Lexpeeps Understands Your Needs and Designed this Internship Programme for You

About Internship:

Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. (Estd 2019) is delighted to announce the Campus Manager Applications at LEXPEEPS.

The Campus Manager is our representative at their Law School. It is the best opportunity to empower ownself and be known face in the crowd of thousands. Campus Managers works as a strategic link between LEXPEEPS and their colleges.

Through this Internship, You will not just Learn different things but You are also going to Earn Reward Points and Amount. You may earn from INR 0 to Thousands by dedicating more and more time and using your Interpersonal Skills.

Why Lexpeeps Campus Manager Programme:
  • Chance to Shine and Earn
  • Improves your organizational skills
  • Development of communication skills
  • Helps in networking with legal professionals
  • Enhances your CV
  • Work from Home and Flexible Timings
Perks You are Entiteled:
  • Opportunity to Work with Rewards
  • Certificate of Internship after completing the Internship Period.
  • Letter of Recommendation If you are amongst 3 best intern
  • Chance to be an Executive Member
Tenure:

6 Months or 12 Months

(Recomended- 12 months for Law Students)

Application Procedure:

REGISTER AT EARLIEST (CLICK)

Last Date – 25th January, We are taking Limited People in this on first come first serve basis.

*Lexpeeps holds all the rights to alter or do any changes with immediate effect.

Internship opportunity at Kohli & Associates, a Delhi based firm.

Area of Practice:

Civil and Corporate law

Requirement:

Law students of 4th or Final year are required for an offline internship to research and assist the senior in preparation of cases.

Work profile:

Research , Drafting and Miscellaneous Work

Eligibility:

Candidate must be proficient at research and use of legal research modules and drafting. Good Command over English language.

Candidate will be provided with an certificate of internship.

Joining:

Immediate

How to apply:

Interested candidates may send their resume along with a cover letter to: delhi.kohliandassociates@gmail.co.

Location: Patparganj, New Delhi.

Shortlisted candidates will be contacted thereafter.

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, the Supreme Court Bar Association’s President has resigned from his post with immediate effect which he earned by a margin of 151 votes against Senior Advocate Vikas Singh in December  2019, claiming that “he has forfeited his right to act as your leader”.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has an Executive Committee that comprises of the President, vice president, secretary, assistant secretary, treasurer, assistant treasurer and 15 members, of whom at least 6 shall be senior advocates. The election to the association is conducted by a three-member Election Committee nominated by the Executive Committee. The office-bearers of the SCBA are elected by secret ballot and cannot hold any office for more than two consecutive years. 

In a brief letter addressed to the Executive Committee of the SCBA, he claimed that due to the differences arising out in the method of electing the SCBA chairperson, specifically the splitting “reservations by some lawyers”, which Dushyant Dave mentioned “he understands”, regarding conducting virtual elections has caused a rift. Since his tenure as the President and also the tenure of the other office members had ended, and there was no way to conduct virtual elections, it was morally incorrect of him to resume his position of power.

Dushyant Dave also thanked everyone present in the committee in his letter by stating “I must place on record my deep gratitude to each of you for being part of this EC and contributing immensely during COVID-19, perhaps the greatest challenge to mankind we will ever see in our lifetime. You have done proud to this Institution, the SCBA. It was a privilege to be with you. I wish you all lots of good luck for a better future”.

Recently, Dushyant Dave along with Prashant Bhushan, HS Phoolka, and Colin Gonsalves, represented few farmers’ unions that were seeking the removal/stay on farm laws.

“Physical internship for the month of February to June 2021”

Office:

Juris & Juris

Website:

www.jurisnjuris.com

Location:

B-4/115, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029

Eligibility:

4th-5th year (5 yrs course) & 2nd-3rd year (3 yrs course)

Time Period:

One month

Profile:

Legal Intern

Perks:

Internship certificate will be provided

Mode:

Offline (Monday to Saturday)

No. of position:

Three

Please send your resume along with your cover letter at admin@jurisnjuris.com.

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Job Position: Legal Associate @ India Juris (Delhi and Gurgaon Location)

Job Profile includes:
*Handle all legal documentation including drafting, reviewing and amending a variety of legal documents
and contracts.
*General Corporate Commercials *Conducting legal due diligence.

Requirements:

  • Law degree from a leading law school or university
  • Minimum 2 to 3 years of PQE in transaction advisory.
  • Experience in drafting and reviewing agreements.
  • Strong analytical and computer skills.
  • Good command over English.

Job Type:

Full-time

Remuneration:

Best as per industry standards

Candidates with Corporate experience shall apply.
The job application/ CV’s may be sent to newdelhi@indiajuris.com and/or gurgaon@indiajuris.com

Job opportunity: Lexstone Chambers (Advocates & Solicitors)

Lexstone Chambers (Advocates & Solicitors), a litigation firm primarily based out of Delhi, is looking to hire an Associate Advocate, having 3+ years experience in NCLT and company related litigation with preferred exposure to high court and /or district court trial side, for its office situated at South
Extension lI Office, New Delhi Remuneration no bar for good candidate. The job application/CV may be sent to anujmalhotra93@gmail.com

Job Opportunity: Litigation Associate at Dhawan & Co Advocates & Solicitors.

Vacancy for Litigation Associate at Dhawan & Co Advocates & Solicitors.

PQE- Minimum 2 years at a Litigation Law Firm. Having strong hold over drafting and researching. The candidate should have good experience in drafting and appearing before SC, HC, NCLT, NCLAT, NCDRC and Trial Courts. Looking at joining immediately.

Job Location: Defence Colony, Delhi

Salary: As Per Industry Norms Application

Procedure: Kindly send your CV along with Cover Letter at dhawanandco@gmail.com

Note: Fresher’s please don’t apply.**

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

This article is written by Akhilandeswari Bonam, a student of Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati.

Case Number

Criminal Appeal Number 81 of 1958.

Equivalent Citation

1959 AIR 572,
1959 SCR Supl. (1)940

Bench

Kapur J.L, Syed Imam Jaffer, S.K Das.

Decided on

18 December 1958.

Relevant Act/Section

Sections 149, 302 IPC

Brief Facts and Procedural History

Mizaji, Tejsingh, Subedar, Machal, and Maiku appealed under criminal appeal number 1809 of 1957 before the Allahabad High Court against the judgement passed by the Court of Sessions at Farukhabad in sessions trial. The Sessions Court awarded the death sentence to Mizaji and other accused persons convicted for life imprisonment. The Sessions Court ordered judgement on 28 November 1957.

In this case, Rameshwar was murdered by Mizaji, (accused) on 27.7.1957. The five accused persons Mizaji, Tejsingh, Subedar, Machal, and Maiku entered into the Sukhna field with the common intention to forcibly take possession of that field at any cost even by murder them. While arguing, both the parties Mizaji triggered with his pistol which fired on Rameshwar, he fell and died an hour later. Ramsaroop, Jailal, and Israel went to the police station and made an FIR against all five accused persons.

The reason for this attack was a land issue between both the deceased Rameshwar party and the accused Mizaji party. With this issue, Mizaji and other accused intentionally tried to take possession of the field from Rameshwar.

In this case, Mizaji, Tejsingh father of Mizaji, Subedar nephew of Tejsingh, Machal cousin of Tejsingh and Maiku was a servant of Tejsingh on 7.27.1957 arrived at the field named Sukhna field with armed weapons such as pistol which was folded by Mizaji in his dhoti and spear and lathis by other accused. This field was firstly in possession of Banwari. In 1949, Banwari mortgaged this land to Lakhan Singh.

The Revenue Department exhibits records that this land was in the possession of Banwari before 1949; later it was mortgaged to Lakhan Singh in 1949. In 1952, this field was shown as being under the cultivation of Rameshwar, the deceased person.

The learned counsel contended that on 4.18.1957 Banwari sold this field to Tejsingh who made an application for the mutation in his favour, but this was opposed by the deceased and four other persons. Before this date the field was in the possession of Banwari, later the entries showing that cultivating possession of the deceased and four others were continued in 1957.

On 27.7.1957 the five accused came armed to the field with a pistol by Mizaji, spear, and lathis by the other accused. Maiku the servant of Tejsingh started to cut the jowar crop which was sown in one part of the sukhna field and later all four accused tried to cut the sugarcane crop which was sown in the second part of the field. Bateshwar PW-7 gave this information to Ramsarup who was accompanied by Rameshwar and others, they all came to the field without weapons.

Ramsarup inquired Tejsingh about the damaging of such field, they all replied that he had purchased this land. They all warned the appellants to go away otherwise they would be finished, but they refused to go then Tejsingh exhorted mizaji to fire, mizaji fired with his pistol which he was carrying in his dhoti, as a result of this Rameshwar was injured, fell and died later an hour.

The Sessions Court acknowledged the evidence and judged that Mizaji was convicted for the death sentence and the other four accused persons convicted for life imprisonment. The accused persons appealed to the High Court against the Sessions judgment.

The High Court has found that the appellants had gone prepared to murder if necessary in the prosecution of their common object of taking forcible possession of the land, it acknowledged the evidence given by Matadin and Hansraj and accepted the judgement given by the Court of Sessions.

Issues before the Court

Whether the murder was committed likely in the prosecution of the common object?

Whether section 149 of IPC is applicable to this case?

Findings of the Court

The evidence was given by Matadin and Hansraj that when the Rameshwar party arrived at the field the accused asked Ramsarup and his companions to go away otherwise they would finish all of them. When the deceased refused to go away, Mizaji fired with his pistol. Then Rameshwar was injured and died an hour later. That finding would indicate the extent to which the accused were prepared to go in the prosecution of their common object which was to take forcible possession of the Sukhna field.

The High Court also found that this case fell under the second part of section 149 IPC because of the weapons with which the members of the unlawful assembly were armed and their conduct which showed the extent to which they prepared to go to accomplish their common object.

Ratio of the Case

The evidence of Hansraj and Matadin shows that all the accused persons were likely to be committed to accomplishing the common object of forcible possession. From this conduct, the members of the unlawful assembly were prepared to take forcible possession at any cost, and the murder must be held to be immediately connected with the common object and therefore the case falls under section 149 IPC and they all are guilty of murder.

Decision of the Court

The High Court and the Sessions Court awarded a death sentence to Mizaji and conviction of life imprisonment for the other four accused persons. The Supreme Court considered the evidence of witnesses and accepted the judgement of lower courts. It dismissed the appeal filed by Mizaji and others.

Latest Posts


Archives

Job opportunity: Vidhi Associates Patna, Bihar

Requirement of the lawyer.
PQE-0 to 2 years.
Contact details
Send the CV to this email- vidhi.patna@gmail.com
Contact number – 7260892014/19

Job Opportunities: J. Sagar Associates.

Practice Area Energy & Infrastructure
Location- Across locations (Gurugram, Mumbai,Bangalore)
Description Projects, Energy and Infrastructure lawyers from tier-1/ tier-2 law firms with 2 to 5 years of post-qualification experience
CV’s can be sent to Rahul Dogra: Rahul.dogra@jsalaw.com with the subject line “CV for Energy & Infra”

Legal position (Associate Advocate) Law Veritas: Delhi.

Talent Acquisition team of Law Veritas invites applications for Legal position (Associate Advocate) at its Delhi Office.
We are a Law Firm operating in the financial & insurance sectors. We have open position for advocate with minimum three years experience with good knowledge in property & banking laws and growth oriented mind set.

Job Description:

Corporate Legal Advisory Services including Contract Drafting, Property Title Due Diligence & also LitigationActivities.

Job location:

Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi.
Interested candidates may contact us through email or WhatsApp.
careers@lawveritas.in (email id) 9066707172 (Whatsapp no.)

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Associate at Mital and Mital Advocates, New Delhi.

We have a requirement for an Associate at Mital and Mital Advocates, Delhi having 2-4 years PQE in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( specifically post admission matters, representing Resolution Professionals and Committee of Creditors) and experience in Corporate Commercial Litigation.
The position would entail extensive work under the Code, legal research, drafting, appearances before courts/ forums. Experience in NCLT/NCLAT preferably a Candidates should have law firm experience.

Salary: Negotiable as per industry standards.

Interested candidates may send their updated CV along with cover letter/email to mitalandmitaladvocates@gmail.com

Vacancy for Associate, Corporate at Legal Orbit, New Delhi.

About:

Legal Orbit is a full service and research based law firm with a legal practice in the areas including corporate and commercial law, foreign exchange law, employment law advisory, intellectual property.
PQE Associate with 2-4 years of experience in Corporate law with contract review who can join on immediate basis.

Salary:

As per the experience and industry standards.

Address:

10054, 10th Floor, Indraprakash Building, Barakhamba
Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001
Application Procedure
Email resume at piyush.syal@legalorbit.co.in neelan@legalorbit.co.in or bhupender@legalorbit.co.in

Job Details: Barua Singh & Kushwaha (BSK)

Legal Required Two Legal Associate on Urgent Basis

Job Type- Ful-time

Joining Date: Can Join Office From 05.01.2021 onwards Our firm renders its services in three major areas of law. These are corporate, crime, and matrimonial.

Number of Jobs available: 2

Additional details:

1st month will be probation period to know your skills better

Name of Firm: Barua Singh & Kushwaha (BSK) Legal Law Firm
Address: C-62, FF, Nizamuddin (E), New Delhi – 13
Email: roopenshusingh@gmail.com
Contact Number: 8368588897

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

This case brief is prepared by T.Preethi, student at government law college, Tirunelveli.

Court

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Bench

JOHN LORT WILLIAMS AND G.D.Mc NAIR

Citation

AIR 1933 CAL.893

Decided On

21 JULY, 1933

Relevant Section

312 / 511 IPC

Facts and Procedural History

COMPLAINTANT-

  • she was 20 years of age and had been married and divorced by consent
  • she is living in her father’s house and use to sleep in the cook shed

APPELLANT-

  • he is neighbor of the complainant
  • had lent money to her father
  • he is married and has children

CASE DETAILS

The appellant was convicted under section 312/511 of IPC of an attempt to cause a miscarriage. According to the complainant, the appellant gave her presents and promised to marry her as a result of which they had intercourse and she got pregnant. She requested him to marry, but he refused and asked her to take drugs to procure a miscarriage. 

On a night he brought her a half filled bottle with red liquid and a paper packet containing a powder. She tried taking the powder and found that it tasted salty and strong. Thus, she spat it out and didn’t try the liquid. The very next day when the appellant came, and found that she hadn’t taken the thing which he gave her the previous night. So forced her to take them, but she refused as she was afraid of losing her own life, she even said that the powder caused irritation in her tongue. But, he didn’t lend a ear to that and forcefully held her by her chin to pour the liquid, but she snatched the bottle and screamed loud enough that her father and neighbors could hear that. As they approached the place, the appellant fled.  

Issues

Whether the appellant was liable for the attempt to cause miscarriage to the complainant?

ANALYSIS

  • The powder that the complainant consumed had copper sulphate, but the quantity of that was not ascertained.
  • According to the medical evidence, copper sulphate has no direct effect on the uterus and not harmful unless taken in sufficiently large quantities, when it may induce abortion.
  • Finally no poison was detected in the liquid

Arguments of the Parties

  1. The complainant did want a miscarriage as she herself took the drugs, but was afraid of the side effects to herself. This projected that she was herself a wrong doer.
  2. It was contended that “attempt” means if the said crime is committed then the person would be charged for the said offence, but in this case, the facts says that , it doesn’t constitute to an attempt to cause miscarriage as the amount wasn’t sufficient enough. Thus, this can’t be termed as attempt to cause miscarriage, so the appellant can’t be convicted.

Judgment

As per the facts of the case the appellant can’t be convicted of attempt to cause a miscarriage. What the appellant had done doesn’t constitute to the commission of the offence of causing a miscarriage. Neither the liquid nor the powder is harmful enough to do the act and cause miscarriage. The appellant failure was not due to a factor independent of him to cause miscarriage under section 511 of IPC, there he was acquitted.

Ratio

Judgment was given on the favor of appellant, they haled that the appealing party’s failure was not because of the factor autonomous of himself but because of the external reasons that are the force of failure was independent in itself.

Moreover, the attempt should be towards the commission of an offence. In this way, the conviction and sentence must be set aside and the appellant ought to be acquitted. Consequently, the action is brought under the IPC sections 312/511

Learning Outcomes

Merely an act done with only the intention to commit an offence which was unsuccessful couldn’t possibly result in the completion of the offence. But an act “towards the commission of the offence; that is to say the act remains incomplete only because there is something remaining in order to complete, which the person intending to commit the offence is unable to do, by reason of circumstances independent of his own volition.

In this case it can’t be said that the complainant did something towards the commission of the offence. The offence that she committed was “administration of harmless substance”. The appellant intended to administer something capable of inducing a miscarriage. As the evidence stand, he administrated a harmless substance. This can’t amount to an act towards the commission of the offence of causing miscarriage.

This case states that a mere intention followed by preparations doesn’t constitute to a crime and doesn’t provide sufficient ground to question someone and hold them liable. Attempt along with proper execution and completion of that particular attempt is required in order to hold someone liable for an offence. In addition to that, the aggrieved party’s conduct helps in understanding the facts of the case in a better way particularly in a case like this.

RELATED CASES

  1. Queen empress vs. Lux man Narayan joshi [1900 Bombay]
  2. R. Vs. Collins, 1864 Cockburn

Latest Posts


Archives

The Bar Council of India (BCI) is all set to scrap the Master Degree Course in Law of one-year duration introduced in India in 2013.

The BCI Notification

As per the notification issued by BCI on 2nd January 2021, Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 will increase the duration of post-graduation (LLM) from 1 year to 2 years.

As per the rule , it is mandatory to have LLB/BA LLB as qualification to take admission in any Master’s degree in any specialized branch of LAW (LLM) offered in the Open System to any graduate, such as Business Law or Human Right, or International Trade Law. The rule made it mandatory to have a 3 year or 5 year LLB for taking admission to LLM course.

“Bar Council of India (either directly or through its Trust) may annually conduct a Post Graduate Common Entrance Test in Law (PGCETL) for admission in Master Degree course in Law in all Universities and until the PGCETL is introduced, the present system followed by respective Universities shall be followed. Once the BCI introduces PGCETL it shall be mandatory to admit the students from the merit list of the Test,” the Rule states.

The Rule further states that, An LLM degree obtained from a Foreign University, without an equivalent LLB degree shall not be equal to an Indian LLM degree.
A one-year LLM obtained from any foreign University is not equivalent to an Indian LLM degree. But if the degree is from a highly accredited Foreign University, this may entitle the person concerned to be appointed as a visiting professor at an Indian University. They should be there for at least a one-year LLM degree with one year of teaching experience as a Visiting Faculty/internee faculty/clinical faculty to get their LLM degree in India.

Besides LLM, the Rule also prescribe the ration of  student-teacher not exceeding 1:10 and maximum student strength of 20 in each branch of the specialization subject to a maximum of 50 students overall in the LLM program of the institution.

The Petition

This change by the BCI has recently been challenged in the Supreme Court by Tamanna Chandan Chachalani, a law student. In her petition, Ms Chachalani apart from questioning the rationale behind such a drastic change, claims that the change will adversely affect her future career and liberty of choosing quality education.

The petition also challenges the power of the BCI to make such a change, as the same can only be done by the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the BCI’s action is ultra vires of Section 7 (1) (h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 that mandates the BCI to promote legal education in India and to maintain it’s standards only in with the consultation with the Universities of India.

Reported by – Aishwarya Daftari | Edited by – Dakshita Dubey