Latest news with #RaviKrishanKapur
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bring elephants back to Bengal: HC to forest dept
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has ordered Bengal's chief conservator of forests to take all necessary steps to expeditiously bring back three elephants that formerly belonged to Natraj Circus but were sent to Bihar illegally. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court further directed the state to take effective measures at the border to ensure that no elephants are illegally transported in the future. The HC division bench issued the directives on Monday in a PIL filed by animal rights organisation Cape Foundation against the transportation of the elephants — Bhola, Suman, and Basanti — to different states. While a coordinate bench on July 19, 2019 asked Bengal's chief wildlife warden to also speak to his counterparts in Bihar and other states to ensure the repatriation of the elephants, non-compliance with the order led to the issue of a contempt order on Sept 7, 2022. After the mahant of an ashram in Bihar's Gopalganj, who claimed to be the lawful owner of the elephants by virtue of a gift deed dated Oct 12, 2017, approached the Supreme Court and complained that he was not heard, the apex court set aside the earlier orders and directed the HC to hear him. The Cape Foundation counsel argued that the elephants were illegally transported from Bengal to the ashram despite the cancellation of the ownership certificate and suspension of the registration certificate of Natraj Circus. "After the cancellation of the ownership certificate in 2018, the elephants automatically vested with the state. Also, no prior permission was obtained from the chief wildlife warden for the transportation of any elephant from Bengal. The respondent (mahant) also failed to establish any lawful right," the counsel said. Inspections showed the elephants were kept in poor conditions, chained with spiked shackles for most of the day. Reports also stated that they were being commercially exploited and used in political rallies. The division bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur stated the state could realise the cost of transportation from the ashram.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Morality can't determine patent decision without tech proof: HC
1 2 3 4 Kolkata: Without considering any independent scientific or technical evidence, morality could not be the basis for denying a patent, the Calcutta High Court held as it asked the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to reconsider the patent application of an invention by ITC Limited. "The interaction of patent laws and ethics is an uncomfortable relationship and has always produced difficulties. In such circumstances, Section 3(b) (of the Patents Act, 1970) ought not to be interpreted to deal with all subjective concerns of morality, public order or health, regardless of any scientific or technical evidence or any cogent reasoning," Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur said. On Aug 21, 2024, the application for a patent of an invention, titled 'A heater assembly to generate aerosol', filed by the company, was rejected by the controller on the grounds that the invention caused serious prejudice to human life, health, public order and morality. The company's counsel contended the finding that the invention was contrary to "public order and morality" was cryptic and completely bereft of reasons. "With the increasing demand for handheld aerosol-generative devices, which are able to deliver aerosol for user inhalation, the invention was designed to provide a uniform heat distribution system throughout the aerosol-forming substrate present with an aerosol-generating article," the company submitted in court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like [Click Here] - 2025 Top Trending Search - Local network access Esseps Learn More Undo T he counsel for the controller submitted that the order was adequately reasoned and was in conformity with The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019. But the judge noted that the Act dealt with the sales, manufacture, import and export and not with the grant or non-grant of a patent for an invention. Justice Kapur noted in the judgment on May 20: "The controller has fundamentally erred in his understanding of the invention. Though the invention works on substrates (solid or in liquid form) which may or may not contain tobacco compounds, it is not predicated or limited to the substrate at all. The impugned order erroneously proceeds on the basis that the invention shall exclusively be only used with substrates comprising active tobacco compounds and thus cause prejudice to human life and health. " He further held that the controller misjudged not only the role of the patents office but also misinterpreted the subject invention. The matter was remanded back to the controller to take a decision afresh after giving a hearing to all the parties within three months. "The preconceived and subjective notion that all tobacco products cause serious prejudice to human life and health without any reliance on scientific or technical evidence or any other supporting facts is unsustainable," the judge observed.
