Month: October 2022

SPIL, Mumbai is organizing a national legal article writing competitions.

ABOUT

The generations of distinguished legal luminaries who have been nurtured by this unique institution, have made a seminal contribution globally, to the evolution of the legal fraternity.

Accordingly, SPIL, Mumbai is pleased to hold the National Legal Article Writing Competition calling for articles from law students across the country.

ELIGIBILITY

Students/Participants must be pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Law, i.e., 3-year LL.B. Course or 5-year LL.B. course from any recognized College or University or pursuing LL.M from any recognized University.

THEME

Changing role of International Sports Law in the 21st Century

PRIZES

• Best Paper: INR 8000 + Publication in the GLC SPIL International Law Journal + Internship Opportunity at Sports Law and Policy Review Reporter + Certificate of Merit
• 2nd Best Paper: INR 5000 + Internship Opportunity at Sports Law and Policy Review Reporter + Certificate of Merit
• Participants whose articles are considered in the entries will receive a Certificate of Participation

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• Only a single submission may be made from each participant. 
• The articles should be the original work of the authors. Any kind of plagiarism will lead to disqualification.
• Each entry must be previously unpublished work of the participant. The articles published elsewhere or selected/submitted for publication elsewhere shall be disqualified.
• Articles co-authored by two participants will be accepted. 
• The entries shall be the property of SPIL, Mumbai which reserves the right of publication of the same in any periodical, journal, newsletter, digital material or in any other manner as it may deem appropriate. 
• The organizing committee’s decision as regards the interpretation of the rules or any other matter related to the Competition shall be final and binding.
• The name of the author should not be mentioned anywhere in the article.
• The article is to have a minimum of 3000 words and a maximum of 4000 words, inclusive of footnotes. 
• The article should be typed in Times New Roman, Font Size 12, Line Spacing double-spaced (2.0) and the article should be justified. 
• The footnotes must be typed in Times New Roman, Font Size 10 and Line Spacing 1.0. 
• The margins on all pages must be 1” or 2.54 cm on all sides. 
• Every citation must follow the Harvard Bluebook, 20th Edition. 
• The submissions must be sent by email to spil.glc@gmail.com with the subject “Submission: National Legal Article Writing Competition”
• The body of the e-mail must specify the name of the author, theme & sub-topic, title of the article, college/ institute/ university, programme enrolled & year of study, e-mail address & contact no. of the author. 
• The submission must be attached in ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ and ‘.pdf’ format.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Zp8OFbs2C3aDJ0GTESnTtx8TLqi0spm/view?usp=sharing

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.

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 small-scale intellectual property law business, Sagar Chandra & Associates, can handle problems both domestically and abroad. The Partners of the Firm, which was founded in 2009, have a combined experience in intellectual property rights of more than 15 years. The Firm offers innovative, realistic, and commercially focused solutions for both contentious and non-contentious issues involving intellectual property. Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, Designs, Geographical Indications, Domain Names, Trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, and Media and Entertainment Laws are among the firm’s practise areas that cover both contentious and non-contentious matters. Sagar Chandra and Ishani Chandra, the two partners of Sagar Chandra & Associates, each have more than 15 years of experience working in the field of intellectual property.

About the Responsibilities  

Job Opening at Delhi’s Sagar Chandra & Associates for the department of IPR Prosecution

Location

B-18, Lower Ground Floor, Soami Nagar, New Delhi – 110017

Eligibility

• PQE: 3+ years.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – career@scalegal.in with the subject line ‘Job Application (Prosecution) – Your name [PQE]’.

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 Annette Abraham

In a curious turn of events, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted a reduced sentence to the accused in the Sitaram Dada Sarode v. State of Maharashtra case on the grounds of an inconsistent timeline and the occurrence of grave provocation. The accused, an ayurvedic medic, had been convicted of murdering his wife, Sangita Sarode, a pharmacist.

FACTS

The accused married Sangita in 1993. Though they initially lived in Manmad together, Sangita and their children moved to Pune as she secured a job as a pharmacist in the city. Mr. Sitaram would visit his wife and children around once every fortnight. The incident occurred on the evening of 30th August 2008 on one such visit to Pune. Sangita and her children lived at the residence of her mother Shantabai. Here, a supposed quarrel between the accused and his wife resulted in her sustaining a head injury as well as multiple burn wounds.

Sangita was rushed to the hospital where Dr. Govind Kamble recorded Sangita’s statement wherein she stated that Sitaram questioned her fidelity and in rage, hit her on the back of the head and poured a burning substance over her before fleeing the scene. On the basis of this statement, her mother filed a complaint and Sitaram was arrested on 30th August 2008 under Sections 307, 498-A and 504. A second dying declaration was collected by the Head Constable in the evening that day that stated the same.

Sangita succumbed to her injuries six days after the incident on 5th September 2008 and her body was sent for an autopsy. Dr. Ajay Taware conducted the autopsy, concluding that Sangita had sustained 40% burn injuries, the primary cause of death, in addition to a haematoma in her scalp and a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in her brain. Charges against Sitaram were filed under Sections 302, 498-A and 504, however, the accused denied all of them, pleading not guilty. The defence pleaded in the Sessions Court that:

a. The burn wounds sustained by Sangita were caused not due to acid but by fire. On the day of the incident because of the Pola festival, Sangita was preparing food and the over-flaming of the stove caused her injuries.

b. The accused did not have cordial relationships with Shantabai and his brother-in-law Bajirao Masal, who was also present on the day of the incident, and hence they had falsely implicated him and enticed Sitaram’s son to testify against him as well. The Additional Sessions Court found Sitaram to be guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1000/- for the crimes of murder as well as cruelty.

Appellant’s Argument

Mr. Sitaram and his counsel Mr. Pawan Mali raised the matter before the High Court of Bombay requesting the honourable bench to review the legality of the order passed in the sessions court.
The Appellant’s contentions were as follows:

1. Discrepancies in the Timeline Presented –
   The main contention with the timelines lay in the statements collected from Sangita. In the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Govind Kamble at 6:30 p.m., Sangita’s right leg thumb impression is taken as a signature owing to the fact that both her hands were severely burnt. However, this statement was only signed at 9:30 p.m., 3 hours after it was collected. Even more curiously, in the statement collected by the Head Constable of Police around 9:30 p.m, Sangita’s signature was given as validation. This is a clear contradiction to the circumstances of the first declaration recorded earlier in the day. Hence, the second declaration must be considered void.
2. Incomplete Evidence –
   The combined case papers of Sangita that detailed her treatment in the 6 days preceding her death revealed that she had been treated with Silver sulphate. Further, Dr. Pandit and Dr. Shinde, who administered her immediate treatment, noted that she sustained approximately 45% of burns that seemed to be largely flame burns. Dr. Shinde
   and Dr. Pandit, as well as Dr. Sarala Gandhi who administered anaesthesia to Sangit had not been examined by the prosecution.
3. Provocation –
   From the statements of the main witnesses, it is discernible that constant quarrels used to occur between the married couple and that these often resulted in physical violence.

The appellant, calling upon the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, contended that the constant and unceasing nature of the altercations that occurred over the course of their marriage caused mental turmoil to Sitaram. It was stated that this falls under the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 of the IPC which granted that continuous provocation or torment can be considered equivalent to a singular grave provocation. Under this provision, Sangita’s death would amount not to murder but to culpable homicide.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that though the accused was responsible for Sangita’s death, the constant provocation caused the accused to temporarily lose the sense of right and wrong and commit the offence and that the murder was not premeditated or planned. Hence, it falls under the ambit of section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As such, the honourable court ruled that a life sentence was too hefty a punishment and the judgement of the Sessions Court was overruled. Sitaram’s sentence was reduced to 10 years a fine of ₹50,000/- was imposed. Since Sitaram had already served 14 years under imprisonment between 2008 and 2022, the court ordered that he be released forthwith.

-Report by Nidhi Jha

It was in a recent case of RAMESH LASHA PALVA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, the Bombay High Court held that sharing common intention with the prime offenders is a vital factor for the accused to be convicted for that particular offence. Bombay High Court also clarified that for invoking Exception 4 under Section 300 IPC there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled.

FACTS

On 12th November 2014, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane convicted both Ramesh Lasha Palva and Kashinath Lasha Palva under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC with imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs 1,000/- each for the murder of Lahanu Jivya Palva (deceased).

There was enmity between the Appellants and the deceased pertaining to the landed property because of which fights happened between them on various occasions. On 3rd November 2010 at around 1:00 am Appellant 1 i.e Ramesh Palva called Lahanu Jivya Palva (deceased). After some time when Lahanu went towards him, Appellant 2 i.e Kashinath Lasha Palva came from behind and hit Lahanu with a ‘musal’ (wooden pestle) and ran away. After getting treated at various hospitals Lahanu Jivya Palva was declared dead on 14th November 2010 while undergoing treatment at Sudarshan Hospital.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The Appellant’s advocate submitted that On 3rd November 2010, Ramesh had filed N.C Complaint against Lahanu and 2 others stating that Lahanu (deceased) was abusing the sister of the Appellants in presence of Dinesh (PW-5) and Jitendra (PW-7). Jitendra (PW-7), Dinesh (PW-5) and Lahanu (deceased) were beating Ramesh. Lahanu was under the influence of liquor and fell down from the raised platform in a gutter and sustained an injury to his head. She submitted that because Lahanu was already having a dispute over property with the Appellants, they registered the present crime against the Appellants.

It was submitted by the Appellant’s advocate that the Act of Appellant No. 2 falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 and so the conviction of both the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C is not appropriate.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION

There were three eyewitnesses to the incident that took place on 3rd November 2010. Bharati, the wife of the deceased said that due to the previous enmity, Appellant No.1 called her husband and when Lahanu approached him, Appellant No.2 came from behind and hit him with the ‘ musal’ and he ran away. She clearly stated that Appellant No.1 did nothing in the entire incident.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that the wife of the deceased categorically stated and also evidence indicated that, Appellant No.1 did nothing to the deceased hence he didn’t share the same intention of assaulting the deceased with Appellant No. 2.

Evidence also indicated that the intention of Appellant No. 2 was not to murder Lahanu neither he took any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Also, there was no evidence proving that Appellant No.2 has come to the defendant’s place with the wooden pestle ( musal) with the intention of murdering as that tool is available commonly in every household for the purpose of pounding and grinding.

The act of the Appellant therefore according to the Court falls under the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC and as he had no intention to commit the murder of Lahanu, Section 304 (Part II) of IPC would be attracted. Therefore Ramesh is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt and Appellant No.2 Kashinath is acquitted of charges of murder and convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC, and he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for 1 year. And as Appellant No.2 Kashinath Lasha Palva is in jail since 12th November 2010 and has completed his sentence of 10 years, so he also has been acquitted from jail immediately.

-report by Deepti Dubey

The Supreme Court, pronouncing the judgement in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V. Bharat  Singh Jhala  (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr expressed that the labour court cannot take a view contrary to the Industrial Tribunal. A Bench of Justice MR Shah and Krishna Murari was considering an appeal plea by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

FACTS

Mr. Bharat Singh Jhala was working as a conductor. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him for not issuing tickets to 10 passengers even though he collected the amount for the same. Thereafter, his services were terminated by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in 2007. The termination was the subject matter of the approval application before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Act. The tribunal approved of the same after examining the evidence from both parties.

After a period of 19 years, the dispute was raised in a labour court by the workmen. The Labour Court passed an order awarding 50% back wages from the date of termination till his death in 2018. This order was challenged before a Single Judge in the High Court who dismissed this writ petition and upheld the award of back wages from the Labour Court, which gave rise to the present appeal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The appellant i.e. the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation submitted that under the proceedings before the Industrial tribunal, the appellant had been permitted to lead evidence and prove the charge against the conductor. This was later approved by the Industrial Tribunal, which cannot be challenged after 19 years and quashed by the Labour Court. Therefore, they prayed to approve the present appeal.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondents relied upon the judgement of John D’Souza vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (2019). They stated that: the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act is summary in nature and findings recorded while deciding the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act shall not affect the substantive right in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.

They attempted to discredit the proceedings of the Industrial tribunal by regarding it as speedy without due formalities. At the same time, more importance was given to the substantive right of a workman to raise an individual industrial dispute. It was insisted that the Supreme Court in the present case must not interfere with the judgement of the lower court.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court noted that the Industrial Tribunal is a higher forum than the Labour Court and the order passed by them in 2015 had attained finality. The Bench also noted that evidence on record, both oral and documentary were considered before approval of the termination order by the Industrial tribunal. Thus, fresh reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible. It concluded that the High Court, in the present case had failed to consider these factors and committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition. Thereafter, the order passed by the High Court confirming the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court was set aside the order of termination and the judgment and award passed by the labour Court setting aside the order of termination were quashed and set aside.

The supreme court expressed its discontentment with the High Court’s lack of precision in analysing the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947 is focused on the mechanism and procedure for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Whilst taking into consideration the welfare of the workmen, due regard also has to be given to the procedure for investigation under the act. Once the dispute has been settled after a thorough examination of evidence, as in the present case, raising the same dispute after 19 years is redundant. In law, the principle applied for the same is res judicata, which means, a matter which has been adjudicated upon once cannot be pursued further by the same parties.

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, is inviting submission through the call for papers for its Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Volume 1, Issue 2.

ABOUT

The NLUA Journal of Intellectual Property Rights is a peer-reviewed bi-annual online journal of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade – Intellectual Property Rights Chair (DPIIT-IPR) of National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.

The Journal seeks to serve the purpose of promoting research in legal, economic, socio-legal, social, technological and entrepreneurial aspects of new and emerging areas of IPR at all levels – regional, national and international, in view of the National IPR Policy and the Scheme for Pedagogy and Research in IPRs for Holistic Education and Academia.

SUBMISSION CATEGORIES

• Research Papers and Articles: Research papers and articles based on doctrinal as well as empirical research on the concerned theme are to be submitted. The word limit may be between 5000 to 8000 words. Authors are expected to undertake a proper analysis of the available literature and present a comprehensive understanding of the thematic topic.
• Case Studies/Comments: Case studies/comments must be based on an analysis of recent judicial pronouncements of both national and international judiciary concerning the theme. The word limit for the same may be between 3000 to 4000 words.
• Book Reviews: Review of the book must be relevant to the theme of the journal. The word limit for book reviews may be around 2000 words. The review should consist of the analysis of the opinions put forth by the author of the book and present them in own understanding.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• Submissions in any of the categories stated above must be the original work of the author and must not have been submitted elsewhere or pending review.
• All submissions must be in MS-Word format (.doc) or (.docx).
• An abstract of not more than 250 words should invariably be provided along with the manuscript.
• Co-authorship is permitted for all the categories of submission.
• The body of the manuscript should be in Times New Roman, Font Size 12, with line spacing of 1.5 and a 1-inch margin on all sides of an A4 size paper.
• The format for footnotes should be in Times New Roman, Font Size 10 and single line spacing.
• The citations must strictly conform to the ILI style of Footnoting. The same is available at: https://www.ili.ac.in/cstyle.pdf
• Headings should adhere to the following standard:
  • TITLE OF THE SUBMISSION: Uppercase Bold, Font size 14.
  • Headings: Bold, Font size 12.
  • Sub-Headings: Title case, Italics, Font size 12.
• Submissions should include a cover letter along with the profile of the author(s)
• consisting of the author’s name, designation, institution, and contact details.
• Kindly note that all submissions will mandatorily undergo a plagiarism test.

DEADLINE

November 30, 2022

CONTACT DETAILS

iprchair@nluassam.ac.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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh in collaboration with the Competition Commission of India, is organizing its 1st CCI-Department of Laws, Panjab University National Moot Court Competition to be held on November 19 and 20, 2022.

ABOUT

Liberalization of the economic policies of the countries around the globe began in the eighties, and in the nineties, the participating countries entered the phase of globalization.

The challenges brought with them a wide range of changes in terms of the competitive capabilities of the respective domestic markets. Market-oriented reforms have become crucial both for developed and developing countries to achieve their development and growth goals.

ELIGIBILITY

• Students enrolled in a full-time Law Degree Programme i.e., Five-Years Integrated Law Degree Programme or Three-Year LL.B. Programme at the time of the competition are eligible to participate in the Competition.
• Each Law College/Law School/Law University shall nominate only one team. Thus, only one team will be eligible to participate from an Institution.

DETAILS

• The participants as a team are requested to register online through the link provided at the end of this post.
• Only after filling google form and paying registration fees, the participation of teams shall be confirmed and the same shall be communicated on the e-mail ID given in the registration form.
• A maximum of 32 teams will be allowed to participate in the competition. Slots for participating in the competition will be filled on a basis of ‘First Come, First Serve Only’.
• A duly signed approval letter from the respective institution shall be required as part of the registration process. (Please refer to Annexure-A in the brochure for the format of the Approval letter).
• The first 32 teams who have successfully registered in accordance with the rules will be considered as final participants of the competition.
• After this initial registration, team codes shall be allotted and communicated on mail provided in the Form by the participants.

PRIZES

• Winning Team– Cash prize of Rs. 40,000
• 1st Runners Up– Cash prize of Rs. 30,000
• Best Memorial- Cash prize of Rs. 12,000
• Best Speaker/Advocate- Cash prize of Rs. 10,000  

IMPORTANT DATES

• Commencement of Online Registration: September 25, 2022
• Last date for Online Registration along with registration fees: October 31, 2022
• Last date for seeking clarifications: November 2, 2022
• Release of final clarifications: November 4, 2022
• Last Date for Submission of soft copy of memorials: November 6, 2022
• Last Date for Submission of hard copy of memorials: November 10, 2022
• Orientation: November 18, 2022, 7 P.M.
• Prelims & Quarters: November 19, 2022
• Semi-finals, Finals, Valedictory & Prize distribution: November 20, 2022

CONTACT DETAILS

+91 90747 28811

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1HtyuPH8gjbtNxXYh8NK880pG0ixeMvAeKZwufEnTSyQ/viewform?pli=1&pli=1&edit_requested=true

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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

UPES, Dehradun is making a call for papers for its student law review.

ABOUT

UPES Student Law Review (USLR) is a bi-annual, student-coordinated, double-blind peer-reviewed legal e-journal based at the School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies emanating and embracing legal academia. The publication is entirely produced by the student board of the University under the supervision of accomplished faculty advisors and an expert peer review board.

ELIGIBILITY

The opportunity is open to all national as well as international students pursuing a recognized bachelor’s or master’s degree in law.

THEME

USLR welcomes submissions on all areas of the law. Preference will be given to innovational critical research of any legislative vacuum that is there or any laws presently requiring certain rectifications. The theme for the year will be open and we will welcome the new approaches to laws.

SUB-THEME

• Arbitration Law
• Banking & Finance Law
• Constitutional Law
• Corporate Law
• Criminal Law
• Energy Law
• Environmental Law
• Forensic Law
• Information Technology Law
• Intellectual Property Law
• International Law
• Media & Entertainment Law
• Mercantile Law
• Sports Law
• Taxation Law
• Labour Law
• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

IMPORTANT DATES

• Deadline for Submission of Full Paper: 30 October, 2022, by 11:59 PM
• Communication of Acceptance: November 15, 2022

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• Submissions shall be in the form of the following entries. The word limit for every category of submission is inclusive of footnotes.
  • Articles: 3,500 to 5,000 words
  • Essays: 2,000 to 2,500 words 
  • Case Notes and Legislative Comments: 2,000 to 3,000 words
  • Book Reviews: 1,000 to 1,500 words
• (For book reviews, only unsolicited entries are encouraged. It is also essential that the book must have been published/reprinted in the last three years from the date of the book review submission).
• Every submission must consist of an Abstract of not more than 300 words, and it should be included in the main paper for the final submission. The Abstract shall stand outside the purview of the word limit.
• We follow a zero-tolerance policy against violation of academic integrity and any submission bearing more than 10% plagiarism in its entirety shall be disregarded from consideration.
• It is advisable to choose a theme of contemporary relevance which carries an issue of law that can be analyzed critically. Papers dealing with foreign themes should strive to engage with its relevance in the Indian legal context.
• Co-authorship is permitted for up to a maximum of two authors.
• Only submissions in Microsoft Word compatible formats are permissible (.doc or .docx preferred)
• The Main Title of the Submission shall be in ALL CAPS, Times New Roman, Font Size 16, bold and center-aligned.
• The Sub-Titles shall be in ALL CAPS, Times New Roman, Font Size 14.
• The Main Text shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 12, Justified.
• The Line Spacing throughout the submission should be 1.5.
• All references must be made in the form of footnotes using The Bluebook A Uniform System of Citation (20th Edition).
• The footnotes must be in Times New Roman, Font Size 10, Justified.
• The author(s) shall refrain from using page borders or other unnecessary formatting features.
• Submission Procedure
  • Authors are requested to send their original, unpublished submissions in .doc/.docx format to upesstudentlawreview@ddn.upes.ac.in
  • The Subject Line of the email for the Final submission shall be – “Final Paper Submission: USLR Vol. 3 ”
  • For the final submission, the Abstract must be included in the final paper itself.
  • Every submission must be accompanied by a separate Cover Letter bearing the following information:
  • Full Name of the Author(s)
  • Position /Designation
  • Institutional Affiliations
  • Contact Details of the Author(s)
  • Declaration of Originality
• Please Note: UPES Student Law Review follows a blind peer review method, thus, it is expected from the author(s) to not include their name/affiliation or any other form of identifiable marks anywhere in the paper except for on the cover letter.

CONTACT DETAILS

upesstudentlawreview@ddn.upes.ac.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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Office of Lily Thomas and Saju Jakob is holding an essay competition.

ABOUT

Lily Thomas, a name that can’t be forgotten, an inventor of a new idea, called Public Interest Litigation, has dedicated her entire life to convert our country into a better place to live in. With Constitution as her Bible, she has sailed through the tides of her profession as a lawyer to invent new ideas so as to revamp the administration of our country in parity with the vision of Constitutional makers. Adv. Saju Jakob, being the legacy holder of Adv. Lily Thomas, along with his colleagues, has been stern to carry forward her vision and mission to create constitutional awareness of equality and fraternity in the society.

THEME

• The theme of the article writing competition is “Future of Truth and Freedom of Press in today’s Era“.
• Freedom of the Press in India is implied in Freedom of Speech and Expression, which is guaranteed under Art.19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution, but it is not an absolute right, Article 19(2) sets a reasonable limit on Freedom of Speech and Expression. 1st Amendment to the American Constitution explicitly states that freedom of the press cannot be abridged in any way by law. Thomas Jefferson stated, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. The famous Voltaire said- “I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
• Truth is what makes for good journalism, as is presenting all side’s perspectives and letting the public form an informed opinion based on the facts. In this day and age, fake or incorrect information comes in many forms, including misinformation, disinformation, a lack of information, or one-sided information, all of which contribute to an uninformed citizenry, which makes democracy meaningless.
• For a healthy democracy, we need high-quality, truthful journalism. Is there a need for a code of conduct in the light of recent developments? But a caged media poses a greater threat to the society than an unbridled chariot that sometimes acts as a savoir of democracy. A legal analysis is sought taking into account various case laws as well as historical perspectives from around the globe.

PRIZES

• Winner: Rs. 10,000/- along with a Certificate of Appreciation.
• First Runner-up: Rs. 5,000/- along with a Certificate of Appreciation.
• Second Runner-up: Rs. 3,000/- along with a Certificate of Appreciation.
• The next seven participants will receive Rs. 1,000/- each and a Certificate of Appreciation. The Articles of the Top Three candidates will be published on our official website.
• The Top Three participants will be a given two-minute opportunity to present their papers in the Memorial Lecture.
• Active Participants who will attend the Memorial Lecture on December 12th, 2022 at 16:15 Hrs. will be awarded a Certificate of Participation.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• Word Limit: 1600-1800 words (excluding footnotes and abstract). No Co-authorship is allowed.
• Multiple entries for the same authors are not allowed.
• Individual Attachments: Name; contact details; current academic status (if applicable); Citation Style: 19th Bluebook edition.
• The Font shall be Times New Roman, the font size- 12 and the line spacing is 1.5.
• All the interested participants should send their articles along with abstracts by 15th November, 2022 with the subject “Lawyers as Inventors”. Essays should be sent to our office via email at essays@lilythomas.org. Participants shall send their personal details/contact details.
• Any late submission will not be considered.
• Results will be announced on 12th December, 2022 in the Memorial Lecture, the details of which will be uploaded later/soon. All those who take part in memorial lecture will be awarded certificate of participation

IMPORTANT DATES

• Last Date of Submission: 15th November,2022 by 23:45 hrs
• Memorial Lecture: 12th December,2022 at 16:15 hrs
• Result Declaration: 12th December,2022

CONTACT DETAILS

office@lilythomas.org

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.

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 goal-oriented boutique law firm, HKLO (Harshit Khare Law Offices) focuses largely on the following interconnected practise areas: restructuring and insolvency, banking and finance, real estate, and projects and infrastructure. The office also collaborates with numerous seasoned legal experts with experience in the fields of private equity, mergers and acquisitions, general corporate, tax advisory, and dispute resolution in order to better serve its clients’ needs and expand the range of services it provides.

About the Responsibilities  

For the months of October through December 2022, Harshit Khare Law Offices is seeking to hire (virtually) trainees.

As an intern you are required to: –

• Insolvency & Restructuring;
• Recovery Suits;
• Corporate Advisory.
• Project Financing;
• DRT Matters;

Eligibility

• Law students in their last year will be prioritised.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – shubham.saini@hklo.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