Trivedi & Parashar (Advocates and Solicitors) is looking for law interns (4th/5th year law students only) for an internship program.

The intern will be required to conduct legal research, draft legal documents, and occasionally accompany the associates to attend Court proceedings and client conferences.

Due to the current COVID scenario, interns will be required to work from home mostly.

No. of interns required

2

Eligibility

  • Having experience or wanting to gain experience in the field of Corporate, Commercial and Litigation work.
  • Availability for a minimum of two months of internship.

Application Process

Send in your CV along with Cover Letter with the Subject
Title: Internship Application & Name.

Once CV is received, two rounds of interview will be conducted remotely through online mode.

Emails to be sent to:
office@trivedi-parashar.com

CC to HR Head:
Charu@trivedi-parashar.com

For further details about the Firm, visit:

www.trivedi-parashar.com

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About LicitElite

Team LicitElite, focuses on providing assistance to Law students in self grooming while acquiring better knowledge, by generating an exclusive learning platform through activities like law classes, blog writing, competitions etc. It also aims to connect with legal experts to design better learning opportunities.

About Editor(s)

Dr. Ashu Dhiman is a Professor at Centre for Legal studies, Gitarattan international business school, Delhi. She is also the Editor in chief, LicitElite. She has authored and published “Hindu Law on Divorce” having ISBN 9781638732167. She has Edited First Edition of published book on “Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law” having ISBN No. 9788195211609. She has Co-Edited MediateGuru’s published book on “A pathway to the future of ADR” having ISBN 9781639747894. She has edited many journals and annual magazines. Her areas of expertise are Family Law and Criminal Law.

Mr. Param Bhamra is Founding Partner at MediateGuru, which is an International Forum having its reach in over 120 countries and connecting Experienced personnel with young inspiring lawyers and practitioners. Mr. Bhamra has his expertise in International Mediation as well as Arbitration.  Mr. Bhamra has Co-Edited First Edition of Published book on “Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law” with ISBN no. 9788195211609, Patron of MediateGuru’s Book on “A Pathway to the Future of ADR” having ISBN 9781639747894. He also has a published book in Fiction Category titled “Gods Among us” which is available on Amazon worldwide having ISBN No. 9781639579013.

About the Book

Crime is an unlawful act committed by a person against another person or society. Crime is considered as an act against the state. In today’s ever changing world we are evolving out of our historic laws which no longer serves our purpose, for ex – striking down adultery laws and homosexual laws. Further we need efficient laws to deal with rising problems such as of Rape, murder etc, as current laws are not deterrent to the commission of such crimes as we can observe from ever increasing cases of crime. These problems and issues are there for a long time and require special attention to deal with.

With the start of the New Era, we announce our call for chapters for Second Edition in order to create new opportunities for the authors in Criminal law to showcase their caliber in Legal research.

Theme

Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law

Guidelines of Submission

1. The authors should use the ILI (Indian Law Institute) format of Footnoting and Times New Roman Font 12 with bold headings and space lining 1.5.

2. Co-Authorship is allowed. However, there can be maximum two co-author in one research paper.

3. The work submitted shall be ORIGINAL and UNPUBLISHED

Perks

·      Each Author with selected paper will be provided with an E-certificate and soft copy of the book.

·      Availability of Book to be purchased over Amazon, Kindle (worldwide) & Flipkart.

·      Acknowledgement and appreciation of Author in the Description of Book.

The body of the paper shall be:

Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 12 Line Spacing: 1.5

Citations Shall be: Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 10 Line Spacing: 1

Word Limit:

The word limit for research paper (inclusive of abstract) is between 3000 words (minimum) to 6000 words (maximum) This word limit is inclusive of footnotes.

Submission

♣ All the manuscripts being contributed for the Edited book are to be sent at: licitelite@gmail.com

♣ The manuscript must be accompanied with an abstract of paper in not more than 300 words.

♣ The entries should reach the given email ID by 1st November 2021.

♣ Entry should be in either ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ format.

♣ The subject of the mail should be: “Submission for an Edited Book by LicitElite”.

Publication Fees

There are no publication fees, whatsoever for the selected articles. However, if the author(s) wish to have a hard copy, they can acquire the same from the store.

Publication

The selected best quality papers will be sent for publication in ISBN numbered book.

For more query, mail us at licitelite@gmail.com

Organizers

LicitElite

+91 98107 93800

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Case Number

1952 M. No. 2170

Case Citation

[1953] 1 All ER 779

Bench

Harman J.

Decided On

23rd February 1953 

Section

Partnership- Dissolution

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and the defendants were partners in a partnership at will and conducted the business of fashion and commercial photographers.

 The defendant wanted to start and conduct a business of commercial and fashion photography. For this purpose, he took on a lease of certain premises for a period of 7 years at £400 per year in Shepherd’s Market, which became the premises for conducting the business. The furniture and studio equipment also belonged to the defendant. The defendant started the business. As he was not skilled himself, he hired others to work for him. In January 1950, the defendant invited the plaintiff to work as a  business partner. The plaintiff worked as a freelance photographer at this time and was a well known commercial photographer. First, he occasionally worked at the defendant’s studio but started working there full time in April 1950. He brought in a considerable amount of goodwill and connexions to the business. Both brought in some negatives. There were only two agreed on terms of the partnership, these being:

  1.  The profits were to be shared equally.
  2. The plaintiff shall receive £125 monthly on his account of share of profits.

Both parties wanted to legalize the partnership and in accordance with this, the plaintiff talked to his solicitors, who on his behalf wrote to the defendant. The parties contemplated carrying on the business as a limited company, but nothing further had been decided. Subsequently, the parties quarrelled and the partnership was dissolved in May 1952. 

During the dissolution, it was held that no terms were to be implied, except those which were essential to the efficacy of the business. Also, although the lease was the defendant’s property, the rent and other expenses were to be debited to the partnership. 

On February 19, an order was made. This order declared that there was a partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant from April 1, 1950, to May 30, 1952. 

Issues before the Court

  1. Whether there was a partnership.
  2. If there was a partnership, what were the assets of the partnership?

Ratio of the Case

The judge observed that a partnership did exist between the two parties and the only term which had been agreed upon was the equal sharing of profits. The question before the court was with respect to what were the assets of the partnership. As assumed, the stock-in-trade such as films and negatives were brought in as assets to the partnership and thus were assets of the same. The judge stated that no more agreements shall be implied between the parties than ones that are essential to the efficacy of the business.

The judge observed that nothing except the negatives brought by both parties had gone into the partnership as assets and if they wish to, both the parties can take away their own negatives. The judge on the topic of the negatives stated that the negatives of photographs that had been used up in the course of the partnership are an asset belonging to the partnership. 

The judge stated that the goodwill brought in by both parties shall not be counted as an asset of the partnership. The reason given by him was that although the parties contemplated on attributing some value to the goodwill, nothing was ever finalized and thus goodwill cannot be said to be a partnership asset. Therefore, now that the partners have separated, they both shall keep their own respective connexions.

Decision of the Court

The court held that the lease, equipment and furniture were brought in by the defendant, and was thus his personal property. Also, the negatives brought in were the property of the respective bringers. The goodwill of both parties shall not form any part of the partnership assets. The only assets of the partnership were the stock-in-trade and consumable chattels.

The court also held that no depreciation shall be charged to the partnership. The court lastly, held that the partnership shall be debited for the expenses of rent, rates and insurance for the time that it had occupied the premises.

The author is Om Gupta, a first-year law student pursuing BBA-LLB from the University School of Law and Legal Studies.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

What is a Copyright?

Copyright is one of the intellectual property rights automatically provided to the author or creator of original work, giving them the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted work.

The creator might apply for a copyright for original and unpublished works, including literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic, or artistic works. Copyright also protects sound recordings. Briefly speaking, copyrights protect a creator’s economic and moral rights. It helps preserve the owners’ liberty to take legal actions to defend their work and sometimes act as a source of income in the form of royalties. Generally, copyright is granted for sixty additional years to the life of the creator or author of the work. Copyright also encourages other people in the society to come forward with their creativity upon seeing the benefits and protection of their work.

Copyright Infringement

You go to a shop, buy a book, turn a leaf, and there comes the warning “All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical…..” And you don’t read it because, of course, you are more interested in the story. But then, if you proceed to photocopy the book and give it to your friend in exchange for monetary consideration, without the permission of the publisher, you are infringing their copyright and can even be held liable.

This might seem surprising that such a simple act may amount to copyright infringement, but it is. Any form of reproduction of works (literary, musical, art, or dramatics) that has been copyrighted will amount to copyright infringement. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to either sell or license his work to any outside party who can then use it for reproduction. Often movies are based on previously written books. The author, in that case, either sells his right or gives the director a license allowing him to use the plot for celluloid.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, however, limits copyright infringement in the following cases:

  1. If it is being used for personal use, such as for research or educational purposes.
  2. In instances of reporting current events, this may at times include any lecture delivered in public. 
  3. If any work is being used for review or criticism.

Types of Copyright Infringement

Broadly copyright infringement can be classified into two kinds:

  1. Primary infringement
  2. Secondary infringement

PRIMARY INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

Primary infringement of copyright can be best explained with the example I already mentioned above. Photocopying a storybook and selling it to your friend is a classic example of primary infringement. It refers to the act of copying the work of the copyright holder and then distributing it for commercial purposes. However, to prove copyright infringement, the copyright holder must show that there is a substantial amount of work being copied. If certain casual similarities arise because both of them referred to the same sources, it will not amount to a copyright issue. 

For example, if you use a verse from any Taylor Swift’s song and incorporate it in a song you claim to be written by you and then sell it to a recording company, you have infringed on the copyright of the copyright holder. But if your song includes some similar phrases akin to hers, everyday daily use will not amount to copyright infringement.

SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT

Secondary infringement includes aiding in the circulation of copyright infringed works. For example, if person A has a photocopy machine in his stationery shop and knowingly allows another person B to photocopy a book and then B goes on to sell the photocopied book, then A and B can be made liable for infringement of copyright. But if A was not aware of B’s intention of selling the photocopied book, he cannot be made accountable. Importing, marketing, and distributing of infringed copies fall under the category of secondary infringement.

Remedies for Infringement of Copyright

Civil, as well as criminal remedies, are available to people whose copyright has been infringed.

Civil Remedy

Section 55 of The Copyright Act, 1957 states that any person whose copyright has been infringed has the right to obtain damages in keeping with the harm suffered.

Criminal Remedy

Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that criminal charges can also be brought on the infringer for infringement of copyright. If the copyright holder gets criminal charges, then punishment may extend from six months to three years imprisonment with a fine of fifty thousand rupees, extendable up to two lakh.

Case Laws Involving Copyright Infringement

Rogers V Koons

Copyright issues are never black and white. There is always a different opinion on a given judgment. Rogers V Koons was a case built upon one fundamental question ‘is basing your artwork on someone else’s allowed, and will it be qualified as derivative artwork.’ The Judge, in this case, found Mr. Koons guilty of copying Mr. Rogers photograph and basing his statues on it. The similarity was evident, and any person could tell that the work has been copied.

UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

This case made a noteworthy contribution by developing a mechanism called the ‘dynamic injunction.’ While adjudicating this case, Disney V M1 was referred. The Judge finally concluded that a plaintiff was allowed to file an additional affidavit explaining to the court why a new website should be considered under a previously granted injunction order. This helped to solve alphanumeric or mirroring sites, which would multiply and reappear as a redirected website after being blocked. Previous to this order, copyright holders to protect their work would need to go through the long and tedious process of litigation over and over again. This case set a precedent by introducing this new mechanism.

Tips Industries V Wynk Music

Tips Industries V Wynk Music cleared a long looming confusion if Section 31D of the Copyright Act included internet broadcasting and if the download or purchase of copyrighted work was allowed under the same section. Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 mentions the statutory licensing scheme which could be used by any organization willing to broadcast(communicate) to the public any sound recordings against the payment of a fixed amount of royalty as set by the Intellectual Property law Board. The Bombay High Court found Wynk Music Company guilty of violating the copyright of Tips industries. Wynk music allowed customers to download the music file in question and store it for unlimited future use. This was not mere broadcasting but qualified as a sale of copyrighted work without the copyright holder’s permission.

Conclusion

Copyright infringement is a crime, legally as well as morally. One puts all their efforts and creativity into producing a piece of art, and then another person blatantly copies it. Thus one should avoid infringing on the copyright of others at all costs. The goal of copyright is to preserve the rights of original work owners while also rewarding them financially for their innovation and hard work. Although it is not required to register one’s work, it is strongly advised to do so as soon as one’s idea begins to take shape in writings, as this will provide strong evidence to show to a court in the event of an infringement.

This article is written by Debasmita Nandi, a first year law student of CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), LAVASA.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Case Number

(1906) AC 494 (PC)

Bench

The Earl of Halsbury, Lord Macnaghten, Sir Arthur Wilson, Sir Alfred Wills

Author of the Judgement

Lord Macnaghten

Decided On

16 July 1906

Brief Facts and Procedural History

There was a partnership between Goldberg- a land speculator, Trimble- an auctioneer and Bennet- a merchant, object being purchase and re-sale of certain properties belonging to Hollard (including 5500 shares of a company Sigma Building Syndicate Limited engaged in the business of selling stands of land). All transactions were to be made through Trimble, to whom the other two were to give their power of attorneys. The transaction went smoothly. Later, Trimble along with Bennet bought stands of land from the company secretly at a bargain. The reason for such secrecy given was that Goldberg was an undesirable partner and was not financially stable. A suit was instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

Contentions of the Plaintiff/Respondent

  • Contended that the partnership had given Trimble a mandate to buy the stands on a joint account.
  • It was a general principle of a partnership that he was entitled to the profits made from the purchase.

Trial Court and High Courtin favour of the Appellant/Defendant

Supreme Court– founding on account of equity decided in the favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent declaring him entitled to share in the profits made by the other party purchased in secrecy. 

Issue Before the Privy Council

Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent is entitled to share in the profits made by the Appellants.

Ratio of the Case

  1. Neither the purchase in question was a part of the partnership nor it was an undertaking in the rivalry with the partnership or indeed connected with it in any sense.
  1. The decision by the Court of Appeal was criticised. Such a purchase was not expressly prohibited under the agreement but was held by the Court of appeal as a violation of trust, the basic foundation of a partnership. It was analysed by the House of Lords that even if it was expressly prohibited, then also the remedies available would have been an immediate dissolution of the partnership or claim for damages. Nonetheless, a share in the profits made from such a purchase would still have been held out of scope.
  1. Lord Blackburn in one of the earlier cases observed that it is advisable in a partnership as a matter of prudence and on other grounds that all matters be above board. But in the present case, there was no legal duty on Trimble or Bennet to disclose the purchase to Goldberg unless he had a right to take part in speculation.
  1. Also, the partnership eventually gained from such a purchase as the company got to sell at a higher price than what it would have gotten from the Government and the partnership as a shareholder of the company was proportionately the gainer.

Decision of the Court

It was held by the Privy Council that the decision of the Court of Appeal could not be supported either on authority or any recognized doctrine of equity and hence cannot be maintained. The purchase was held “not within the scope of the partnership” despite the fact that the Appellant got to know about it while doing partnership business or that it was a similar transaction as that of the partnership.

Hence, the Appeal was allowed and the Respondent was directed to pay the cost of the Appeal.

This case analysis is done by Munmun Kaur, a Law student from Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

INTRODUCTION

Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet, which means no one should be made judge in his or her own cause. It is the principle of Natural Justice. This maxim further says that the persons who are provided with the authority of giving decisions must be impartial and should act fairly without bias and prejudice. According to the dictionary, the term “bias” refers to anything that influences a person to decide a case other than on the basis of evidence. The rule against bias is against those factors that improperly influence a judge against arriving at a decision in a particular case. This rule is based on the assumption that it is against human psychology to decide a case against his own interest.

Meaning

 The doctrine of necessity is considered as an exception to the rule of bias under the rule of natural justice. It allows authorities to perform two things i.e. to do certain things which are essential to be done at a particular moment, and those acts which in a normal situation do not come within the scope of the law. When there is the absence of definite authority to decide on a matter, then in such a situation the doctrine will be invoked. Although it has been established by the Supreme Court that the Doctrine of Necessity is not to be invoked every now and then for even small matters, since it might lead to the absence of rule of law. If a choice is given whether to let a biased person act on a matter and whether to stop the matter itself, then in such situation, the preference will be given to the former part over the latter one, although which may be afflicted by the bias of that particular person or authority, however, the decision of that biased authority is mandatory to come to a conclusion under a said matter.

Evolution

The term “Doctrine of Necessity” is defined as a term that is used to describe the base on which administrative actions take place via administrative authority, which is designed to restore order, are found to be constitutional. The maxim on which this doctrine is based, is originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this kind of administrative action have been lead by more recent legal authorities, including William Blackstone.

In the contemporary world, the term was first used in the year 1954, in a controversial judgment in which Chief Justice of Pakistan Muhammad Munir legalized the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers by Governor-General, Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, the Chief Justice cited Bracton’s maxim, ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’, and thereby providing the label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was implementing

Since then, the Doctrine of Necessity has been applied in a number of Commonwealth countries, and in 2010 was invoked to justify administrative actions in Nepal.

What is objectionable is not that the decision is actually rotten with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable mistrust in the minds of others that there is a probability of bias affecting the decision. The underlying rule to this principle is that ‘Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done’.

Hence, Doctrine of Necessity is an exception to Nemo judex in causa sua.

Judicial Decisions

  1. J. Mahopatra and Co. v State of Orrisa,

In this case, Supreme Court rejected the contention of the doctrine of necessity, on the ground that though members of the subcommittee were appointed by the righteousness of their official positions, they were holding positions in the secretary education department of the government of Orrisa and the director higher education etc. 

  1. Tata Cellular v Union of India,

In this case, the Government of India distributed invitations to all the mobile operators to create networks in the four metro cities. The Director-General of Telecommunication was present in the Evaluation Committee which was supposed to evaluate the tenders under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). At the end of the evaluation process, his son’s tender was selected. To this, Supreme Court refused and said that there is no violation of ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ as the Director-General of Communication is required for the selection and evaluation of the tender. There was no choice of substitution, thus, the decision was not liable to be struck down. In this case, Doctrine of Necessity was applied liberally by the Supreme Court.

  1. In Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy

In this case it was observed that in a multi-member commission participation of Chief Election Commission is not mandatory and the doctrine of necessity will not apply if he is found to have likelihood of bias. The proper process for him was that he could call for a meeting and withdrew from the meeting leaving it to the other members to resolve. If in any situation there was any difference between them, then doctrine of necessity would apply. In this case, Supreme Court replaced the “Doctrine of Necessity” with the “Doctrine of absolute Necessity” which means that this doctrine can be invoked only in cases of ‘absolute’ necessity.

CONCLUSION

One of the Fundamental principle of Jurisprudence means that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable probability of bias it is “in accordance with natural justice and commonsense that the Judge likely to biased should be incapacitated from sitting”. Here, the main point is not whether the judge is biased or not, but whether there is any real probability of bias or not. What is abhorrent is not whether the decision is actually corrupted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of others that there is a probability of bias affecting the decision. The underlying rule to this principle is that ‘Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done’. This principle has received a wide recognition from various decisions of the Supreme Court.

This Doctrine acts as an exception to ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’. It says that bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is proficient to act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine which it would otherwise not demeanor on the touchstone of judicial propriety. The doctrine makes it immediate for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It also states that it can be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. If the doctrine is not allowed full play in certain obligatory situations, it would cut off the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would be in a situation which will benefit him. If there is a choice of whether to allow a biased person to act or to suppress the action altogether, the former must be preferred as it is the only way to promote decision-making. But Supreme Court has made it very clear that Doctrine of Necessity cannot be invoked every now and then, as it might lead to absence of Rule of Law in the Society. Hence, Doctrine of Necessity should be taken as ‘Doctrine of Absolute Necessity’.

This article is written by Muskan Bakliwal student of BBA LL.B. from Mody University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About GullySales


GullySales offers software for designing sales and marketing processes – plus the consulting,
training and support – to scale businesses growth.


Location


Remote (Work from Home)

Compensation

Internship – 5000/month


Internship Duration

3 months


Content Writer responsibilities include:


● Researching industry-related topics (combining online sources, interviews and studies)
● Writing clear marketing copy to promote our products/services
● Preparing well-structured drafts using Content Management Systems

Job brief


We are looking for a Legal Content Writer to join our editorial team and enrich our websites with
new blog posts, guides and marketing copy.
Content Writer responsibilities include conducting thorough research on industry-related topics,
generating ideas for new content types and proofreading articles before publication. If you’re
familiar with producing online content and have an eye for detail, we’d like to meet you. Feel free
to share samples of your work or portfolio of your published articles, along with your
application.

Ultimately, you’ll deliver quality writing pieces that appeal to our audiences, attract customers
and boost brand awareness.


Responsibilities

● Research industry-related topics (combining online sources, interviews and studies)
● Write clear marketing copy to promote our products/services
● Prepare well-structured drafts using Content Management Systems
● Proofread and edit blog posts before publication
● Submit work to editors for input and approval
● Coordinate with marketing and design teams to illustrate articles
● Conduct simple keyword research and use SEO guidelines to increase web traffic
● Promote content on social media
● Identify customers’ needs and gaps in our content and recommend new topics
● Ensure all-around consistency (style, fonts, images and tone)
● Update website content as needed


Requirements

● Portfolio of published articles
● Experience doing research using multiple sources
● Familiarity with web publications
● Excellent writing and editing skills in English
● Hands-on experience with Content Management Systems (e.g. WordPress)
● Ability to meet deadlines


Selection Procedure

1st round – Telephonic Screening
2nd round – Technical/creative writing skill assessment
3rd round – HR interview

How to apply-


Please share the resume to careers@gullysales.com

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Responsibilities

  • Prepare, review, and modify legal documents/contractual instruments to assist and support various business activities/functional departments.
  • Negotiate, review and draft documentation for business transactions and prepare and advise on various aspects of laws to various functional departments.
  • Develop and oversee control systems to prevent or deal with violations of legal guidelines and internal policies.
  • Supervise project interns on day-to-day Legal operations and contract executions.
  • Offering counsel and advice on a employment law and related issue.
  • Working alongside other departments within the company
  • Managing all post contract execution compliances.
  • Ability to create and manage a Contract Compliance framework.
  • Advising on contract status, legal risks, and the legal liabilities associated with different deals.
  • Researching and anticipating unique legal issues that could impact the company
  • Providing training to the company on legal topics and risks.
  • Prepare monthly and quarterly reports for the legal department for management meetings.
  • Should be comfortable working in a fast-paced environment with broad, generalist responsibilities, but with specialist legal subject skills in commercial law and regulatory matters.

Requirements

  • LLB (5-7 years) from a reputed University
  • Well versed with issues pertaining to employment law and related fields.
  • Proven experience as Contracts manager
  • In-depth knowledge of the industry’s standards and regulations
  • Excellent knowledge of reporting procedures and record keeping
  • A business acumen partnered with a dedication to law and compliance
  • Methodical and diligent with outstanding planning abilities
  • Characteristics of a forward thinker and self-starter that flourishes with new challenges and adapts quickly to learning new knowledge
  • An analytical mind able to “see” the complexities of procedures and regulations
  • Excellent communication skills

Location:

Mumbai

How to Apply:

Please send the email to Prateek.sharma@fractal.ai with the position as subject line.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Company Profile:

Avataar.Me is a 3D AI company that helps large enterprise customers create immersive and interactive shopping experiences for their end consumers. Avataar’s vision is to bridge the gap between offline-online experiences by replacing the current 2D visuals with life-size and hyper-realistic 3D XR/AR experiences.

Avataar’s use of AR technology brings spatial depth to the onscreen buying/browsing experience – delivering life-like photorealism, mobile responsiveness, interactivity and personalization – key influences re-shaping the digital commerce industry today.

Avataar’s sector-agnostic platform enables scalable product discovery, giving brands and stores the opportunity to change the way consumers discover and engage with their products online. We work with e-commerce, consumer electronics, auto OEMs and FMCG majors across the US, India and Southeast Asia – driving significant RoI outcomes for marquee brands across these sectors by empowering XR & AR consumer experiences across all their touchpoints – social, web, and in-app.

Avataar is a Sequoia funded company with 10+ US patents in Computer Vision, AI and AR technology. We are in a fast-growing phase on the back of strong client adoption traction and increasing our overall team-size multi-folds.

Company Culture: 

Since 2015, working gradually and intricately, we have developed a niche, deep technology platform in 3D AI and AR. This makes us very assiduous, ambitious, and passionate about our work. We work on the state of the art technology and closely partner with market leaders in AR/VR space like Facebook, Instagram and Google, thus being curious and keeping abreast in our work is something that runs through our veins. In our consumer obsession we make our customers win everytime. We are always available for each other in times of need, be it professional or personal. We play for the front of the jersey, we debate, agree, or disagree and overcome setbacks through grit, together. Most importantly, we consider ourselves life-long learners in a big, ever-changing diverse classroom.

Job Description: 

We are currently hiring a Manager for our Investor Relations & Legal team who will be responsible for managing all investor deliverables and legal processes with external stakeholders. This person will be involved in the process of creating the appropriate strategy, framework and tactics on the IR & Legal fronts. The position requires excellent communication and interpersonal skills. It also requires the ability to carefully manage relationships outside the company.

Equally important, we are looking for someone who would deeply imbibe Avataar’s culture + values and evangelize the same across the organization. The IR & Legal Manager would closely work with the founders and the business teams to develop and execute strategies to deliver intended outcomes.

Responsibilities & Duties:

  • Manage a strong reputation by delivering clear communication with external stakeholders
  • Develop a robust framework for investor deliverables
  • Deliver high quality investor related financial reports in a timely manner 
  • Devise actionable strategies from investor & client insights
  • Build & maintain financial valuation models of the company
  • Analyze & present financial trends, shareholder issues and similar business matters
  • Drafting and/or negotiating all investor agreements and client contracts
  • Work with external legal counsels to ensure compliance on regulatory matters

 Requirements:

  • Training in Law to a degree level with an MBA being an asset
  • Professional who is also entrepreneurial, and has a client-minded focus
  • Strong track record in dealing with investors & external counsels while creating positive relations  
  • Thorough understanding of key metrics for tech start-ups
  • Intimately familiar with financial modeling techniques and valuation methods 
  • Solid knowledge of general business law requirements for a start-up incorporated in India and dealing with global clients across its global offices
  • Superb written and verbal communication skills, as well as the ability to draft engaging and impactful presentations for investors
  • Must be able to perform in a high-pressure environment, and be able to meet tight deadlines
  • Prior experience of 5yrs+ in a similar role is a must

What’s in it for you?

  • Extremely competitive compensation (fixed + variable)
  • Opportunity to work in a fast growing company with a highly dynamic team
  • Unparalleled opportunity to get global investor and client exposure
  • Owning primary responsibility to build & deliver in a highly critical function

The Leadership Team: 

Sravanth started his computer vision journey 15 years ago with Microsoft Kinect. Post his MBA from Wharton, he headed technology at Deutche Bank (US/India). A total product geek and an accidental investment banker, Sravanth loves to compose and play music on his guitar during his non-geeky hours. He did a B-tech from IIT-Bombay.                                                         

Gaurav has more than a decade’s experience in global consumer internet sector and comes from a family which runs fashion businesses. He did MBA from FMS-Delhi and is also a CA. Gaurav loves to travel and is ready to coddiwomple any time for a good trip and adventure sports.                                           

Mayank was the India Country Head for KKR Capstone. He was also the CEO is F&B Asia(India)Pvt. Ltd. He has worked extensively with A-listed global brands like Unilever and BCG. He holds an MBA from Wharton and is a business whiz. He is an amateur percussionist and vocalist and is a passionate Division I cricketer.

How to apply:

https://avataar.kekahire.com/ApplyJob/8994

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

The National Law University, Delhi is inviting applications for 10 Academic Fellows towards teaching and research in the following subjects:

  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Law, Science and Technology
  • Media and Communication Law
  • International Trade Law
  • Competition Law
  • Jurisprudence
  • Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
  • Administrative Law
  • Constitutional Law


Background:


The National Law University, Delhi is among India’s leading law universities, ranked second
in the National Institutional Ranking Framework for the last two years.


The University offers a five year integrated B.A., LL.B (Hons.) and one year postgraduate masters in law (LL.M), along with professional programs and certificate courses for nonlawyers. Through the All India Law Entrance Test, the university admits 120 students into the B.A., LL.B (Hons.) course and 80 students into the LL.M course.


The University has made tremendous contributions in public discourse on law through pedagogy and research. Over the last decade the university has established many specialised research centres and this includes the Centre for Communication Governance, Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition, Centre for Corporate Law and Governance, Centre for Criminology and Victimology, and Project 39A. Through its faculty, the University has made submissions, recommendations, and worked in advisory/consultant capacities with government entities, universities in India and abroad, think tanks, private sector organisations, and international organisations. As a leading institution of higher learning in India, the University is also keen to create interdisciplinary approaches as part of its commitment towards high quality education and research.


The Academic Fellowship is a flagship programme created by the University to nurture early
career academics in teaching and research. Academic Fellows are expected to contribute to
the intellectual growth of the University, and will be mentored by senior faculty members. In
this background, applications are invited from academics and early career scholars in law,
social sciences, humanities, technology and other allied disciplines.


Responsibilities:

Fellows are expected to assist in teaching & undertake research in relevant
areas in consultation with the University.

Eligibility:

  • LL.M or relevant Masters degree in Social Sciences/ Humanities/ Science and Technology from a recognised Indian or foreign university with minimum 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), and a good academic record.
  • For those applying with a relevant Masters degree in Social Sciences/ Humanities/Science and Technology/Engineering, there must be a clear and demonstrable track record of interdisciplinary research involving the law.
  • Applicants in this category should not have qualified for their first undergraduate degree before 01-01-2016.


Requirements:

Demonstrable research track record in any one of the subjects mentioned in
this call. Interdisciplinary research will be considered as an advantage.


Pay Scale:

INR 50,000 per month


Nature of Appointment:

Contractual


Application Process:

The following materials need to be submitted digitally.

  • Statement of Purpose (750 words)
  • Resume, including publications authored or co-authored, if any
  • Proposed research (750 words)
  • Copy of undergraduate degree, clearly indicating date and year of graduation
  • Copy of Master’s degree, clearly indicating date and year of graduation
  • Any other document relevant to this application not already submitted above

Application Form


Please access the application form here.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Fi6bU1h_vwauhtkO9Z5RsujLlTFCedPUBwiFUKg9mkU/edit

Last date for submission:

23:59 Hrs/11.59 PM on 22nd August 2021.


Conditions:

  • The application must be submitted through the online form specified in this
  • advertisement. Physical/ email applications will not be considered.
  • Candidates will be shortlisted based on an assessment of their application materials
  • submitted through the online form, and only shortlisted candidates will be
  • interviewed.
  • Only those candidates selected for the interview will be contacted. If you do not hear
  • from the University within 4 weeks after the deadline, please assume that your
  • application has been unsuccessful.
  • The eligibility criteria listed here do not guarantee an interview or a final offer.
  • NLU Delhi reserves the right not to fill the positions advertised here.
  • NLU Delhi is an equal opportunity employer.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd