All research articles published INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

IJLRA	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 5 Issue 8 2022 Page 1-6
IEEE	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 5(8)

[1] STEWART, STEVEN, INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS, Butterworth (London) Second ed. p. 185

[2] CORNISH, W.R, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, (1981) Sweet & Maxwell (London) p. 340.

Act 1965, Article 82.

[6] Article 3(a), Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[7] SMITH, ADAM, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS Book II, Chill, quoted by Edward Thompson, 'Twenty Years of the Rome Convention'(1981) Copyright 274.

[8] Article 7, Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[9] Article 7, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996)

[10] Article 8, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996)

[11] Article 9, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996)

[12] Article 10, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996)

[13] Article 3 (b), Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[14] Article 3 (c), Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[15] Article 4, Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms (1971)

[16] The OIR (Organisation International Radio) was founded in 1946. In 1950 the EBU was founded by 23 European Broadcasting Organisations. The OIR moved to Prague and changed its name to OIRT (International Radio and Television Organisation) Covering Eastern Europe.

[17] Article 13 (1) Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[18] Article 3 (g) Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[19] Article 13 (b) Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[20] Article 13 (d) Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961).

[21] Article 3, Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974).

[22] As explained by the Delhi High Court recently in Akuate Internet Services v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.,

MIPR 2013 (3) 1, it was in the wake of ‘livelihood threatening technological changes’ that the law

intervened in 1994 to recognise performer’s rights and broadcast reproduction rights.

[26] The 2012 amendment has expressly conferred this right on the performer, vide Section 38A(a)(ii)

and (iv).

[1] III BA LLB (Hons.), Student At School of Law, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India

[2] III BA LLB (Hons.), Student At School of Law, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India

[3] https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/industries/industrial-relations/32249

[1] K I Vibhute, “P S A Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW” 314 (LexisNexis, 13^th Edition 2017)

[2] Treason, as in waging, attempting, or abetting war against the Government of India.

[4] Perjury resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person.

[5] Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence, if an innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death.

[7] Abetment of suicide by a minor or an insane person or an intoxicated person.

[8] Attempted murder by a life convict, if hurt is caused.

[10] Causing death or resulting persistent vegetative state of a rape victim

[11] Repeat offenders of offenses punishable under

[13] Law Commission of India, “35^th Report: Capital Punishment” (September 1967)

[14] The Army Act, 1950 (Act 46 of 1950) ss. 34, 37, 166. The Navy Act, 1957 (Act 62 of 1957) s.147. The Air Force Act, 1950 (Act 45 of 1950) ss. 34, 37, 73, 163.

[33] Ananya Tyagi, “Death Penalty: Legislative and Judicial Chronology from Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) to Manoj Singh v State of MP (2022)”, available at < https://_www.livelaw.in/columns/death-penalty-article-of-14-criminal-procedure-code-crime-and-the-criminality-test-bachan-singh-supreme-court-207070> (16^th September 2022).

[38] Reddy Sampath Kumar v State (2005) Cr LJ 4131 (SC).

[40] See Santhosh Kumar Sathishbhushan Bariyar v state of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, 2009 (7) SCALE 341; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v State of Maharashtra (2013) Cr LJ 2595 (SC), 2013 (6) SCALE 277, (2013) 5 SCC 546; Sangeet v State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452, AIR 2013 SC 447, (2013) Cr LJ 452 (SC).

[41] See Alok Nath Dutta v State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230; Swamy Shradananda @ Murli Manohar Mishra (2) v State of Karnataka (2008) 12 SCC767, AIR 2008 SC 3040; Faruq Abdul Gafur v State of Maharashtra (2010) 14 SCC 641.

[43] K I Vibhute, “P S A Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW” 314 (LexisNexis, 13^th Edition 2017).

[44] Apurva Vishwanath, “ Number of Death Row Prisoners 488, Highest in 17 years, says report”, 2022, available at < https://indianexpress.com/article/india/number-of-death-row-prisoners-488-highest-in-17-years-says-report-7748972/> (15^th September 2022).

[45] Project 39A National Law University of Delhi “Death Penalty in India” 8 (January 2022).

[48] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Malawi Supreme Court Retreats from Opinion that Declared the Death Penalty Unconstitutional” (2021) available at < https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/malawi-supreme-court-retreats-from-opinion-that-declared-the-death-penalty-unconstitutional> (15^th August 2022).

[49] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Study: International Data Shows Declining Murder Rates after Abolition of Death Penalty”, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/study-international-data-shows-declining-murder-rates-after-abolition-of-death-penalty (23rd October 2022).

[52] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Murder Rates of Death Penalty States Compared to the Non-Death Penalty States”, < https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states> (23^rd October 2022).

[54] Law Commission of India, “262^nd Report: The Death Penalty” (August 2015).

[1] The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970) s. 2 (ja)

[2] Richard A. Spinello, "Intellectual property rights", Vol. 25 Issue 1, Library Hi Tech, 12 – 22, (2007)

[3] S Vaidhyanathan, Intellectual Property: A Very Short Introduction 41, Oxford University Press, (2017)

[4] K W. Dam, “The economic underpinnings of patent law”, Vol. 23, Journal of Legal Studies, 247 (1994)

[5] Dana Remus Irwin, “Paradise Lost in the Patent Law - Changing Visions of Technology in the Subject Matter Inquiry”, Vol. 60 Florida Law Review, 775 (2008)

[6] Tun J Chiang, “The Rules and Standards of Patentable Subject-Matter”, Vol. 6 Wisconsin Law Review, 1353-1414 (2010)

hr5364 Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[10] Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

[11] J A. Berkowitz, “Business Method Patents: Everybody Wants to Be a Millionaire”, Vol.609 Practicing Law Institute 36 (2000).

[12] Diamond V. Chakrabarty, 1980 U.S Lexis 112

[13] United States Code Title 35 – Patents, Article 101

[15] Pol S, Janodia MD, Jagadeesh PC, Bhat KM, Udupa NJ, “Business Method Patents: A Primer”, Vol.1 Journal of Young Pharmacists, 379-384 (2009)

[17] Jason Taketa, “The Future of Business Method Software Patents in the International Intellectual Property System”, Vol.75 Southern California Law Review, 943 (2002)

[19] R. David Donoghue & Michael A. Grill, “In Re Bilski: A Midpoint in the Evolution of Business Method Patents,” Vol.7, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 316 (2009).

[23] Michelle M. Umberger, Danielle N. Scott, “Chasing the white rabbit: Business method patents and the continued search for clarity under Alice”, Perkins Coie LLP. Available at https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/chasing-the-white-rabbit-business-method-patents-and-the.html, Retrieved November 11, 2021

[24] Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973

[25] Robert J. Hart, Vol.7 “Business Method Patents: Europe”, International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, 12 (2002)

[28] Susan J. Marsnik & Robert E. Thomas, “Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject-Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Software and Business Method Patent Problem”, Vol.34 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 227 (2011).

[29] Yahoo Inc v. Assistant Controller of Patent & Design and Rediff, 2011 SCC OnLine IPAB 106

[30] A Lath and S Bhardwaj, “Business Method Patents: An Oxymoron?”, 6 NUJS Law Review 121 (2013)

[33] Paras Khurana. India: Business Method Patents. Intellectual Available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/366752/business-method-patents Retrieved 10 November 2021

[34] Robert Patrick Merges, John Fitzgerald Duffy, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials 14 Carolina Academic Press 2^nd edition (1997).

[35] William Krause, “Sweeping the E-Commerce Patent Minefield: The Need for a Workable Business Method Exception”, Vol.24 Seattle University Law Review 79 (2000).

[36] Anatoli Kalpakidou, “Business Method Patents - Should They Survive in Europe”, Vol.13 International Journal of Law and International Technology 243 (2005).

[37] Tim Berners-Lee with Mark Fischetti, Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web, by its inventor", New York Harper Collins Publishers 1st edition, (1999)

[39] Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?" Vol.16(2) Santa Clara

Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 263-280 (2000)

[40] CD Freedman, "Software And Computer-Related Business Method Inventions: Must Europe Adopt American Patent Culture?", Vol. 8(3) International Journal Of Law And Information Technology, (2000)

[42] Lawrence Lessig, “Patent Poblems” The Standard, Jan. 21, 2000, Available at http:/Avww.thestandard.com/articledisplay/0,1151,8999,00.html. Retrieved 10 November 2021

[43] V Chiappetta, “E-Commerce and Equivalence: Defining the Proper Scope of Internet Patents Symposium: Defining the Proper Scope of Internet Patents: If We Don 't Know Where We Want to Go, We're Unlikely to Get There”, Vol.7 Michigan Telecommunications &Technology Law Review 289 (2001)

[44] Leo J. Raskind, “The State Street Bank Deision: The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Methods of Doing Business,” Vol.10 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 61, 70-71 (1999).

[45] Roger D. Blair, Thomas F Cotter Intellectual Property Economic And Legal Dimensions Of Rights And Remedies, Cambridge University Press (2005)

[46] Andrew McKinney, "Business Methodology Patents & E-Commerce Business Planning" Available at http://Nsww.cafezine.com/printable template.aspldeptid-=19&articleid=529, Retrieved 10 November 2021

[48] David S. Olson, “Taking the Utilitarian Basis for Patent Law Seriously: The Case for Restricting Patentable Subject Matter”, Vol.82 Temple Law Review 181 (2009)

[49] Nari Lee, “Patent Eligible Subject Matter Reconfiguration and the Emergence of Proprietarian Norms - The Patent Eligibility of Business Methods”, Vol.45 IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 321 (2005)

[50] Brian P Biddenger, “Limiting the Business Method Patent: A Comparison and Proposed Alignment of European, Japanese and United States Patent Law”, Vol.69 Fordham Law Review 2523 (2001).

[51] Robert C. Bird and Subhash C. Jain, et.al (eds.) The Global Challenge of Intellectual Property Rights, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (2008)

[1] Author is student at Amity Law School, Amity University Lucknow Campus.

[2] Author is student at Amity Law School, Amity University Lucknow Campus.

[3] Nani A Palkhivala, We, the Nation: The Lost Decades 215 (UBS Publishers Distributors, New Dehli, 1994).

[4] Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).

[5] Alschuler, Albert W.,"The Defense Attorney's Role in Plea Bargaining, 84 “The Yale Law Journal” 1179 (1975).

[6] Bryan A Garner and Henry Campbell Black, Black's law dictionary (St. Paul, Minn, West Group, 1999).

[7] Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul, Minn. : West Group, 8th edn., 2004).

[8] Abhishek Wadhawan, “An Analysis of The Plea Bargaining Mechanism In India: The Past, Present And The Future” 1 LAWAUDIENCE 22 (2019).

[9] Law Commission of India, 142nd Report on the concessional treatment for offenders who on their own initiative plead guilty without bargaining (August, 1991).

[10] Sulabh Rewari and Tanya Aggarwal, “Wanna make a deal? The introduction of plea bargaining in India” (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) J-12.

[12] Corbitt v New Jersey, 439 U.S 212; Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 U.S. 357

[13] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 265 L.

[14] Madan Lal Ram Chandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 3 SCR 34.

[15] Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 1 SCC 194.

[16] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, AIR 2000 SC 164.

[17] Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 3 SCC 684.

[18] Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat, (1980) 3 SCC 120.

[19] Kasambhai Abdul Rahmanbhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 854.

[20] Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928.

[21] Law Commission of India, 142nd Report on the concessional treatment for offenders who on their own initiative plead guilty without bargaining (August, 1991).

[22] Upendra Baxi, The (Malimath) Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System: Premises, Politics and Implications for Human Rights 44 (AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA, New Delhi, 2003).

[24] The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 2 of 2006).

[25] State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakor, 2005 CriLJ 2957.

[26] Ranbir Singh v. State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3737.

[27] Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Act 21 of 1860), s. 304-A.

[28] Joseph P.J. v. State of Kerala, 2015 5 KHC 586.

[29] Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 153 A.I.C. 548.

[30] M/S/ Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2017) SCC 1197.

[2] Competition Act, 2002, s.6(2) – Regulation of Combinations

[3] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of Business relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011, reg 4 - Categories of transactions not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in India

[4] Competition Act, 2002, s 31 - Orders of Commission on certain combinations

[5] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Notification S.O. 479(E), 4 March, 2011 (sections 5, 6, 20, 29, 30 & 31 of the Act came into force through this notification)

[7]The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 < http://164.100.24.219/billstexts/lsbilltexts/AsIntroduced/competition%202007.pdf> accessed 21 September, 2022

[8]The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2009, accessed 21 September 2022

[9] Joint Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on the Draft CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combination) Regulations, (11 March 2011),

org/webupload/commupload/IC906787/relatedresources/aba-SAL-SIL-Comments-on-Indiadraft- Combination-Regulations-final-w-apps.pdf-58k-2011-03-24> accessed 21 September 2022

[10] Draft Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combination) Regulations, 2011 accessed 21 September 2022

[11] Bharat Budhia, Aishwarya Gopalakrishnan and Aishwarya Gupta, ‘India: Sixth Set Of Amendments To The Combination Regulations’, (Mondaq, 16 November 2018), accessed 21 September 2022

[12] The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2018 accessed 21 September 2022

[13] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2019, August 13, 2019 accessed 21 September 2022; CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2019 accessed 21 September 2022

[14] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2020, accessed 21 September 2022

[15] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2022, accessed 21 September 2022

[17]The Competition Act, 2002, Statement of Objects & Reasons, accessed 21 September 2022

[18] The Competition Act, 2002, s 3 – Anti-Competitive Agreements

[19] Kartik Bajpai, ‘History and Dynamics of the MRTP Act and Competition Act in the Realms of Mergers and Acquisitions (Juris Online) accessed 22 September 2022

[24] Competition Act, 2002, s 66 – Repeal and Saving

[25] S. M. Dugar, ‘Guide To Competition Law’, (6^th edn, Lexis Nexis, 2010)

[26] Tanaya Sanyal and Sohini Chatterjee, ‘Combination Control: Strengthening the Regulatory Framework of Competition Law in India?’ (2012) 5 NUJS L. REV. < http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/931502F5-8DDB-4C22-AAE9-01890981BBF4.pdf> accessed 22 September 2022

[27] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Notification S.O. 496(E), March 4, 2011

[28]‘CCI has today notified the final merger control regulations’, (Bar and Bench News Network, 11 May 2011), accessed 22 September 2022

[29] The Combination Regulations, 2011, reg 31 - Filing of notice under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act

[30]Competition Act, 2002, s 31(11) - If the Commission does not, on the expiry of a period of two hundred and ten days from the date of notice given to the Commission under sub-section (2) of section 6, pass an order or issue direction in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) or sub-section (7), the combination shall be deemed to have been approved by the Commission.

[31] Combination Regulations, 2011, reg. 28(6) - Having due regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (11) of section 31 of the Act, the Commission shall endeavour to pass an order or issue direction in accordance with sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (7) of section 31 of the Act within one hundred and eighty days of filing of the notice under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act.

[32] Souvik Bhadra, ‘SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011- some key features’, (pxvlaw, 8 October 2011),

features/>accessed 22 September 2022

[33] SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, reg. 10

[34] SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, reg. 3(1)

[35] Combination Regulations, 2011, Schedule 1 Clause 1 Explanation, Inserted by the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2016, w.e.f. 7-1-2016

[36] Combination Regulations, 2011, Schedule 1 Clause 1

[39] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Notification No. S.O. 675(E), 4 March, 2016

[42] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide S.O. 988(E), (27 March, 2017) accessed 22 September 2022

[43]Abhay Joshi and others, ‘The Central Government has extended the validity of certain exemptions available to enterprises keeping with its policy of ease of doing business in India’(ELP, 21 March, 2022), text=Now%20through%20its%20notification%20dated,.%2C%20till%2028%20March%202027> accessed 22 September 2022

[45] The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2016

[46] The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in Regard to the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2013

[47] The Competition Act, 2002, s. 31 – Orders of Commission on Certain Combinations

[48] The Regional Rural Banks, s 23A(1)- Amalgamation of Regional Rural Banks

[49] ‘Filing of Combination Notice’ (CCI) accessed 24 September 2022

[52] The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, s 45 - Power of Reserve Bank to apply to Central Government for suspension of business by a banking company and to prepare scheme of reconstitution of amalgamation

[54] The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2018 accessed 24 September 2022

[55] Aishwarya Gupta & CAM Competition Team, ‘Sixth set of Amendments to the Combination Regulations’, (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, 25 October, 2018) < https://competition.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/10/sixth-amendments-combination-regulations-competition-law/ > accessed 24 September 2022

[56] The Competition Act, 2002, s 29 – Procedure for investigation of Combinations

[57] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Report of the Competition Law Review Committee, (2019) accessed 24 September 2022

[58] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2019, < https://www.cci.gov.in/combination/legal-framwork/regulations/details/8/0 > accessed 24 September 2022

[59] The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007, s 6(2)

[60] The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007, s 6(2A)

[61] CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2019, accessed 24 September 2022

[62] Apurv Umredkar, ‘Green Channel Route: Resolving the Impediment and Procedural Infirmities’, (Kluwer Competition Law Blog, 18 June 2021) < http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2021/06/28/green-channel-route-resolving-the-impediment-and-procedural-infirmities/#:~:text=Green%20Channel%20Route%3A%20The%20Underlying,of%20harm%20to%20competition%20regimes.> accessed 24 September 2022

[63] The Competition Act, 2002, s 44 - Penalty for making false statement or omission to furnish material information

[64]The Competition Amendment Bill accessed 24 September 2022

[65]Etihad Airways and Jet Airways [2013], Combination Registration No. C-2013/05/122 accessed on 24 September 2022

[66] Sun Pharma and Ranbaxy Combination Order [2014] accessed 24 September 2022

[67] Walmart And Flipkart Combination [2016], Combination Registration No. C-2018/05/571 accessed 24 September 2022

THE EVOLUTION AND SCOPE OF NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL AND INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK By- Sheheen Marakkar, Karun Roy & Gowri Parvathy R

AN IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN INDIA By- Mr. J. Jerry Bastin & Ms. Krishnardhula Saruyu

MARITAL RAPE A DECRIMNINALISED CRIME IN INDIA By- Dr. S.M Abinaya

EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR WELL BEING OF INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS By- Dr. S.M Abinaya

DEATH PENALTY; PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES IN INDIA & A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE ABOLITIONISTS VIS-A-VIS ITS DETERRENT EFFECT By- Malavika Harikumar

Lynch Files: The Forgotten Saga of Victims of Hate Crime by Ziya Us Salam: A Book Review By- Mohd Mustafa

TRACKING THE TRAJECTORY OF BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS By- Rupal Nayal

International Humanitarian Law in Syrian Civil War By- Khushboo Abrol

CONCEPT OF PLEA BARGAINING & OVERVIEW UNDER THE INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM By- Amal Singh Patel & Ananya Rai

UNDERSTANDING THE COMBINATION AND ITS THRESHOLD LIMIT: A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH By- Sanjucta Kabasi & Shubhankar Kabasi

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation 2

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

[8] Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000, H.R 5364 106th Congress Available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr5364 Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[10] Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

[14] 155 F. 298 (S.D.N.Y 1907)

Citation

Citation

Citation

[11] Bharat Budhia, Aishwarya Gopalakrishnan and Aishwarya Gupta, ‘India: Sixth Set Of Amendments To The Combination Regulations’, (Mondaq, 16 November 2018), accessed 21 September 2022