicata is governed by s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], which reads as follows:

11. Res judicata.—No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been heard and finally decided by such Court [emphasis added].

On the face of it, this provision extends the operation of res judicata if the court that decided the issue was either competent to hear that suit, or would have been to hear the suit in which res judicata is raised. Explanation VIII goes further and provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.

The Supreme Court affirmed this conclusion, although, surprisingly, it did not refer to the provisions of s. 11 CPC. The contrary argument proceeded on the premise that the Rent Court satisfies itself only that there is prima facie title, for it is not competent to determine title except as incidental to a determination of the rights of the landlord and the tenant. This argument was rejected on the basis of Mr Justice Meredith’s observations in a 1949 decision of the Patna High Court, which are as follows:

The decision in a rent suit is not res judicata on the question of title unless the question of title had to be decided, was expressly raised, and was expressly decided between the parties and in each case it is necessary to examine carefully the decision in the rent suit before any opinion can be formed as to whether it operates as res judicata on the question of title or not. Ordinarily the decision would be res judicata only with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant…

It is submitted that the Supreme Court was clearly correct in reaching this conclusion. It is, however, important to resist any temptation to conclude that the test advanced by Mr Justice Meredith is wider than s. 11 CPC r/w Explanation VIII, although that suggestion is not implausible on the plain language of the text. The more precise tests in the test above are best seen not as supplanting or amplifying the statutory formulation, but as offering courts useful indicators of when the statutory test is likely to be satisfied.

Source - indiacorplaw.blogspot.com

Friday, November 12, 2010

Bhopal Tragedy Continues - dissidentvoice.org

The Ongoing Legacy of Bhopal: Injustice and Anti-corporate Resistance

The Sambhavna Trust Clinic (STC) receives over 180 victims of the Union Carbide gas leak everyday. It has to turn away patients as it lacks the resources to treat them all. The STC refuses to take corporate donations, not wanting to play into the PR propaganda machine, and is wary of the motivations of NGOs. “We think there is a need for space free from corporate manipulation,” said Satinath Sarangi, managing trustee of the STC.
The clinic is just 400 meters away from where 40 metric tonnes of lethal Methyl Iso-Cynate (MIC) gas billowed from the Dow Chemical subsidiary Union Carbide factory in 1984, exposing over 500,000 people, instantly killing some 8,000, and causing 25,000 deaths in the past 26 years. Today, some 120,000 to 150,000 people are chronically ill from exposure to MIC, approximately 10% of Bhopal’s population.
The MIC factory is visible from the second floor of the clinic, which was purposely built in the vicinity to treat the worst affected in a highly impoverished area of the city, with 24,000 Bhopalis registered with STC for long-term care.
The list of medical conditions is long, from respiratory problems, nerve disorders, blindness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, brain damage, paralysis and gastric issues, to reproductive problems and stunted growth in children. According to a 2010 paper by the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, titled “Effects of Exposure of Parents to Toxic Gases in Bhopal on the Offspring,” of women pregnant at the time of exposure, 43.86% lost their child.
“Our data are suggestive of delayed growth of the male until puberty and some slowing of growth of the female after attaining puberty,” the report further states.
Gas exposure also weakened immune systems, which has resulted in survivors more prone to die of disease, whether malaria, tuberculosis (TB), typhoid or dengue fever.
“TB is four times higher here than elsewhere in the country as the immune system is weakened, according to studies by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine,” said Sarangi. “The researcher, Dr Neil Andersson, said Bhopal was like chemical aids.”
A festering wound
The MIC gas leak in Bhopal ranks as one of the world’s worst industrial accidents, and is a glaring case of justice denied. It is a tragedy, and one that has been made far worse than it ever should have been by the criminal negligence of Union Carbide/Dow Chemical (UC/DC) and the Indian authorities. Both parties (the Indian government and Indian stakeholders had a 49.1% stake) have downplayed the number of deaths, the number of victims and withheld information on what happened that fateful night at the factory, as well as locking survivors into decades of legal battles in their quest for compensation. UC/DC absconded from its legal charges in India and the CEO at the time, Warren Anderson, has not been extradited from the US to India to face charges brought against him – an effigy of him is burned every year on the anniversary of the tragedy in Bhopal. On top of all of this, there has not been a thorough clean up of the MIC’s factory, its surroundings and the ponds full of toxic sludge.
When compensation has come, it has been woefully inadequate. UC/DC paid out just $470 million in compensation, which the Indian government then sat on for years earning interest before reluctantly doling out the money in 2004. Survivors got just 25,000 Rupees ($555) each, of which many had already spent significant amounts on doctors, lawyers, transportation and bribery to get their cases to court. Compare that to the amount the US government forced BP earlier this year to stump up for the Gulf oil spill – $20 billion.
“There is clear double standards and racism. Dow Chemical has accepted the charges against Union Carbide in the US, whereas in Bhopal they say they are not liable. And there are many parallels with the BP oil spill. Information was similarly suppressed there,” said Sarangi. “What has happened here in Bhopal is a guidebook for how to escape corporate liability,” he added.
As Sanjay Verma, a baby at the time of the leak who survived due to his sister wrapping him tightly in blankets (the other 8 members of his family died of gas exposure), said: “Wounds heal over time, but in Bhopal the wounds get worse.”
It is also a lingering wound for Dow Chemical’s “brand name” through its refusal to deal honestly with the tragedy. The disaster, which has become synonymous with Bhopal, is forever a black mark against Dow. You can run, but you can’t hide.
Bhopal has become a clarion call for activists and the anti-globalization movement, a poster of the “true face of globalization” and the dark side of the “new world economy” where a multi-billion dollar company can get away with murder in a country where 80% of the population lives on less than $0.50 a day and through connivance with a government ready to pander to foreign companies in the ceaseless desire for capital. It is as crystal clear a case as you can get of profit before people.
Yet while Bhopal shows that while a crime can be committed and go essentially unpunished, it won’t be forgotten. It is a simmering issue with Indians and many around the world. Indeed, Verma, a local fixer, said he assists on average two journalists every month and dozens during the lead up to the anniversary. Bhopal is that rare thing, a continuous, ongoing media story.
“The Bhopal issue is still very potent, that even after so many years Bhopal is still a crack in the system, and lays bare corporations and government lackeys for what they truly are,” said Sarangi.
A blow to US-India relations?
Bhopal is complicating US-India relations. In August, Delhi passed a law that could make nuclear power companies liable for damages in the advent of an accident, which has become a concern for US nuclear players eager to get in on India’s 123 Nuclear Agreement with the US that was signed in 2008 to develop civilian nuclear power.
Indian politicians, including the right wing BJP party, want the Bhopal tragedy to be raised with Barrack Obama when he visits India this coming week. Even if it is not broached, Bhopal will be a cloud over the president’s first visit to India. Four leftist political parties, activists and survivors of the gas leak will descend on the capital to picket Obama, and have called for a “a countrywide day of protest” on Nov. 8, for “justice for the victims of the Bhopal Gas accident” along with withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and ending funding to Israel. “We are going to Delhi to be heard at Obama’s visit,” said Sarangi.
But while issues of terrorism, strengthening bilateral ties and the usual mumbo-jumbo will be on the table when Obama visits, business will of course get a top billing.
“Obama is coming with the largest ever entourage of business representatives to get deals in India, but there has not been a single step to ensure that companies should abide by the law of the land or listen to the courts,” said Sarangi. He added that the United States-India Business Council (USIBC) will do what it can to prevent such laws being applied to US companies and for Anderson to not be extradited. “The USIBC has played a prominent role in the continued injustice of Bhopal,” he said.
Getting Anderson into an Indian dock seems unlikely. He is 89 and retired, and with no Mossad-like agency to track him down like members of the SS guilty of Holocaust atrocities and crimes against humanity, Anderson can continue his pampered existence in the Hamptons. Moreover, it would set a bad precedent if the US handed him over. It would mean that could happen again, opening a Pandora’s Box for corporations and management wanted for breaking laws around the world. Moreover, as the financial pundits say, it would discourage US and foreign investment in India.
“No Hiroshima, No Bhopal, We Want to Live” is carved under a sculpture to the victims of the gas leak outside the UC factory. Let us hope not, but while pressure will continue to be put on the US government and Dow Chemical, the system is still operating to the mantra “business as usual” and India is keen to strengthen its ties with Washington. But the momentum is still there and the Bhopal tragedy refuses to go away.
Although there are very few positives in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy, lately there have been some developments. In June, a court sentenced seven former Union Carbide employees, all Indian, to two years in prison and fined 100,000 Rps ($2,100) each. The former Indian arm of Union Carbide was convicted of negligence and fined 500,000 Rps ($10,600). Some 26 years later, it is a case of very overdue justice, even if not severe enough, as activists rightly point out.
The authorities also decided to provide further compensation to those that lost a relative in the tragedy – although not to survivors – of 1 million Rps ($22,000). The issue now is whether people will get that amount, and what they are due.
Bring back the dead
Shamshad Begum lives in a one-room house down a small alleyway off Union Carbide Road, which flanks the MIC factory. When the gas escaped from the factory at five past midnight on December 2, 1984, Begum ran with her husband and two daughters, leaving her mother in law and young son behind as they weren’t able to move. “Bodies filled the roads. The gas was a blue colour, my throat felt bitter and we were all choking. I felt like I wasn’t going to survive, I was going to die, and I thought it better to die than breathe. My daughter’s eyes turned red, like a flame,” she said.
Her mother-in-law died that night, her son the next day. In the following years, she lost three children during pregnancy. A second son died in 1988, her eldest, married daughter is sick all the time, and her 15 year old daughter suffers from lung problems – yet she doesn’t want her to know – while her husband died three years ago from gas related side effects. “I’ve lost half of my family due to the disaster,” she said. “My husband got 25,000 Rps for the death of his mother. But in the end, when he was dying, he suffered a lot; what is 25,000 Rps?”
Without a husband or son to earn money, Begum struggles to survive on a widow’s pension of 150 Rps ($3.33) a month and renting out the next door room to migrant labourers for 400 Rps ($8.88) a month. Begum is hopeful that she will be given the 1 million Rps in compensation for her husband’s death and be entitled to a further million for the death of her mother in law so she can move away from Bhopal to live in “a clean and healthy place.” But Indian bureaucracy is not helping matters. “We submitted original death certificates and documents years ago, and now they want the originals again, but they have them, so there’s more paper work to do to get them back. They are delaying everything,” she said.
“I want to give a message, that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to operate that kill people and make them sleep forever,” said Begum. “I would tell them [UC/DC], give us the people back who died from our families, not compensation, give them back to us.”
A poisoned soil waste dump
For visitors and the press to enter the abandoned Union Carbide factory they need to get permission from the Deputy Collector (Gas Relief) in Bhopal, which typically takes 24 hours. This must be presented to the policemen at the entrance to the factory who then guide visitors around the site. Locals however do not need such paperwork, they can simply walk into the compound from the slums that surround the factory to scavenge for wood, graze their livestock or relax in the shade of the vegetation. The crumbling factory, offices and buildings aside, it is green and lush place, full of trees and tall grass. Chipmunks scurry about and birds twitter in the tree tops. It resembles a park in the middle of a city. But as a stencil on the outside wall of the factory states under a skull and cross bones, this is a “poisoned soil waste dump”.
One of the laboratories is totally open, the windows smashed and no locks on the doors, while bottles of chemicals are stacked up covered in cobwebs. A photojournalist last year moved one of the bottles for a shot of the label; he was later hospitalized for coming into contact with a dangerous chemical.
Visitors are warned not to touch anything and immediately after the tour wash their clothes and footwear. There is plenty of toxic waste and dust around, and the steel structure of the factory is slowly disintegrating along with the vats and containers that held lethal chemicals.
At one end of the complex is a “serious contaminated zone,” which still reeks of chemicals. Only now is a wall being built to ostensibly keep people out, but there are plenty of gaps for locals to enter. And despite the wall, there are toxic ponds outside of the complex where people take livestock to drink, wash clothes and around which children play. The mud is also dug up to use as flooring for dwellings.
On the sides of the ponds, the black plastic lining used to contain the sludge is visible, UC having used a process of solar evaporation for the waste. In the dry season, the earth is covered in a thick white coating. This waste has entered the ground water and polluted the drinking water. Most water pumps have been turned off, but some remain and the government has been lax about getting piped clean drinking water to residents that live on what is a huge toxic dump.
One building inside the complex houses 350 metric tonnes of chemicals rotting away, locked but not sealed from the elements. What the impact is of storing these chemicals in the compound is not known. But the whole area, the vegetation included, is contaminated, according to research by Greenpeace. The site should be torn down and the waste safely disposed of, and not in the way the authorities did in the past when it transported 40 tonnes of waste to an incinerator in a nearby town without telling the residents. Not designating the area a contaminated zone is akin to the Ukrainian government letting people continue to live right beside the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
Nearly 26 years after the disaster, there is still no justice and no environmental clean up, while victims continue to die from exposure and children continue to suffer. Bhopal is an issue that won’t go away until justice is finally achieved.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

End of BCI as we know it? Law min’s draft Bill to create lawyers’ super-watchdog | News | Legally India


The law ministry has proposed a new statute that partly supplant the functions of the Bar Council of India (BCI) with a new super-regulator called the Legal Services Board that will oversee the regulation of legal practice, client service, legal education and make it obligatory for lawyers to provide free legal aid.
The Legal Services Board would be established under a new Act called the Legal Practitioners (Regulations and Maintenance of Standards in Professions, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Act, 2010, which was published on the law ministry's website last week.

Modelled on the lines of the Legal Services Board in the UK, the statement of objective reads that it would make provision for “the regulation of persons who carry out the activities of legal practitioners”, establish an ombudsman and a scheme for complaints against the professionals and set out the rules of the provision legal services free of charge.

As proposed in the current form, the Act consists of six chapters with Chapter Three dealing with the constitution of the Board in Part I, the consumer panel in Part II and ombudsman in Part III. The relationship between the Board and the bar councils is discussed under Part II of Chapter IV, with the board having the power to direct the bar councils to take actions and to publicly censure the councils for their acts or omissions. The draft Act is silent on detailed rules of ethics or the practice of law in India by foreign lawyers.

“The BCI has not been towing the law ministry's line. They are trying to clip its wings,” commented one Indian law firm partner with knowledge of the draft.

Bar Council watchdog or replacement?

The new Board would exercise supervisory jurisdiction over all the Bar Councils including the BCI as per sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the draft Act and “may do anything calculated to facilitate, or incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of its functions”.
Notwithstanding the Advocates Act 1961 the Board “must” also assist in the “maintenance and development of standards” in relation to the education and training of legal professionals and “regulation approved by the [BCI] in relation to the activities of the advocates”.

Widened legal profession?

The 1961 Advocates Act’s definition of “practice of law” was famously examined in the Lawyers Collective case in late 2009 and held to include not just court-based legal work, although it stepped short of deciding whether chartered accountants, company secretaries, in-house counsel or legal process outsourcing (LPO) companies practised law.
But the new draft Act widens its own application from just advocates under the 1961 Act to the newly defined term “Legal Professionals”, which it states also includes tax practitioners, trademark and patent services and “other professional services where legal issues are involved”.

Ombudsman for complaints and board

One of the unique aspects of the proposal are that for the first time an ombudsman would be appointed to investigate complaints against lawyers in India. Currently disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are handled by state bar councils. Under the proposal the ombudsman would be able to publish and recommend reports that would be forwarded to the state bar councils for action.
The Legal Services Board would have a chairman who would be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the chairman of the BCI, a member-secretary appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the CJI and the BCI chairman, and Central Government-chosen members representing various parts of the nation who would be appointed by the Government in consultation with the CJI and BCI’s Chairman.
The Board may appoint a chief-ombudsman and regional ombudsmen, with state ombudsmen being selected from district court judges.

Duty to give free legal aid

Under section 27 “every Legal Practitioner shall be duty bound to give free legal services to the financially weaker consumers/clients who fall just above the income levels prescribed under Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987”.

Government to fund

The new Board’s administrative expenses including remuneration of its staff would be funded from the Indian government’s Consolidated Fund of India, with drawings needing to be authorised by Parliament. The Board may also be entitled under the Act’s section 11 “as the case may be” to a share of the Rs 25 stamp duty charged to advocates filing vakalatnama in court.
By contrast, the BCI and state bar councils receive no government money at all but have only been funded through money received by admitting law colleges, certain stamp duties and fees of advocates’ enrolment. For the BCI, law college admissions have traditionally made up a large share of its revenues.

Consultation period

The proposal is currently at a nascent stage with the ministry’s department of legal affairs having invited recommendations to the draft within 30 days from all stakeholders including the public at large, members of the legal fraternity and academicians. The draft would be placed before the Parliament for further discussion and debate only after receiving the desired feedback.