Month: October 2022

About the Organization

Singhania & Co. is a boutique law practise made up of devoted attorneys with over 25 years of experience and knowledge. In order to provide our customers with commercially sensible legal solutions, we bring together lawyers and industry specialists from several legal fields who have in-depth sector knowledge and an awareness of commerce. This allows us to provide industry-focused counsel.

In addition to being recognised by India Business Law Journal as the Indian Law Firm of 2019 and 2020 in the area of Maritime and Shipping, the firm recently won the India Legal Awards 2019 in the category of Litigation Dispute Resolution Team of the Year. Krrishan Singhania, our founder and managing partner, is regarded as an expert in the area of alternative dispute resolution and has repeatedly been listed among the top 100 attorneys and legal figures in the nation in the India Business Law Journal’s annual A-List feature. Having worked as a foreign lawyer in New York and London, he brings to arbitration cases the best methods from throughout the world. Additionally, he is knowledgeable on trademark law, maritime law, and aviation law.

About the Responsibilities  

An associate for litigation is what we’re seeking for. The ideal applicant need to have two to three years’ worth of litigation experience. Mumbai-based candidates will receive preference.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  hr@singhanialaw.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

A corporate law firm in India named King Stubb & Kasiva has created teams for each of its areas of practise to guarantee that its services match the highest standards. Bangalore, Chennai, New Delhi, Mumbai, Kochi, Kolkata, and Pune are where they have offices. Corporate M&A, Private Equity & Venture Capital, Banking & Finance, Real Estate, Dispute Resolution (Arbitration & Litigation), Insolvency, Regulatory, and Labour & Employment Matters are some of their key practises. Additionally, the firm has specialised expertise in capital markets, competition and antitrust, environmental law, food law, information technology, infrastructure and project finance, intellectual property rights, investments, legal metrology, litigation, media law, and tax. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies, e-commerce, defence, fintech, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, power and energy, telecom, media and telecommunications, transport and logistics, trusts, charities, not-for-profit, and white-collar crime are all included in its focus industries.

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) – Advocates and Attorneys has carved out a specialisation in the mid-market M&A, litigation and disputes resolution, employment and labour, banking and finance, IT, ecommerce, and new technologies practises during the past few years. Fortune 500 firms, international corporations, and large and medium-sized Indian and foreign businesses are among the firm’s clients. The company provides advice to public sector organisations, governmental agencies, and ministries. Additionally, KSK offers support and guidance to start-ups in a variety of industries, including e-commerce, fin-tech, genomics, defence, drugs and cosmetics, ed-tech, med-tech, news & media aggregation, logistics, blockchain, airports, mining, green energy, power & energy, real estate, engineering & manufacturing, pharmacy wholesale & retail distribution, F&B, fashion & clothing, and fitness.

About the Responsibilities  

An Associate with three or more years of experience is needed for the Corporate Team in Delhi (on-site).

Eligibility

• Should be skilled in managing broad corporate advisory services and corporate business transactions, such as M&A and private equity.
• Understanding of employment and labour laws, FEMA, SEBI, and RBI regulations.
• Should be familiar with managing compliance tasks for businesses.
• should be proficient in legal drafting.
• Strong analytical skills, rational problem-solving attitude, and experience with complicated problems
• a capacity for pressure-free work.
• strong business growth and marketing abilities.
• good networking and interpersonal abilities.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  admin@ksandk.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

dealing with all types of Civil & Criminal Matters in all district and High Courts in India over the past 15 years as an advocate.

About the Responsibilities  

Law students have the chance to intern at Sharma & Associates, also known as the Precept Law company.

Openings

110

Time Period

12th Oct-12th Nov 2022

Deadline for Applying

11^th October, 2022

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  Kindly apply with Cv and college i’d Card at given mail preceptlawfirm.office@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

Founded in 1909, Solomon & Co., Advocates & Solicitors is a full-service, preeminent independent law practise. The firm has three locations, four partners, seven associate partners, more than 60 attorneys, and a total of 100 members.

About the Responsibilities  

This is to let you know that Solomon & Co. is looking to hire a person with 3-5 years of experience for its dispute resolution unit. Applicants must be graduates, particularly from 2017 to 2019.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  blaise.coutinho@slmnco.in and Cc to arya.bile@slmnco.in.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

As it works with the utmost thoroughness, precision, and dedication for its clients, AAA Legal is one name for all of your legal difficulties. It is renowned for having successfully defended clients in difficult and challenging issues all around the nation.

About the Responsibilities  

Law students have the chance to participate in an offline internship programme.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  contact@aaalegal.pro (Subject of email should read ‘Virtual/Online internship for November 2022’).

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

A registered company in Delhi, Tabish Sarosh (OPC) Pvt Ltd. offers legal services, forensic services, legal and forensic trainings, and consulting. Since 2009, our legal team has been actively engaged in the field of criminal litigation. Our attorneys are highly qualified, experienced, and committed.
Our legal team handles a wide range of cases, including criminal and forensic matters involving murder, attempted murder, POCSO cases, rape cases, sexual harassment cases, bail matters, Negotiable Instruments Act, cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, cyber-crimes, corporate frauds, medical malpractice, PNDT cases, Motor Vehicles Act, matrimonial cases, and consumer matters.

About the Responsibilities  

Law students have the chance to participate in an offline internship programme.

As an intern you are required to: –

• Criminal Litigation
• Forensic Science
• Investigations techniques
• Drafting in Criminal cases
• Work in Court and Police station

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  tabishsaroshassociates@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

-Report by Nandini Gupta

In the case of The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah ordered that appointment on the mere grounds of compassionate after several years is unsustainable.

FACTS

The father of the respondent died in harness while working in clerical cadre with the appellants. Following this incident, the mother of the respondent i.e., the wife of the deceased was given an appointment on the grounds of compassion. But she also died in service. On 18th August 2011, the elder daughter (elder sister of the respondent) submitted an application for an appointment on the grounds of compassion which got rejected as she was married and not dependent on the deceased parents. Later, after two years on 26th February 2013, government issued another notice instructing to provide employment to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on the grounds of compassion.

In the following next month, another daughter (respondent) of the deceased mother who is also married submitted an application asking to provide employment on the grounds of compassion. This application was also rejected dated 23rd April 2013. The respondent filed an application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Judicature at Bombay where the judgement was in favor of the respondents ordering to consider the appointment on compassionate grounds.

The court while delivering the judgement considered the precedents where it was ordered that the appointment on compassionate grounds for all the vacancies or posts of the government equal opportunity should be provided to all the aspirants as per Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Employment under the State) of Constitution of India.

Moreover, the appointment on compassionate grounds is merely a concession instead of a right granted for the sake of economic stability to the family member or one of the dependent of the deceased. Reference was made to the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] where the court has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source or gateway for recruitment, instead it is a way to walk over the sudden financial crisis suffered by the deceased of the family.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court considering all the facts of the case and precedents, quashed the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The court observed that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal have given an erroneous decision by directing the appellants to appoint the respondents on the grounds of compassion when appointment after several years of death of the mother is unjustifiable.

-Report by Mahak

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted anticipatory bail in the case of GURPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. This application was made under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant, who was arrested at the police Station Karahiya, District Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicant is a 27-year-old man who is the husband of the complainant and anticipates his arrest for the offence mentioned above.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the primary allegation against the applicant is of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and that the allegation of rape is against his brother-in-law Boota Singh. However, it is alleged that he did not respond to the complaint made by the complainant/prosecutrix (the applicant’s wife), and this case was registered six months later.

Since the lawsuit stems from a marital disagreement, the applicant’s counsel alluded to several settlement discussions between the two parties. The compromise was incapable of producing an effective settlement. In addition, mediation processes were performed at the request of this court but were not successful. He referred to the recurring inclusion of allegations of violation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in domestic disputes. Confinement may result in social disgrace and personal benefit. The applicant agrees to assist with the investigation/trial. Under these conditions, he requests that his bail application may be considered.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Counsel for the respondent/State argued against the prayer. The learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and argued that the applicant is the complainant’s spouse and did not respond to her complaint when she was mistreated by family members and the principal defendant Boota Singh. He also brought up the issue of police authority not cooperating. He begged for the application to be denied.

JUDGEMENT

This court granted an anticipatory motion in light of the arguments and the facts that the applicant is the spouse and that he is not accused of a rape-related offence. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon providing a personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

This order further had 8 conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant such as complying with the process and not threatening any person acquainted with the facts.

– Report by Mahija Sinha

The Supreme Court in the case of  M/S. Emmar India Ltd. V. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP & Anr.  has stated that the HC must perform a preliminary inquiry to determine if the dispute is arbitrable to justify the appointment of arbitrators in an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act.

FACTS

The appellants challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision and ruling in the Arbitration Petition in a civil appeal. Both parties had entered into a Collaboration Agreement and a subsequent Addendum Agreement for building a residential colony in Gurugram’s Sector 62 and 65. The parties got into a dispute, and the respondents, in this case, claimed that the appellant had broken the Addendum Agreement’s responsibilities. The respondents sent a legal notice demanding actual control of five plots totalling 2160 square yards and alleging losses of Rs. 10 crores. The disagreement was arbitrable, according to the respondents in this case, and an ex-High Court judge was chosen as the arbitrator. However, the appellants, in this case, reject the arbitrator’s appointment. As a result, the respondents, in this case, submitted an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act asking the Court to select the arbitrators in accordance with Clause 37 of the Addendum Agreement. The appellants made a number of arguments in opposition to the aforementioned arbitration petition. The High Court granted the application under sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act and appointed the arbitrator while keeping in mind clauses 36 and 37 of the Addendum clause. This infuriated the appellants, who then brought the current appeal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The legal representatives for the appellant argued that the High Court completely overlooked the fact that, in the appellant’s opinion, the issue occurs under Clause 36 of the Agreement and not Clause 37 while granting the application under Sections 11(5) and (6) and selecting the arbitrators. They referred to the cases Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation and Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited, where the Court noted “that at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, a preliminary” injunction must be filed, and Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited, where it was held that the appointment of an arbitrator could be refused if the arbitration agreement is not in writing. As a result, it was finally argued that the High Court must conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the disagreement between the parties is covered by Clause 36 of the Agreement

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Referring to Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation, the legal representatives for respondents argued that it would be best to leave the decision of whether or not the dispute is arbitrable to the arbitrator in a request made under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, as it is the arbitrator’s job to make that determination. He continued by saying that the High Court’s selection of the arbitrators was correct, given a combined reading of Clauses 36 and 37 of the Agreement and the parties’ determination to settle their dispute through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act.

COURT’S DECISION

 The bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that

“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering Clauses 36 and 37 of the Agreement and when a specific plea was taken that the dispute falls within Clause 36 and not under Clause 37 and therefore, the dispute is not arbitrable, the High Court was at least required to hold a primary inquiry/review, and prima facie come to a conclusion on whether the dispute is arbitrable. Without conducting this preliminary investigation and despite knowing the fact that a party does have the right to seek enforcement of an agreement before a court of law as per Clause 36, the arbitrators were only appointed after it was noted that the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the resolution of disputes through arbitration.”

The Court stated that the High Court, however, did not recognize or consider that a dispute involving the enforcement of the Agreement as described in Clauses 3, 6, and 9 is not subject to arbitration at all. According to this interpretation, the High Court’s contested judgment and order appointing the arbitrators is invalid and should be repealed and overturned.

-Report by Sanstuti Mishra

It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC. vs. STATE BY ULSOOR PS that the videography containing confession made before the police is inadmissible as evidence

FACTS

The appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a Criminal Appeal which continued the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants which convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, which sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Appellants were arrested by the Police Inspector and Investigation Officer in a case of dacoity and murder which was registered at Police Station, Vijayanagar under Sections 354/397, IPC. A voluntary statement was then given by Accused No. 2 and lastly, all five accused confessed that they had committed the murder of S. Ramakrishna by cutting his neck with some strident weapon on the night of 11th October 2000. This happened at their residence and they fled after stealing around Rs.3000/-. They also volunteered to show the place where they had committed the crime on that night along with how they murdered the old aged person and then decamped with the cash and jewellery. A videography statement of the accused was recorded. The accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the High Court.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that this was a case of circumstantial evidence and it had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire case of the prosecution was based on the accused’s confession/voluntary testimony to police, the recovery of the murder weapon allegedly seized and the stolen goods from a jewellery store. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed a grave error while relying on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20(3)7 of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Further, a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence.

It was observed

“both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court have ignored the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudences and have relied upon facts and evidences which are clearly inadmissible in a court of law. The crime indeed was ghastly, to say the least. Yet, linking the crime to the present appellants is an exercise which was to be undertaken in the court of law under established principles of law. This has not been done.”

The orders of conviction were thus set aside.