MADAN B.LOKUR, R.K.AGRAWAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Cipla Ltd. : Martin & Harris Laboratories Ltd. – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided information, here are the paragraphs numbered accordingly:
(!) Judicial decisions are generally considered public records:
"Such judicial decisions are generally considered public records and are part of the judicial record, which are not subject to copyright restrictions in most jurisdictions."
(!) Purpose of judicial opinions:
"The purpose of judicial opinions is to serve the public interest by providing clarity on the law and guiding future conduct."
(!) Copyright protection for compilations or editorial content:
"The compilation, selection, and presentation of case materials, including any annotations or editorial comments, may attract copyright protection if they meet the criteria of originality."
(!) Legal principles and reasoning are typically not protected:
"The core legal principles, reasoning, and findings of the court, as reflected in the text, are typically not protected by copyright."
(!) Usage rights of court judgments:
"The legal document as a court judgment is generally in the public domain and can be used freely for reference, citation, or reproduction, provided that proper attribution is given where applicable."
Let me know if you need further assistance.
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
(a) The issues that arise in this batch of appeals are as follows:
(i) Whether the notification dated 13th July, 1999 issued by the Central Government under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 prescribing the norms for conversion cost, packing charges and process loss of raw materials (other than packing materials in conversion) and packing and process loss of packing materials in packaging was issued mechanically and without any application of mind or is it valid in law?
(ii) Whether the notifications dated 12th July, 2000, 12th July, 2001, 12th July, 2002 and 11th July, 2003 issued by the Central Government under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 re-notifying the norms prescribed on 13th July, 1999 were issued mechanically, without any application of mind and without re-determining the norms every year as required by the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 and are valid in law?
(iii) Whether various notifications issued by the Central Government fixing the retail price or ceiling price of formulations under Paragraphs 8 and 9 (as the case may be) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 without determining the norm fo
Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. v. Government of A.P.
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.
Prag Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Union of India v. Swiss Garnier Life Sciences
Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory v. Union of India
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India
V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner
District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association
Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board
State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co.
Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao
World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.
Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.