KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
"...what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. This Court also upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court upholding such a conduct rule. It was observed that a practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25..."...
A tale of two crocodiles
Crocodile International wins Supreme Court fight against rival Lacoste
Last week was an exciting week in the trade mark world, as the Supreme Court released its latest decision in a long standing dispute between Crocodile International and Lacoste. Supreme Court decisions on trade mark law are very rare, and this decision was especially welcomed as a clarification on the law on non-use of trade marks in New Zealand.
Crocodile trade mark
The case related to the question of whether Lacoste had used its trade mark registration (the crocodile mark). Lacoste owned this mark as a result of an assignment to it from a Crocodile company many years ago. Lacoste had never used the trade mark in this form, and had never used any trade mark including the word crocodile.
First case on Market Manipulation decided in New Zealand
Matters to which court will have regard in determining whether manipulation has occurred
The High Court (Court) decision in Financial Markets Authority v Warminger is being read with interest by capital market participants as the first case on market manipulation decided in New Zealand.
The Court found that Mr Warminger acted in a way that gave or was likely to give a false appearance of trading in 2 of 10 claims made by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA).
Market manipulation through trading (as opposed to where false or misleading information is disseminated about a security so that a trader can take advantage of an artificially high or low price) can take many forms, including trading where there is no change in beneficial ownership, placing contemporaneous buy and sell orders to create a misleading appearance of trading (matched orders or wash sales), marking the close by trading at close of the market to affect the price, or repeatedly buying at a higher price to induce others to bid more (upticking).