Whoever said IP was not spicy enough?Whoever said IP was not spicy enough? Exclusive: Pharmaceutical company Natco has filed in the Delhi high court against intellectual property (IP) blog SpicyIP, claiming that the website published an article that allegedly contained “false, derogatory and defamatory” statements about the company.

Natco prayed for ex parte relief by way of injunction, which Justice Kailash Gambhir declined to grant, and RS 25 lakh in damages.

The judge on 17 August issued notice on SpicyIP founder Shamnad Basheer, who is also professor at NUJS Kolkata, and ordered to list the matter for 21 September.

Basheer is represented by advocate Abhishek Malhotra, while Natco has instructed Gaurav Barathi.

SpicyIP had reported on 2 August that Natco had denied on oath before the Delhi high court that it was planning to launch a generic version of an anti-cancer drug. However, a later submission to the Delhi high court, which the blog republished, allegedly contradicted that earlier denial.

Natco is also claiming that its reputation was seriously disparaged and degraded by the blog’s criticism of the company’s legal strategy, as well as its publication of the pleadings and written statement in Natco’s court battle.

Basheer commented that he would strongly contest this “high-handed attempt by Natco to conceal the truth and quell free speech”, adding that he would provide a response to the allegations once he had filed in court.

The case reference is CS(OS) 2475/2012 in the Delhi high court.

Click here to download and read petition.

Click to show 47 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Like +9 Object -0 justababy 31 Aug 12, 20:21  interesting
WOooooah!!! I'll get the popcorn :)
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 this beats a crime thriller 05 Sep 12, 09:35
maybe NATCO will provide some ecstasy tablet.

plus pepsi/coke.

too much popcorn would be dry by itself.
Reply Report to LI
2
Like +5 Object -0 Dandy 01 Sep 12, 08:15  interesting
NATCO is a touchly little Pharma giant.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 Vakeel 01 Sep 12, 10:30
What fun. Is Natco that scared of Shamnad and Spicy IP? I think Shamnad should be proud of himself and his team for making these guys sweat.

I, along with many others are waiting for this nonsensical suit to be knocked out of the park
Reply Report to LI
3.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Knock-out 04 Sep 12, 20:19
Quoting Vakeel:
What fun. Is Natco that scared of Shamnad and Spicy IP? I think Shamnad should be proud of himself and his team for making these guys sweat.

I, along with many others are waiting for this nonsensical suit to be knocked out of the park

NATCO will withdraw it once it realizes that this would draw more attention to their misdemeanor :D
Reply Report to LI
4
Like +4 Object -0 S 01 Sep 12, 10:39
I think that the petition was no focusing enough on the aspect that Basheer put up the Natco pleadings on a public forum in a public forum. A friend (from another blog) had done research on this angle and gave the following inputs:
"...
the Delhi High Court Rules which govern inspection of Court records and procuring copies of the records. Chapter 5 of the High Court Rules is titled "Records—Their Inspection, Grant of Copies and Destruction". Rule 2 of the said Rules reads as follows:

"2. Inspection of pending cases by parties or agents—Records of pending cases will be open, as of right, to the inspection of parties or their authorised agents or any Advocate of the Court, who is duly authorised to act in the case or junior counsel whether he be an advocate of a pleader of such duly authorized advocate provided the latter certifies on the application that he has authorized his junior to inspect the record for him.
Provided that an Advocate of the Court may inspect the record of any such case on giving an assurance that he is in communication with one of the parties with a view to being retained in it:
Provided also that the inspection of a record will not be permitted on the date fixed for hearing without the special order of the Judge or one of the Judges before whom the case is pending."

This Rule makes it clear that no third party who has no connection to a matter may inspect the records a pending suit. However, can copies relating to the suit be granted to a stranger? Following are the relevant rules:

"(ii) Grants of certain copies to strangers—A stranger to the suit or appeal may, after decree, obtain as of right, on payment copies of the plaint, memorandum of appeal, written statements, affidavits and petitions filed in the suit or appeal; and may, for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court, obtain copies of any such documents before decree.
(iii) Grant of certain copies to stranger—A stranger to the suit or appeal may also obtain as of right, on payment copies of judgments, decrees or orders, at any time after they have been passed or made.
(iv) Grant of copies of exhibits to strangers—A stranger to the suit or appeal has no right to obtain copies of exhibits put in evidence, except with the consent of the person by whom they were produced or under the orders of the Court."

These Rules make it clear that a stranger to a suit has no right to obtain copies of records (including pleadings, evidence and affidavits) as long as the matter is pending, unless he has taken the consent of the Court. Even the High Court's RTI rules are clear since they do not deal with supply of case documents. They only deal with information related to the functioning of the High Court.

So, if any person is in possession of copies of records of a suit and makes available such records to third parties or to the public in general for any reason, he could be in violation of the High Court Rules. The logical question then could be, how can a person possess copies of the records, if they are neither obtained under the High Court Rules nor can they be obtained under the RTI Rules?
"
Reply Report to LI
4.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 SS 01 Sep 12, 13:53
And how does it matter where Basheer obtained the pleadings from? The cause of action is one of defamation. The only issue is whether he defames. If Natco did misrepresent to the court as he alleges, they are in deep trouble. Truth is a defamation to any defamation action. This is incredibly stupid legal strategy to take on a leading blog on a matter where Natco appears to be in the wrong! I would advise Natco to change counsel immediately! Their lawyers appear to be committing one legal blunder after another
Reply Report to LI
4.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 SS 01 Sep 12, 17:11
I meant "truth is a defence to any defamation action"...
Reply Report to LI
4.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 SSS 04 Sep 12, 13:19
Are you trying to say that a plaint or a written statement submitted before an open court is confidential? Mr. S you've got it all wrong. These are only to obtain copies with the HC Registry. These submissions are made before an open court and there is no confidentiality in the proceedings.
Reply Report to LI
4.3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 S-tupifying! 04 Sep 12, 20:22
Quoting S:
I think that the petition was no focusing enough on the aspect that Basheer put up the Natco pleadings on a public forum in a public forum. A friend (from another blog) had done research on this angle and gave the following inputs:
"...
the Delhi High Court Rules which govern inspection of Court records and procuring copies of the records. Chapter 5 of the High Court Rules is titled "Records—Their Inspection, Grant of Copies and Destruction". Rule 2 of the said Rules reads as follows:

"2. Inspection of pending cases by parties or agents—Records of pending cases will be open, as of right, to the inspection of parties or their authorised agents or any Advocate of the Court, who is duly authorised to act in the case or junior counsel whether he be an advocate of a pleader of such duly authorized advocate provided the latter certifies on the application that he has authorized his junior to inspect the record for him.
Provided that an Advocate of the Court may inspect the record of any such case on giving an assurance that he is in communication with one of the parties with a view to being retained in it:
Provided also that the inspection of a record will not be permitted on the date fixed for hearing without the special order of the Judge or one of the Judges before whom the case is pending."

This Rule makes it clear that no third party who has no connection to a matter may inspect the records a pending suit. However, can copies relating to the suit be granted to a stranger? Following are the relevant rules:

"(ii) Grants of certain copies to strangers—A stranger to the suit or appeal may, after decree, obtain as of right, on payment copies of the plaint, memorandum of appeal, written statements, affidavits and petitions filed in the suit or appeal; and may, for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court, obtain copies of any such documents before decree.
(iii) Grant of certain copies to stranger—A stranger to the suit or appeal may also obtain as of right, on payment copies of judgments, decrees or orders, at any time after they have been passed or made.
(iv) Grant of copies of exhibits to strangers—A stranger to the suit or appeal has no right to obtain copies of exhibits put in evidence, except with the consent of the person by whom they were produced or under the orders of the Court."

These Rules make it clear that a stranger to a suit has no right to obtain copies of records (including pleadings, evidence and affidavits) as long as the matter is pending, unless he has taken the consent of the Court. Even the High Court's RTI rules are clear since they do not deal with supply of case documents. They only deal with information related to the functioning of the High Court.

So, if any person is in possession of copies of records of a suit and makes available such records to third parties or to the public in general for any reason, he could be in violation of the High Court Rules. The logical question then could be, how can a person possess copies of the records, if they are neither obtained under the High Court Rules nor can they be obtained under the RTI Rules?
"


Oh, dear God, this is a travesty of logic and legality, to say the least. One, the suit is one of defamation, which does not involve Delhi HC Rules for contempt. Two, even the rules do not prevent from one of the parties to make the proceedings available to any third party, unless the court issues a gag order, which it didn't in this matter.
Reply Report to LI
5
Like +9 Object -0 ZRS 01 Sep 12, 13:54  interesting
How is free speech coming up in this entire debate?
Can Prof. Basheer tell how he got the pleadings?
a) Bristol Myers and Natco (and counsel on both sides) will not admit giving it to him;
b) He cannot get it officially.
SO, did he use the unofficial "normal" route for getting papers?

The main question on the petition is also to be seen not as a free speech killer - Prof. Basheer called Natco a liar and what not ... nobody stopped him from analysing the underlying legal issues.

Prof. Basheer don't mix issues of calling a liar with doing a typical legal analysis of an on-going matter.
Reply Report to LI
5.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 LIAR 02 Sep 12, 18:56
If Natco lied to the court, isn't it a liar?? Aren't there penalties for this kind of fraud? And isn't this a free and fair comment based on papers in a legal proceeding. QED......

How are you so sure that BMS did not provide the pleadings to Prof. Basheer? And if it did, there is no violation of all these so called delhi high court rules.
Reply Report to LI
5.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 ZRS 03 Sep 12, 09:49
a) Whether Natco is in contempt of Delhi High Court by saying some thing that is against its earlier statement - read Prof. Basheer's original post on this- then it is the job of the Delhi High Court to penalise them. It is not Prof. Basheer's job to prempt the Court's decision on any possible contempt by Natco.
b) Let Prof. Basheer say that Bristol Myers gave the copy of the papers - I hope that he does not use the secret source angle!
Reply Report to LI
5.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 SG 04 Sep 12, 20:31
Quoting ZRS:
a) Whether Natco is in contempt of Delhi High Court by saying some thing that is against its earlier statement - read Prof. Basheer's original post on this- then it is the job of the Delhi High Court to penalise them. It is not Prof. Basheer's job to prempt the Court's decision on any possible contempt by Natco.
b) Let Prof. Basheer say that Bristol Myers gave the copy of the papers - I hope that he does not use the secret source angle!

Err...Prof. Basheer simply pointed out that a prevarication has taken place. He didn't preempt/decided anything. The court isn't omniscient, it does need help from every responsible citizen now and then.
And why should Professor Basheer divulge his source at all? This is a defamation suit, not a contempt one. Delhi HC may or may not ask him where he got the material separately, but NATCO can't demand that he divulge the source, given the nature of the suit they filed. Their legal counsel hopefully has that bit of legal knowledge.
Reply Report to LI
5.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 P 04 Sep 12, 15:08
proceedings are carried out before an "open court"!! Guess that concept hasn't caught up in your part of the world yet!

More importantly, you're wasting your breath complianing about how Prof. Basheer acquired the papers as that is NOT the matter in question in the DEFAMATION suit filed by NATCO.
Reply Report to LI
5.3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 SG 04 Sep 12, 20:27
Quoting ZRS:
How is free speech coming up in this entire debate?
Can Prof. Basheer tell how he got the pleadings?
a) Bristol Myers and Natco (and counsel on both sides) will not admit giving it to him;
b) He cannot get it officially.
SO, did he use the unofficial "normal" route for getting papers?

The main question on the petition is also to be seen not as a free speech killer - Prof. Basheer called Natco a liar and what not ... nobody stopped him from analysing the underlying legal issues.

Prof. Basheer don't mix issues of calling a liar with doing a typical legal analysis of an on-going matter.

Whether Prof. Basheer can say where he got the pleadings from remains to be seen in court. He's certainly not obliged to answer to all and sundry about his sources. And secondly, NATCO hasn't mentioned even once that which of the comments was false. It is part of a legal analysis, I believe, to point out that a party in a suit has contradicted an earlier oath...and the logical conclusion is that either the former or the latter has to be a falsehood. The term 'liar' hasn't been mentioned in any of the SpicyIP post, which one should go through before making such comments.
Reply Report to LI
5.3.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Ricky Bahl, Karol Bagh 04 Sep 12, 21:04
Quoting SG:

Whether Prof. Basheer can say where he got the pleadings from remains to be seen in court. He's certainly not obliged to answer to all and sundry about his sources. And secondly, NATCO hasn't mentioned even once that which of the comments was false. It is part of a legal analysis, I believe, to point out that a party in a suit has contradicted an earlier oath...and the logical conclusion is that either the former or the latter has to be a falsehood. The term 'liar' hasn't been mentioned in any of the SpicyIP post, which one should go through before making such comments.

Mr. SG Newton, hats off to your peanut sized brain. has it ever occurred to you that [...] has edited the blog posts as soon as he was sued. Inspect the records at court, you will find the word "liar"

[LI editor's note: This claim appears to be false. We've checked the petition and compared it to the blog post on SpicyIP, which is unchanged, and all the excerpts in the petition are identical.

I have also not seen the literal word 'liar' anywhere in the petition, according to my cursory reading, or in the blog post.]
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 DHC 03 Sep 12, 14:57
Tricky situation. The Prof will have to really come up with some strong reasoning to counter the plaint. Else best it to settle this out of court.
Reply Report to LI
7
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 bpk 03 Sep 12, 17:30
Mr S, ZRS and others..
Though I got no inclination towards any of the party, esp not towards people like Shamnad, what I wonder is your analysis made above regarding 'wrongly procuring the petition', without the permission of court or parties, is applicable in the instant case too, wherein Kian or Mint has published the defamation suit while it is in pendence.

Kian's clarification may help the readers, but till then, its a #FunnyObservation !!
Reply Report to LI
7.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 ZRS 03 Sep 12, 17:48
BPK:

Kian is fine till such time as neither of the 2 parties - Prof. Basheer or Natco file a 'lis' of some sort against Kian.

Natco's main grouse is Prof. Basheer calling them liars et al ... and as I see it, putting their pleadings in the public domain. While Natco has focused on the contempt part, I am not even sure whether Natco intends to fight on the Del High Court rules angle at all ...
Reply Report to LI
8
Like +4 Object -0 Litigator, Delhi High Court 03 Sep 12, 19:26
I think Natco's counsel has missed a big point here. If I am not wrong, Shamnad and most of others who write on this "self proclaimed" most read IP blog are public servants. We all know how much time and effort is required while writing these posts on a daily basis, and these good for nothing bloggers keep on writing anything while enjoying their salaries from public funds. Can they come on record and claim that they devote not even a single minute of their job and public resources to write their own blog? I am sure they can't !! This is clear cut case of exploitation and misuse of taxpayer's money. Shamnad is invited to speak on lot of events because of this blog. He has built his entire reputation by wasting govt.'s money, resources and time. Hope someone brings this to court's attention !!!!
Reply Report to LI
8.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Legal Dodo 03 Sep 12, 21:34
Dude, your logic is flawed. By extension of what you say, an employee (public or private) is supposed to do nothing but his employer's work during the course of employment. He can't even use the loo, except during the break. That's an extremely feudalistic view. As long as an employer has responsibilities and discharges it, and his/her employer has no grouse against what he/she does outside the scope of work, what's the problem?

And pray, who on earth is Natco to complain about "exploitation . . . of taxpayer's money," if someone writes a blog? By the same extension, even you, as a taxpayer, have the cause of action to complain. Instead of suggesting that someone espouse your grouse by proxy, why don't you initiate the action yourself? Being a litigator, you don't even have to engage and brief a counsel.

Legal Dodo
Reply Report to LI
8.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 P 04 Sep 12, 15:05
You're a servant of the court! what are you doing commenting on matters sub-judice pray tell? Wasting your clients' time and money?

[...]
Reply Report to LI
8.3
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Advocate, Calcutta High Court 04 Sep 12, 20:35
Quoting Litigator, Delhi High Court:
I think Natco's counsel has missed a big point here. If I am not wrong, Shamnad and most of others who write on this "self proclaimed" most read IP blog are public servants. We all know how much time and effort is required while writing these posts on a daily basis, and these good for nothing bloggers keep on writing anything while enjoying their salaries from public funds. Can they come on record and claim that they devote not even a single minute of their job and public resources to write their own blog? I am sure they can't !! This is clear cut case of exploitation and misuse of taxpayer's money. Shamnad is invited to speak on lot of events because of this blog. He has built his entire reputation by wasting govt.'s money, resources and time. Hope someone brings this to court's attention !!!!

@Litigator: Just like you are wasting your client's hard-paid fees, perhaps, by spending time in writing these comments bordering on personal attacks? :D
Reply Report to LI
8.3.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -1 Advocate, Karnataka High Court 04 Sep 12, 22:31

@Litigator: Just like you are wasting your client's hard-paid fees, perhaps, by spending time in writing these comments bordering on personal attacks? :D

Going by his fantabulous legal theories, I doubt he has clients at all.
Reply Report to LI
9
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 DHC 03 Sep 12, 19:55
Must say that the 'Litigator' has an interesting point here. The Court can take cognizance of this point if it is approached and this point is put forth in accordance with the cause of action by an interested party.
Reply Report to LI
9.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 A Blogger and public servant 04 Sep 12, 20:36
Quoting DHC:
Must say that the 'Litigator' has an interesting point here. The Court can take cognizance of this point if it is approached and this point is put forth in accordance with the cause of action by an interested party.

No, it can't. What a person writes has nothing to do with the office he holds, unless the terms of the office prevents him expressly from doing the same.
Reply Report to LI
10
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 Interesting responses 03 Sep 12, 22:51
I query the intentions of some of the posters here. If not their intentions, then certainly their competence.

1. One poster says that only the Delhi High Court should determine whether or not Natco is a liar as part of contempt proceedings, not Shamnad or any other person. Pray, why? Truth is a defence to defamation, and if Shamnad can prove the truth of his statement by pointing to Natco's own alleged inconsistent statements, so be it. Shamnad's making the statement (rather than the Delhi HC) is no relevance so long as the statement made is true.

2. Even more interesting are the posters who pursue the argument that he/other bloggers are public servants (are they?) and that this is a relevant angle to the case. Apart from the fact that it has nothing to do with making a defamatory statement per se (a private person could just as well make a defamatory statement on a blog), any complainant arguing this will need to objectively establish that Shamnad's time spent writing the blog detracts from his paid work as a public servant. How will they do this? One could even argue the converse, that Shamnad's time spent writing the blog is itself a a public service within academia inasmuch as it allows him to disseminate his knowledge for free to a wider audience and, in the process, help attract talented candidates and colleagues to NUJS who would be happy to learn from/work with him.

3. Regarding the use of documents in violation of Delhi HC rules (again, assuming this to be true), how is this relevant to a defamation action (where truth is a defence, not how the truth was sourced)? If an action independent of defamtion is brought, we will simply enter into an area of whether a journalist needs to disclose his sources I suspect (answer: mostly, no), but it is, again, frankly irrelevant to the present action.

If Shamnad has truly defamed NATCO (because his statements are not backed up by facts) then he may indeed have some problems, but the 'legal' analysis in these comments thus far shocks me. And some of you even claim to be litigators. Time to do your day job - go on strike!
Reply Report to LI
11
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Lex Witness 03 Sep 12, 23:38
Interesting point regarding misuse / exploitation of public post. And I was waiting to comment before some typical high-headed bloke favored basheer and praised NUJS. Keeping aside comments from his loyal followers who don't know a bit of reality, I also practice in Delhi High Court and majority of us belive that this blog is doing harm to the IP profession. Freshers, Interns and lawyers with zero practical experience are analysing sub-judice matters poorly and are commenting regarding what could have been done, which is highly hypothetical. And I read somewhere this basheer got some award from Managing IP, which sells awards like fruits n vegetables, which proves he is buildig his personal resume out of this blog completely ignoring his job. Regarding this matter, Natco can very well question his intentions of writing this blog, when he is a govt. employee. His blog lists ad of one of US law schools and they also promote IP events and other courses. basheer and co. may not be getting money for sharing such links, events etc., but they might be getting some favors that may conflict with their employment with the govt. of India.
Reply Report to LI
11.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 P 04 Sep 12, 15:02
Dear Witness,

While you are entitled to your personal opinions about the damage that Prof/ Basheer is doing to the field of IP law, please do not demean the right of others to comment on matters of evident importance. Just as you have right to voice your opinion about how bad Prof. Basheer's actions/effects are, the "Freshers, Interns and lawyers with zero practical experience" have every right to comment on matters. Sub-judice unfortunately is not a blanket gag order. If you're so concerned about the state of legal education, suggest you take up teaching at NUJS.

Also, please refrain from commenting about personal favours or awards that Prof. Basheer may or may not be receiving, as this discussion is not a personal attack (and it reflects very poorly on your character), but a forum for expressing whether or not, you truly believe that Prof. Basheer and Spicy IP have committed "D-E-F-A-M-A-T-I-O-N".
Reply Report to LI
11.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -1 GoodLord 04 Sep 12, 15:29
Dear Lex Witness,

A majority of us think that your comment is silly and defamatory. Unfortunately, that does not give us the right to ensure you are banned from ever accessing the internet.

Even if "Freshers, Interns and lawyers with zero practical experience" are proffering poorly analysed blog posts, why has that harmed the IP profession? Are you honestly saying that people do not have an option to ignore an opinion given on the blog and forced to agree with its ''inadequate" views? Spicy IP and any such blog does not lay down legislation. People and judges are free to agree/disagree with its views and especially those of "Freshers, Interns and lawyers with zero practical experience." And here I was worried that such litigation may restrict interested academics from airing their opinions without the threat of suits looming on their heads.

By the way, Defamation 101. Defamation has nothing to do with the quality of the blog. But you knew that already, didnt you? A discussion on whether the blog amounts to fair comment would be more useful. Your practical experience will be useful here.
Reply Report to LI
11.3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Witness impeached 04 Sep 12, 20:43
Quoting Lex Witness:
Interesting point regarding misuse / exploitation of public post. And I was waiting to comment before some typical high-headed bloke favored basheer and praised NUJS. Keeping aside comments from his loyal followers who don't know a bit of reality, I also practice in Delhi High Court and majority of us belive that this blog is doing harm to the IP profession. Freshers, Interns and lawyers with zero practical experience are analysing sub-judice matters poorly and are commenting regarding what could have been done, which is highly hypothetical. And I read somewhere this basheer got some award from Managing IP, which sells awards like fruits n vegetables, which proves he is buildig his personal resume out of this blog completely ignoring his job. Regarding this matter, Natco can very well question his intentions of writing this blog, when he is a govt. employee. His blog lists ad of one of US law schools and they also promote IP events and other courses. basheer and co. may not be getting money for sharing such links, events etc., but they might be getting some favors that may conflict with their employment with the govt. of India.

And pray what majority will that be? Because despite practicing in Del HC myself, I believe I missed the poll. If you believe that what is being written in the blog is inaccurate and 'harms' IP profession, write your own blog with all that accurate knowledge, simple! Plus, I've visited the blog in question several times and have differed from the opinions aired by the writers too. They have promptly published the comments and on most of the occasions came up with explanations/rebuttals too. That, my friend, is called democracy, which you seem to be not too familiar with. And what does the Managing IP award have anything to do with the current scenario? Whether it's a 2-bit or glamorous award has no relevance on this matter whatsoever and only goes on to show your personal animosity.
Reply Report to LI
11.4
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Lex Green-eyed Monster 04 Sep 12, 20:43
@Lex Witness: Jealous much? ;)
Reply Report to LI
12
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Sky Baba 04 Sep 12, 10:05
The contest is a dead heat: while Natco's attempt to squelch free speech is just about as pathetic as the envious haters of an innovative IP forum, the haters seem to be taking the lead at this stage. Maybe the Delhi lawyer Lex Witness should doff his gown and call for his steno so he can draft another comment. You're supposed to wear a white shirt and collar with that black coat, not the green of envy.
Reply Report to LI
13
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Reader 04 Sep 12, 10:18
Shamnad had quit SpicyIP around 3 months back for personal reasons. Interesting...
Reply Report to LI
13.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Sai 04 Sep 12, 13:35
Prof. Basheer hasn't quit spicyIP. There is a change in the leadership.
Reply Report to LI
13.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Lex Green-eyed Monster 04 Sep 12, 20:45
Quoting Sai:
Prof. Basheer hasn't quit spicyIP. There is a change in the leadership.

@Reader: Shamnad hasn't quit the blog! I think I just saw a post by him a couple of days back! Get some clue first, man!
Reply Report to LI
13.1.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Ricky Bahl, Karol Bagh 04 Sep 12, 20:57
There was a post by Shamnad few weeks back that he is leaving SpicyIP. Now that post has been deleted it seems. Something fishy going on for sure. My previous experience with this blog is that they are [...] bloggers who can't take any criticism. That's why I love Legally India as it is run by owner as full time business rather than in disguise of public service [...] !!
Reply Report to LI
13.1.1.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 213 04 Sep 12, 21:42
Quoting Lex Green-eyed Monster:
Quoting Sai:
Prof. Basheer hasn't quit spicyIP. There is a change in the leadership.

@Reader: Shamnad hasn't quit the blog! I think I just saw a post by him a couple of days back! Get some clue first, man!


There definitely was a blog post from Shamnad about him quitting and passing on the leadership baton to other members. He had also written some thing about Prashant Reddy moving to US etc .. So, Lex green-eyed monster, you should have investigated a little bit more for clues.
Reply Report to LI
13.1.1.2...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Lex Green-eyed Monster 04 Sep 12, 22:25
Quoting 213:
Quoting Lex Green-eyed Monster:
Quoting Sai:
Prof. Basheer hasn't quit spicyIP. There is a change in the leadership.

@Reader: Shamnad hasn't quit the blog! I think I just saw a post by him a couple of days back! Get some clue first, man!


There definitely was a blog post from Shamnad about him quitting and passing on the leadership baton to other members. He had also written some thing about Prashant Reddy moving to US etc .. So, Lex green-eyed monster, you should have investigated a little bit more for clues.

How exactly is passing the leadership baton to another person amount to quitting the blog? By that logic, Sachin Tendulkar has quit playing cricket for the Indian team several years back! And is there a requirement that a person needs to be bodily present in India to write a blog? I certainly wasn't aware of that, but thanks for letting me know!
Reply Report to LI
14
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Professional Jealousy 04 Sep 12, 13:17
Great fun reading through the comments. Are these lawyers and law students writing here....i just wonder! Friends, Indians, Countrymen: this is not a contempt petition...I repeat. Not a Contempt Petition!! This is a Defamation suit! Therefore, Issues of sub-judice and where Basheer and his gang got papers from is immaterial! only issue under considn by Hon'ble court is: did the good Professor defame? Read Natco's suit carefully. Surprisingly, they have not spent enough time rubbishing the conclusions of Basheer that they took the court for a ride by grave misrepresentations. But, they spend a lot of time writing about contempt and subjudice and where papers are from etc? What kind of lawyers does Natco have? To raise contempt issues in a defamation suit? Nobody is even speaking about free speech and the need to defend this precious space. Are we all going to shut up from fear of being sued. What the hell is so private about court proceedings??? Read Nick Robinson's write up at LAOT stressing on the free speech issue.

And what kind of commentators are going out of their way to attack Basheer and SpiycIP. Going to great lengths to pull out Delhi high court rules and what not and expanding its reach to cover even cases where papers are got from parties! See comments to this post http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2012/03/breaking-news-compulsory-licence.html [...].
Reply Report to LI
14.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 P 04 Sep 12, 14:51
Good point.

I completely agree that this is simply a matter of whether or not Prf. Basheer has defamed NATCO (which is highly unlikely). Really poor counsel given to NATCO :p

Also the simple matter here is that NATCO is at fault and is trying very hard to avoid contempt proccedings against itself for blatantly misleading the court. I am amazed at some of the responses here which seem to exhibit deep personal grudges against Prof. Basheer and co!

On a personal note, whatever their reasons, right or wrong, I do not think that Prof. Basheer and co. have defamed anybody by bringing out NATCO [...].
Reply Report to LI
14.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 ZRS 04 Sep 12, 15:05
Whether Natco is at fault or not is a matter that the Delhi HC has to decide - which I am sure, Bristol Myers and its counsel will work upon.

Pray do tell, how Natco is/ will be able to 'avoid contempt proccedings against itself for blatantly misleading the court' by filing a proceeding against Prof. Basheer? The outcome of Bristol v. Natco suit is independent of the outcome in Natco's proceedings against Prof. Basheer.

Like Bristol felt that its patent righs were not respected, and went ahead and filed a patent infringement suit, Natco too felt its reputation was hurt by the language used in the blogpost put by Prof. Basheer. The issue of uploading the pleadings has no direct connection to the language used. These are 2 separate points.
Reply Report to LI
14.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 P 04 Sep 12, 15:23
Dear ZRS,

Thanks for the point. Admittedly, poor drafting on my part.

What I meant to say was that NATCO is trying to take the focus away from its own [...] by filing this suit on the side. It is definitely a separate matter, which if at all, must be taken up by BMS or the Delhi HC itself.

Regarding the point of uploading of pleadings, I completely agree that it is a separate issue which is being repeatedly highlighted by certain commentators here without really understanding that this is neither the place nor the forum for highlighting this issue.

I request all those commentators and litigators who have a problem with the uploading of the pleadings by Prof. Basheer to take it up in a separate post, preferably on their own blogs or to take it before the Delhi HC.
Reply Report to LI
14.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 ZRS 04 Sep 12, 15:48
Dear P:

Now that we agree on some thing, I will take this a little further.

Q.1
How does Natco benefit in its litigation (initiated by Bristol) by filing another (and independent) litigation against Prof. Basheer?

Q.1.1
What benefit will they get in the patent infringement suit by bringing a separate contempt/ defamation suit? How do they take away the focus in the Bristol case?

Q.2
Natco made some statements in its pleadings a long time ago and have filed responses (recently I think) to explain their stand on why think they did not go beyond their earlier sworn statements. Has anyone analysed those and tried to understand if / whether Natco really 'lied'?

I wont repeat the issue of incorrectly/ questionably uploading the pleadings here - that is a separate angle from calling Natco a liar.
Reply Report to LI
14.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Common-Sense Holder 04 Sep 12, 20:47
Quoting Professional Jealousy:
Great fun reading through the comments. Are these lawyers and law students writing here....i just wonder! Friends, Indians, Countrymen: this is not a contempt petition...I repeat. Not a Contempt Petition!! This is a Defamation suit! Therefore, Issues of sub-judice and where Basheer and his gang got papers from is immaterial! only issue under considn by Hon'ble court is: did the good Professor defame? Read Natco's suit carefully. Surprisingly, they have not spent enough time rubbishing the conclusions of Basheer that they took the court for a ride by grave misrepresentations. But, they spend a lot of time writing about contempt and subjudice and where papers are from etc? What kind of lawyers does Natco have? To raise contempt issues in a defamation suit? Nobody is even speaking about free speech and the need to defend this precious space. Are we all going to shut up from fear of being sued. What the hell is so private about court proceedings??? Read Nick Robinson's write up at LAOT stressing on the free speech issue.

And what kind of commentators are going out of their way to attack Basheer and SpiycIP. Going to great lengths to pull out Delhi high court rules and what not and expanding its reach to cover even cases where papers are got from parties! See comments to this post http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2012/03/breaking-news-compulsory-licence.html [...].

@Professional Jealousy: Finally, someone manages to point it out! My faith in legal profession is restored :)
Reply Report to LI
15
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Blogger 04 Sep 12, 15:00
What's truly astonishing is that if a couple of posters had bothered writing down their names and addresses, they would be slapped with defamation suits themselves.

Once in a while, its alright to discuss the law on a website that deals with the law. That being the case, any discussion on this matter should be restricted to a debate on the defences to defamation and whether the blog post will meet the same. Any statement to fall outside the realm of being defamatory, must be justified by truth or be a fair comment that stems from the touchstone of truth.

The source of the plaint which has nothing to do with the law of defamation and Basheer and the blog's 'questionable motives' diverts the discussion from whether this suit represents a clampdown on fair comment by embattled academia in India. Read http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2012/09/the-natco-defamation-petition.html
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.