Month: February 2023

About Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan 

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan is a full-service law firm based in India. The firm has 14 offices and over 400 professionals specializing in areas such as corporate & commercial laws, dispute resolution, taxation and intellectual property. Over the last three decades, they have worked with a variety of clients – start-ups, small & medium enterprises, large Indian corporates and multinational companies. Their professionals have experience of working in both traditional sectors such as commodities, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemicals and modern sectors such as e-commerce, big data, and renewables. They combine their knowledge of the law with industry experience to design legal solutions that their clients can implement.

Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan are looking to hire a principal associate / senior associate in Delhi.

Positions

One

PQE

4-7 Years

Location

Delhi

Qualification

LLB

Requirements

• The firm is looking for a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with 4-7 years of post-qualification experience in M&A and private equity with good law firms.
• The candidate must have handled end-to-end transactions.

Remuneration

Competitive.

Interested candidates can send applications (CVs) to: brajesh.mandal@lakshmisri.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 on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About CILA

Qualifications

• Applicants should have an interest in immigration law and/or working on behalf of children.
• Applicants should have strong research and writing skills.
• The Spanish language is not required.
• CILA encourages and supports students who are seeking fellowships or course credit during their internship. 

Projects and Opportunities

• Legal Research and Writing (50%): The legal intern would spend about half of their time assisting staff attorneys with research requests that come in from advocates working with immigrant children. Additionally, the legal intern will be responsible for one to two independent research projects to be completed over the course of the summer under the supervision of a CILA attorney. The completed project(s) will be used to create original resources for advocates and shared on CILA’s website and in CILA’s newsletter.
• Collaboration with Advocates (20%): The legal intern will have the opportunity to participate in two to four working groups, depending on their scheduled time with CILA.
• Training (20%): The legal intern will have the opportunity to participate in training designed to empower advocates to better meet the legal needs of unaccompanied children as scheduled over the summer. 
• Systemic Advocacy (10%): Through its unique lens as a legal resource centre, CILA identifies systemic trends and legal barriers to permanency in the United States for children facing deportation. The legal intern will have the opportunity to conduct legal research and help collect and analyze data that CILA collects to identify these trends and share with community stakeholders including the ABA. 

Application Process

To apply, please send your resume, a writing sample, and a cover letter to: cila@abacila.org between February 1, 2023, and March 1, 2023. CILA will set up interviews on a rolling basis.

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 on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Legal Gazal & Associates is a Law Firm that aims at managing Legal Compliances of Businesses & Corporates. They are looking for interns to be part of their team, online.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Drafting Work
• Legal Research
• Legal Writing (Article, Blog, etc)
• Carry out other assignments effectively

Required Qualifications

1. With Legal background (Min qualification- Student should be in 3rd year of their Law Degree)
2. With Experience using the Google Doc
3. Having efficiency in Legal Writing and English Language

Expected work timings

Minimum 6 hours a day

Perks

1. Certificate of Internship
2. Letter of Appreciation
3. Chances of being hired in case of any vacancy
4. Career Guidance

Start Date

15 Feb 2023

Tenure

Minimum 3 months

Number of Vacancies

2

Additional Information

1. There will be a daily call session on work updates. 
2. Kindly note that having good internet connectivity along with your own laptop/desktop is mandatory.
3. Connectivity breaks, inefficiency, unpunctuality and poor performance will not be accepted and may lead to the premature termination of the internship.
4. We don’t expect from you to have practical knowledge/ too much efficiency in law, but all we want is eagerness to learn.
5. The intern will be hired after the interview.
6. Women willing to start/restart their career can also apply.

Application Process

Kindly mail your resume (along with a sample draft of the Agreement) to gazal.daga1@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 on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About Manchanda Law Juris LLP

Manchanda Law Juris is a law firm that aims to provide quality legal services with integrity, trust, professionalism, and respect for our clients. They are committed to representing our esteemed clients to the best of their abilities as lawyers and to providing the best support to every individual we represent. They do what it takes to bring their client’s cases to an optimum resolution, in a timely manner.

Duties and Responsibilities

• Work on legal drafting
• Work on court hearings
• Work on legal research
• Assist in any other legal matters
• Work on legal content writing and articles

Perks

• Certificate
• Letter of recommendation
• Flexible work hours
• Informal dress code

Number of openings

2

APPLY HERE

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 on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About AKJ Attorneys & Solicitors LLP

At AKJ Attorneys & Solicitors LLP, they maintain the legacy of personal attention to every client. Dedicated and value-driven, they started this firm 30 years ago, compelled by the sole motto of ‘transparency’. That has been their goal ever since! To achieve that, they ensure that their clients know in-depth about their legal cause as much as they do. This can only be achieved by having one-to-one discussions with their clients so they can provide full-service options with custom-tailored strategies designed to achieve the best-suited outcome for the client.

Duties and Responsibilities

• Engaging in legal research
• Visiting courts with the associates
• Working on drafting documents

Number of openings

4

Location

Palam Vihar, Gurgaon

Perks

Certificate

Interested candidates can apply by clicking HERE.

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 on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Centre

The Centre for Environmental Law, Advocacy & Research (CELAR) of National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam (NLUJAA), is pleased to invite scholastic submissions for Issue 41 onwards for Lex Terra (ISSN: 2455-0965), now our quarterly online publication (“webzine”). Since its inception, Lex Terra has published 40 issues on various debatable facets of the environment and environment-related analytical items. Several academicians, practitioners, and students have contributed to the webzine. Through Lex Terra, we endeavour to facilitate better and greater ideas to create a community of environmentally conscious individuals from legal and non-legal fraternities.

Lex Terra is committed to free and open access to all academic research. No publication fees will be charged to authors at any stage of the review. In addition, no subscription costs will be charged to readers. Accepted manuscripts shall be published online and can be freely accessed through the official website of the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.

About the Call for Submissions

They are currently soliciting submissions for “Issue 41” onwards. Issue 41 is scheduled to be published tentatively in February 2023.

Link for Submission:

All manuscripts must be submitted only via this form: https://forms.gle/LQ174yjYUi6PH1186. Manuscripts sent via email will not be considered.

For Submission Details: CLICK HERE

Contact Details

In case of any queries, please write to us at celar@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.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Hr6aDgJxFpr0XIMD1bl18l

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

–Report by Pranav Mathur

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on 31st January 2023, dismissed an appeal filed before it by a murder convict, in the case of Ashok Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh. It deliberated on provisions of law related to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), which prescribes punishments for the commission of murder, and for the commission of culpable homicide relating to murder. It also dived into the question of whether the facts of the case represent a culpable homicide amounting to murder as given under Section 304 of the IPC, or not.

FACTS:

The incident occurred on the 21st of December 2011, approximately three years after their marriage. After the passage of a year of their marriage, the appellant had started physically assaulting the deceased, mainly because she was incapable of bearing a child, due to the size of her uterus. On the date of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were in their home, and around 10 pm when the parents of the appellant came back after their day’s work, they found the deceased lying on the bed, and subsequently to this, called a few relatives to their place to assess the situation. Two of those relatives went to the police station and filed a complaint against him. He was arrested on the 23rd of December 2011. The police also recovered the dupatta that had been used to strangle the deceased.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant outrightly denied committing the offence and signified his intention to move the case to trial. The first and foremost contention of the appellant was the lack of eyewitnesses to corroborate the sequence of events. His parents, and then his relatives did not, with their own eyes, see him strangle her, and therefore the court relying on the testaments of the witnesses should not have been enough to decide the case. It was also contended that the neck injury, even if proved was caused by the appellant, isn’t sufficient enough to attract the charge of murder, rather the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, under Section 304 of the IPC. The counsel for the appellant placed huge reliance on the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abdul Latif and Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat, which had held the contentions presented in the form of applicable judgments.

COURT’S OBSERVATION AND THE JUDGMENT:

Initially, the Court deliberated upon the issue of whether the particular death was a homicide or not, and a thorough inspection of the medical records and investigations that had been submitted concluded that it indeed was a case of homicide. It considered the cross-examinations of various relatives of the appellant who were witnesses and concluded that the deceased was previously married, from which she had obtained a divorce, and the appellant had the knowledge of her uterus and still made the voluntary decision of marrying her. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased, she had ante-mortem injuries, and the cause of death was revealed to be asphyxiation, which was concluded from the mark on her neck. The Court further held that the appellant had a clear motive to commit the offence. The relations between the deceased and the appellant had grown severe after her inability of conceiving a child started frustrating him, and their relations were also corroborated by the examinations in chief of the witnesses. The Court was of the opinion that the crime did not occur pursuant to a sudden quarrel, which may have given provocation to the appellant, and therefore ruled out Section 304 of the IPC, and instead, charged the appellant with culpable homicide amounting to murder, which is punished under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, observing how the essentials of Section 300 of the IPC, which defines and gives exceptions to and of murder, were fulfilled in the present scenario and also observing how the minimal sentence possible had been given to the appellant by the Trial Court, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40Jp9Tm

-Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Supreme Court of India recently in the case of Gas Authority of India Limited v Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. & Ors concluded the dispute between parties relating to the contract signed for natural gas supply. The case was in favour of IPCL as its claim was just.

Facts:

The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas provided a letter for the allocation of a Natural Gas Pipeline to IPCL. The contract was to be signed with GAIL and the pipeline would be from Hazira to the Gandhar unit carrying semi-rich gas. IPCL was asked to lay down the plant and a pipeline of its own which would be used to transport the gas. GAIL claimed that it was being charged with transportation costs. The clauses of the contract were clear that the buyer has to bear all the charges of transportation for himself and the seller. The main point of argument is the transportation cost dispute.

Appellant’s Contention:

IPCL claimed that the price of natural gas should be fixed as mentioned in the contract. Earlier the High Court had charged IPCL to pay for the loss of transportation charges which was unfair as IPCL was asked to set up its own pipeline. Even after incurring a huge cost for the establishment, it would otherwise be unjust to pay for the transportation cost. The IPCL also claimed that it had no bargaining power and was asked to accept the contract within 60 days by the Authorities i.e., comes within the ambit of Article 12. Due to time constraints and unrestricted power possessed by GAIL, it dominated the clauses of the contract. Hence the writ petition is maintainable.

Respondent’s Contention:

The GAIL challenged the petition and claimed that the clauses were not unjust. It also claimed that it did not possess any dominating position and that equal rights were provided to both parties. It further said that the contract was a mutual one and was carefully discussed before the implementation.

Judgement:

The Court after hearing about the sides came to the conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable. It also said that there was unjust and unfairness in the contract and asked GAIL to refund the loss of transportation charges within two months failing which interest amounting to 8 per cent per annum will be charged. The IPCL had incurred huge costs in building the pipeline which was mandated in the contract and now cannot be burdened with the establishment cost and transport cost even when it is not using the HBJ Pipeline.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3YwTTou

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

Hon’ble Supreme while hearing the appeal on 8th February 2023 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ORS., set aside the decision of Patna High Court made in 2017 and directed that the terms of the insurance policy should be strictly interpreted. 

Facts:

An MOU i.e memorandum of understanding was signed between the insurance company (Appellant) and Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna, on 9th Feb 2000, to cover the insurance of persons working for the Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections in the year 2000. 

Now clause 3 of the MoU mentioned that the insurance will be for the death caused by accident in extra violence and any other means. 

Now the duration of the scheme was extended from 24.05.2000 to 23.06.2000 seeing the period of the by-polls. 

The husband of respondent no.2, who was a constable died while performing his duty in Bihar Legislative Assembly. It happened during the extended time of the scheme. 

After a long time, the wife of the constable (respondent no. 2) claimed compensation in 2008.

The Assistant election officer of that time wrote to the secretary of Lokayukta, Patna, that it was not election duty but heat stroke which was the reason behind the death of the constable thus, no such compensation can be made. 

The wife filed a writ in High Court for quashing the above-said statement. The learned single judge first asked the insurance company to pay the claim but then relied on the judgement made in Lilawanti Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors 1, which opined that the duration to make a claim has expired and it was chief electoral office liability to make the compensation. 

The chief electoral officer filed an appeal stating that it was the insurance company which should pay the compensation. The insurance company was then asked to take the liability. 

Plaintiff’s contentions

The appellant contended before the court that the chief electoral officer had already paid the claim to respondent 2 and just wanted to fasten the liability on the company. The learned counsel claimed that the death of the deceased was due to heat stroke which is beyond the scope of the MoU. The appellant insurance company was not made aware of the time issue. And was notified only after eleven years. 

Defendant’s contentions:

It was found that the chief electoral officer had already paid the claim to the wife. Also, it was clarified that the death was due to heat stroke which was beyond the scope of the MoU. The delay in raising the claim was not driven by the chief electoral officer. Its role was only till recommended, which it did. It was pleaded that the insurance company was under an obligation to honour the promise. 

Judgement :

The SC raised two aspects which need to be answered

• The result of a delay in claiming the amount
• Whether all the insurance policies covered the scenario of the death of the constable. 

To answer the first, respondent no. 2 never claimed the chief electoral officer to get compensation till 2008. Thus the claim was beyond the period. 

To answer the second, it said that the conduct of respondent no 1 would not allow them to fasten the liability on the appellant. 

The Supreme Court in its verdict said that the chief electoral officer ‘has been playing ducks and drakes’. 

The Supreme Court thus dismissed the judgement of Patna High Court calling it unsustainable. The insurance company was not liable. Also, the chief electoral officer would not recover any amount paid to the deceased wife. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JOZYsq

Civil appeal no. 4769 of 2022

–Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday 8^th of February 2023 in the matter of THE STATE versus SACHIN SINGH & ORS reiterated the stand taken by the Additional Sessions Judge’s observation that “Mere vague allegations that accused tried to commit rape upon her does not ipso facto attract the penal provision of offence u/Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.”

FACTS

The present matter invoked revisional jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court whereby an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was in question. The order dealt with chargesagainst a brother-in-law and father-in-law, who had allegedly committed attempts to rape. The complainant had alleged that the brother-in-law had gotten hold of the complainant in an attempt to commit rape, while in another instance the father-in-law had forcefully entered the complainant’s room to rape her. Although the complainant tried to raise these issues with her husband and mother-in-law, all such attempts were suppressed forcefully with the only reason provided by them being that the brother-in-law happens to be a police official. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and accordingly registered an FIR against her in-laws. They were also made parties to the initial chargesheet filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini which was later transferred to the Court of Sessions. 

SESSIONS COURT’S ORDER

The Court of Sessions initially discharged the brother-in-law and the father-in-law under Sections 356 (Punishment of Rape) and 511 (Punishment for attempting to Commit Offences Punishable with imprisonment for life or another imprisonment) but framed separate charges of 498 (enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman), 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 34 (Common intention). The court’s primary focus whilst discharging the two respondents was that the mere fact of the brother-in-law getting hold of her hand and the father-in-law barging into her room late at night does not suffice to prove a case of rape. These allegations of the complainant involved attempts but no specific action was committed which may indicate a clear intention of rape. This order has been challenged in today’s petition.  

PROSECUTION’S CONTENTION

The learned APP submitted that the learned Sessions court was not intended to satisfy itself on the graveness of evidence produced but merely on prima facie allegations of the complainant and he confined himself to the fact that the complainant had made specific allegations regarding her father-in-law and brother in the law regarding an attempt to commit rape on different occasions.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the respondents’ primarily focused on the fact that no specific allegations were made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law and no such proof was also submitted on record. He also highlighted the fact that no action was committed in compliance with the definition provided under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and this would suffice as a reason for discharging the same. To point out the same the counsel had referred to the judgment of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), IV (2006)  CCR 115 (SC).

DELHI HIGH COURT’S JUDGEMENT

The honourable high court pointing out that the revisional power under Section 397 of CrPC is very narrow which only allows it to satisfy itself to check the legality and correctness of an impugned order, reiterated the stance taken by the Court of Sessions and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40EQy8S

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000883