INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES (ISSN-2455-2771) VOLUME II ISSUE IV SEPTEMBER 2017 ISSN-2455-2771 Published By Cite this issue as Agradoot Web Technologies LLP 2, I.J.L.M.S. Iss 4, <Page> (September 17) H.No. D1-8, Gangapuram Coop. Society Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES (ISSN-2455-2771) EDITORIAL BOARD 1. Adv. Anantha Krishna N.V., Advocate, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad 2. Adv. Shravanth Arya Tandra, Advocate, 1. Sameer Avasarala, Publishing Editor Karnataka High Court 2. Shashank Kanoongo, Managing Editor 3. Dr. Lokanath Suar, Professor, G.M. Law 3. Shruti Sharma, Editor-in- Chief College, Puri 4. Sumedha Sen, Deputy Editor-in- Chief 4. Dr. Sudeepta Pradhan, Research Scholar & Professor, ICFAI Business School 5. Varshini Rajesh, Executive Editor 5. Dr. Monika Jain, Professor, Amity Law 6. Sumana Chamarty, Executive Editor School, Delhi 7. Himanshi, Associate Editor 6. Prof. Rahul Mishra, Professor, Alliance 8. Ankita Aseri, Associate Editor School of Law 9. Yuga Deodhar, Member Editor 7. Dr. Kishor Dere, Member, Supreme Court Bar Association, New Delhi 8. Prof. Deevanshu Shrivastava, Assistant Professor, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal 9. Prof. Yash Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Barkatullah University, Bhopal 10. Prof. Rahul Mishra, Professor, Alliance School of Law ADVISORY BOARD INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES ISSN-2455-2771 CONTENTS Editorial Note 3 1. Cauvery Water Dispute 6 Aakarsh Singh 2. Evolving landscape of Tribunals in India 11 Finance act, 2017: A step in the right direction and the Enlargement of Jurisdiction of HC vis-à-vis functioning of tribunals Anisha Singh and Ankit Singh 3. Ambush Marketing and its IPR Issues 24 Anjali Kanagali 4. Legality of Bitcoins: The Need of Clarity and Uniformity 38 Aratrika Chakraborty 5. An Appraisal of Unfair terms in Technology-Transfer Contracts in Nigeria 48 Dr. E. E. Udoaka 6. The Law as a Marionette: A Tryst with Tribunals post the Finance Act, 2017 61 Jigyasa Sharma 7. Sector Wise Analysis of Mergers and Acquisitions in India 76 Dr. M. Yadagiri and M.Vijay Kumar 8. The Finance Act 2017: A Step Towards Usurpation 94 Manjusha Tiwari and SakshiDagur 9. Evolving Role of Employment Legal Leadership in The Corporate 107 Governance and Management Dr Sagar Suresh Dhole 10. To find or be Forgotten: The Concept of Ctrl + Z in the Digital Age 128 SudhanshuLata andParidhiSaxena 11. Capital Punishment – Issues and Impressions 145 Swetha Shiv 12. Rethinking of Juvenille Justice System in India 153 Tanya Srivastava Volume II Issue IV Page 3 of 205 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES ISSN-2455-2771 13. Cyber Security and Sustainable Development-Strategic Policy Analysis 182 of India and Canada Dr.Aparajita Bhatt 14. Right to Life Vis-À-Vis Patent Rights 197 NishitaBanka &HetviDoshi Volume II Issue IV Page 4 of 205 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES ISSN-2455-2771 Editorial Note The International Journal of Law & Management Studies has always sought to contribute towards the endeavour of strengthening and facilitating legal ease for businesses in India. The journal looks at development and evolution of commercial laws in light of judicial interpretation, authorities and other resources of value. Commercial Laws are the lifeblood of business in India and appropriate regulations and legislations should be in place in order to both facilitate and regulate business in India. The Editorial Board of IJLMS seeks to place emphasis on the evolving commercial law landscape in India particularly rover through the various contemporary developments of law and legal practice. Among these developments, notable ones remain the introduction of Goods & Services Tax, the activist garb of the Competition Commission of India, the finance bill and its implication on the economic environment and the emerging of tribunals in India. The Competition Commission of India, a statutory body formed by the Competition Act, 2002 has enlarged its domain and dawned an activist role by penalizing businesses which do not correspond and attempt to impair free market spirit. Contributions from varied areas have been received in this edition. In the crucial field of Technology, contributions ranging from Strategic Policy Analysis of India and Canada in terms of Cyber security and Sustainable Development and the Concept of forgetting and removal of personal information from the internet. While in case comments, we have seen the Sector Wise Analysis of Mergers, Acquisitions in India and Appraisal of Unfair terms in Technology-Transfer Contracts in Nigeria and the Cauvery Water Dispute. Finally, manuscripts have been published relating to the Legality of Bitcoins, the effects of Ambush Marketing and the issues and implications of capital punishment among others. We hope to receive contributions on the areas focused above in order to expand our reach. While we thank our authors for their valuable contributions, we would also be gratuitous to our readers for their continued support and hope it would be an enriching experience. Shruti Sharma Editor-in-Chief Volume II Issue IV Page 5 of 205 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES ISSN-2455-2771 CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE Aakarsh Singh1 ABSTRACT Rajendra Singh famously known as “Water Man of India” and winner of Ramon Magsaysay award in 2001 and Stockholm water prize in 2015, had said that third world war is at our gate over water owing to the critical conditions of world’s aquifers. The dispute is over Cauvery river between three States and one Union Territory of India Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Union Territory Puducherry is can be said that a little preview of what can happen in future if we did not take any cognizance as we can see the ugly and widespread vandalism in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This dispute originated for the first time way back in 1892 at the time of Britishers between the Presidency of Madras and Princely state of Mysore. In 1924 Mysore and Madras reached into an agreement which will be valid for 50 years so in 1974 that agreement ceases to be enforced and then to solve the issue in 1990 a tribunal was set up by government of India and in 1991 an interim order was issued by the tribunal ordering Karnataka to allow water to Tamil Nadu and this escalated the tensions which were already present because Karnataka said that in 1924 it has disadvantage position over Madras. HISTORY OF THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE The total volume of water in Cauvery river is equivalent to 740 TMC and out of this Karnataka adds 462 TMC, Tamil Nadu adds 227 TMC and 51 TMC is added by Kerala through their catchment area. After the final award by the tribunal in 2007, the Karnataka government did not complied with the order and as a result Jayalalitha the former and deceased Chief Minister of India went on to strike with a demand to publish the final award by the tribunal in the official gazette of India. So owing to the pressure in 2013 the notification of the final award was published in official gazette of government of India. Thus there was a lot of tension in brief pockets of the two states between 2007 and 2013. Apparently, Karnataka seems to have more but gets less and this raises two questions first that has injustice is beinginflicted upon Karnataka and another is that is this a fault on part of tribunal but the answer to both these questions is clearly a NO. To explain this we have to go into history at the time when Cholas were ruling the southern India and it is being said that they had lot of vision and foresight, they build many checked dams and catchment area in Tamil Nadu and because of this Tamil Nadu generates 227 TMC of water through its catchment area and checked dams and this does not happen in 1II year, B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow Volume II Issue IV Page 6 of 205 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW & MANAGEMENT STUDIES ISSN-2455-2771 Karnataka their first dam was KrishnarajaSagar in 1934 so this was the major disadvantage over Karnataka owing to lack of infrastructure and checked dams or reservoirs Karnataka is not able to add water to river that Tamil Nadu does so it seems that Karnataka has more but getting less but evidently Tamil Nadu has better infrastructure and groundwater table. Before the award Tamil Nadu was using 80 per cent of total water of the river Cauvery and Karnataka only 16 per cent but after the award Tamil Nadu uses only 57 per cent and Karnataka percentage had risen from 16 to 37 per cent of total river water. Karnataka government had not followed the 2007 award completely so in 2016 Tamil Nadu government moved to Supreme Court to compel the Karnataka government to release water and on 5th September, 2016 Supreme Court orders the Karnataka government to release 15000 cusec of water till 15th but later it modified its order to 12000 cusec of water till 20th and this initiated the ugly and widespread violence in Karnataka causing death and huge loss to public property. ROOT CAUSE OF THE DISPUTE As mentioned above Cauvery river has total 740 TMC of total water which is divided between four states and according to the 2007 award Karnataka had to give extra 192 TMC of river water from its share to support irrigation to Tamil Nadu farmers and this irritates Karnataka Government especially in years when the monsoon is weak. Generally Karnataka releases more than the requisite amount of water that is 192 TMC in order to avoid flooding like situation in Karnataka but the problem arises only in years in which there is drought like situation owing to weak monsoons (as Cauvery river gets rainfall from both Southwest monsoon winds and from Northeast monsoon, despite that it does not received the required rainfall sometimes because of the climate change).