Month: February 2023

About the Organisers

NMIMS School of Law Hyderabad offers an outstanding legal education to inculcate a wide range of legal skills useful for the legal profession including the corporate level. Established in 2019 by NMIMS University, one of the premier Deemed-to-be Universities in India, the programs offered in our law school have all qualities and niceties of the programs offered by world-class Universities over the world. NMIMS School of Law, Hyderabad aspires to be a global centre of scholarly excellence in the field of law and justice and will prepare outstanding and innovative law professionals with a socially responsible outlook through holistic legal education. A Law School with a global focus and international outreach dedicated to advancing human dignity, social and economic welfare, and justice through knowledge of the law.

About the Memorial Drafting Competition

The purpose of this is to help future lawyers to improve their writing, research, and analytical skills. Having the ability to draft effectively is fundamental for any budding lawyer. Prepared for a legal situation, players should exercise caution and their knowledge of the law. Essentially, the point of the competition is to bring out comprehension skills in every contestant. Participants of the National Memorial Drafting Competition are expected to assess the proposition’s facts, with the essential arguments needing to be supported by relevant factual and legal sources.

Eligibility

All students enrolled bonafide in an undergraduate i.e. 3 years/ 5 years and a postgraduate law program conducted by any college or university shall be eligible for participation in the competition. The cross-Institutional team are eligible to participate.

Important Dates

	Particulars	Date	Time
1	Registration Starts	28/01/2023	N/A
2	Last Date to Register	14/02/2023	11:59 pm
3	Deadline for seeking Clarification	18/02/2023	11:59 pm
4	Release of Clarifications	23/02/2023	11:59 pm
5	Last Date of Memorial Submission	28/02/2023	11:59 pm
6	Result Declaration	1st week of March	N/A

Prizes

1. Best Memorial for the Petitioner: Rs 3,500
2. Best Memorial for the Respondent: Rs 3,500
3. Runner up (Best Memorial for the Petitioner) – Rs 1,500
4. Runner up (Best Memorial for the Respondent) – Rs 1,500
5. The top 10 teams will receive certificates of merit.
6. Each participant will receive a Certificate of Participation upon successful
7. participation in the competition.

Registration & Submission Link

Payment Details

• Account Holder Name- SVKM’S NMIMS Bank – KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Branch- JUHU VILE PARLE WEST
• Account Number – 2311578254
• IFSC Code – KKBK0000661

Contact Details

1. Prof. Sridip Nambiar, Faculty Coordinator, School of Law, NMIMS Hyderabad
2. Mail: sridip.nambiar@nmims.edu
3. Ms Lasya Chukka, Convener, Moot Court Society School of law, NMIMS Hyderabad. +91-8328056549
4. Ms Nikita Sikarwar, Co-convener, Moot Court Society School of law, NMIMS Hyderabad. +91-7240869385

All Communication(s)/update(s) concerning the competition, must be addressed to mcs.solhyd@nmims.edu.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/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

​​​-Report by Shivansh Pratap Singh

The case MASUDEO RAMA KUSALKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS dated 6 February 2023 revolves around alleged misconduct while carving out a new revenue village, namely Joshi Vasthi.

Facts:

A petition is filled by a group of villagers seeking the quashing of orders for the creation of a new revenue village, Joshi Vasthi (pop. 2000-2500) from village Limpangaon. The respondents of the case are majorly the government officers inches (tehsildar, etc) who claim no major misconduct and adherence to the law of the land while the creation of the respective village is under purview.

Applicant’s Contention:

1. The impugned notification dated 07-11-2017 issued by Additional Collector(Ahmednagar) is contrary to law and provisions of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 and Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act.
2. Further the declarations dated 23-08-2018 & 31-08-2018 are contrary to law.
3. The Petitioner seeks issuance of the writ of certiorari to quash notifications dated 07-11-2017 & 23-08-2018.
4. Claim that no publication seeking objections were made by the respective authority before
   06-12-2017.
5. Objections made thereafter were not considered.
6. The publication of notification was not given the required publicity as stated by Section 4 of the code.
7. The land under consideration is a forest area according to the 1992 notification.
8. According to the forest act,1980 in absence of no objection from the central government the action of carving out could not have been undertaken.

Respondent’s Contention:

1. Proposal for carving out Joshi Vasthi was received in 30-01-2015.
2. The provisional notification was published on 07-11-2017 declaring the carving out of Joshi Vasthi and objections were called up to 28-11-2017, the notification was published by the govt. Gazette, notice board of Tehsil Office, Shrigonda, Talahati office, etc.
3. Objections were received, duly discussed and dismissed following the relevant provisions contemplated under Section 4(1) and 4(4) with Section 24 of the General clauses act.
4. The final decision was taken in tune with section 4(4) of the Code.

Judgement:

1. After hearing the arguments from both sides respected judge reached the conclusion that according to the provisions of sections 4 and 24 a legit publication of intention for the carving of a new village, followed by reasonable time to raise objections and consideration of objections while following the principles of natural justice are the only requirements.
2. The draft notification dated 07-11-2017 has been published in accordance to section 4(4). The objections were accordingly called on 28-11-2017.
3. Evidence points towards that required publicity to the publication of the notification was provided.
4. Objections were received, stakeholders were granted the opportunity of being heard, and an enquiry was done on the directions of the sub-divisional officer, Shrigonda.
5. All the principles of natural justice were adhered to.
6. The area covered under the proposed Joshi Vasti is already part and parcel of the village panchayat so the impugned notification has not been impeded by any provisions of the forest act or the rules.
7. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

CITATION: WP/11923/2018

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The Delhi High Court on 6th February 2023 held a sadar bazar trader guilty of violating the restraining order by selling counterfeit products of the famous Louis Vuitton brand.

Facts:

Everyone desires to own luxury items like Prada, lv, etc. But these items are so costly that even the upper middle class can’t afford them. Traders take advantage of this situation and make duplicate branded products to deceive customers. The same happened in the present case. The famous LV brand has sued several small entities that manufactured and sold products under its name. The court in its decision has used the term counterfeit, to let us know its meaning. A counterfeit is an item which uses someone else’s trademark without their permission.

On 23rd September 2021, the court found the trader guilty and passed interlocutory orders to restrain them.
According to the order, the defendants were restrained from importing, selling, manufacturing, or dealing directly or indirectly with the lv-labelled goods.

The present appeal was filed by the plaintiff alleging that even after injunction orders, defendant 2 and defendant 3 have been selling products under the brand’s name. The application prayed that the defendant must be punished for this violation of the injunction.

Plaintiff’s contention:

Mr Anand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff claimed that defendant 2 has continued the business of selling belts of lv till September 2022. Opposing the request of the defendant party to take lenient action, he submits that counterfeiting has now become a social evil and the court must take strict action against it, as it has eroded the brand value which was built over the years. He said that leniency, in this case, would encourage others to commit this wrong.

Defendant 2 has also imitated other reputed brands. Mr Anand also stated that the court must consider this strictly as a breach of its order. He also wants the court to take action for counterfeiting other brands like Gucci, etc.
He urges that the punishment should be proportionate to the wrong. If it is the first time counterfeiting then strict action must be taken as it has become a habitual business for the defendant.

He also submitted a report to the civil justice council under the UK Civil Procedure Act 1997, titled ―Anti-social behaviour and the Civil Code to prove his points.

He also took the decisions made by Various learned single judges High Court of Bombay in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Curetech Skincare10 and decisions of the Federal Court of Singapore in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises11 and Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Lin Pi-Chu Yang12. He also relied on section 105 of the Trade Marks Act.

Defendant’s contention:

Mr Burender Bhatt, learned counsel for defendant 2, acknowledged the fact that his client has been selling the lv belt even after the injunction orders. He apologised for the breach and asked for leniency in the matter. He also argued that the court must not rely on sentencing practices in foreign jurisdictions while deciding on this case.

He said even Mr Anand has not pointed out any case in India where the court has relied on foreign practices. The action must be limited to the injunction which was granted by the court, and which has been breached by the defendant and it has no relation to counterfeiting of other brands. Mr Anand has failed to present any proof to show that the defendant has counterfeited any other brand. He also claimed that section 105 of the trade mark act is not applicable in the present case.

The cases presented by Mr Anand dealt with the damage being awarded while the decree was being passed. Thus they have no such relevance here. However, counterfeiting is a serious matter and the defendant has committed it even after the orders of the court. Mr Bhatt apologised for the same but it would hardly make any difference.

Judgement:

Justice C Hari Shankar expressed that the defendant is not entitled to any sympathy. The court added that there should be a message for all those who indulge or propose to indulge in the practice of counterfeiting. The defendant was directed to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs within four weeks. If failed to do so the proprietor of defendant 2 Javed Ansari shall be punished with a sentence in prison for 1 week in Tihar jail.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JK2Zu3

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000810

–Report by Shreya Gupta

The petitioner, in this case, was Masudeo s/o Rama Kusalkar and there were 8 respondents, The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, The Collector, The Additional Collector, The Sub-Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, The Talathi, Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sawant. The history of the case lies in 1989 when the government of Maharashtra ordered to allot 1 acre of land to each beneficiary of the backward class.

FACTS:

The case is filed under article 226 of the Indian constitution. The government of Maharashtra allotted 1-acre land to 179 people of backward class for rehabilitation provided to some terms and conditions. The issue arose since land is a part of the revenue village Limpangion known as Joshi Vasti and was getting separated from it to become a different village. For this, the notification to raise objections was sent which caused the main dispute since it was contended that no such notification was issued.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

According to the petitioner, the notification declared by respondent no. 4 is bad in law and contrary to section 4 of the Maharashtra land revenue code, 1966 and section 24 of the Bombay general clauses act. The petitioner contends that there should be an issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the notification. It was contended that the notification was not given publicity by law. He contends that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. He took the support of previous judgements like Prashant Bhausaheb Ghiramkar Vs. The state of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 703 and Dr Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. The state of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 830.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

According to the respondent’s contention, the proposal for consideration of a new revenue village with details was received. It is also contended that under section 4 (1) of the code, the collector can carry out the powers vested in the state government. They also contended that a village that has more than 300 population needs to be separated and created as a new village. They also contended that the call for objection from the public was issued, published on the notice board and a further hearing was also done. They further contended that the report from the District Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmednagar opined towards the creation of the new revenue village. They contend that they have compiled section 4 of the Maharashtra land revenue code, 1966 and section 24 of the Bombay general clauses act.

JUDGEMENT:

The court declares that the respondents have compiled by the law, issued the notifications, heard the objections and further published it too. The court stated that “We cannot sit in the appeal and appreciate the minor procedural lapses caused during the process undertaken by competent authority towards creating separate revenue village. We are concerned with substantive compliance with the provisions keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved. We are satisfied that there is the compliance of requirements indicated under section 4 of the Code.” The court stated that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the previous judgements that they have mentioned for reference. The court declared that no such evidence has been brought to our notice that shows that the notification issued impeded any provisions of the Forest act or rules. The court further declared that there is no merit in the writ petition and is therefore dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3I3HaUZ

CITATION: WP-11923-2018-J..odt

–Report by Eshna Ray

The petitioner in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which allows a person to contest an election for the same office from more than one constituency simultaneously. The petition seeks direction from the court to the Central government and the Election Commission to take appropriate steps to prevent this practice. The basis for the challenge is the Chief Election Commissioner’s request to the Prime Minister in 2004 to amend the act and the Law Commission’s 255th Report opinion that the act should be amended to restrict a person from contesting from multiple seats at a time. The petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a petition to challenge the validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which allows a person to contest from more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously. The Law Commission in its 255th Report recommended amending the act to prevent this. The Election Commission of India and the Union of India filed counter-affidavits. The court heard arguments from both parties and the Attorney General for India. The court noted that the provision falls under the legislative domain and can only be challenged if there is a violation of a Fundamental Right or if the legislature lacks the competence to enact a law. Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary or State Legislative Assembly election is a matter of legislative policy, determined by Parliament. The court found no manifest arbitrariness in the provision or violation of Article 19 and concluded that the provision cannot be struck down as unconstitutional. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Plaintiff’s Contention:

The petitioner argues that contesting from multiple constituencies for the same office undermines the right of citizens to know about a candidate’s character, qualifications, and criminal record, as stated in Article 19 of the Constitution. When a candidate is elected from multiple seats, they have to vacate one, leading to a financial burden on the public and depriving the electorate of representation. The petitioner contends that this deprives the electorate of their right to know, as stated in Article 19(1)(a), and that this legislative issue should be addressed to prevent a drain on public resources through bye-elections. The contention is that the current provision allowing multiple constituencies is invalid.

Defendant’s Contention:

The defendant argues that the provision in the Representation of the People Act 1951 that allows a person to contest from more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously is a matter of legislative policy. It is within the legislative authority of Parliament to make the decision and enact or amend legislation. The defendant argues that unless there is manifest arbitrariness or a violation of a Fundamental Right in the provision, the Court cannot strike it down as unconstitutional. The defendant also mentions that Parliament has already intervened in the form of Act 21 of 1996 which restricts a candidate’s choice for an electoral contest to two seats in one and the same election.

Judgment:

The petition challenging the validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which permits a candidate to contest from more than one constituency in the same election, has been dismissed by the court. The court held that this provision, allowing a candidate to contest from multiple seats, is a matter of legislative policy and within the discretion of Parliament. The court stated that a statutory provision can only be struck down if it is made by a legislature lacking the competence to enact a law or if there is a violation of a fundamental right. In this case, the provision does not violate any fundamental rights, and therefore, the court cannot interfere with it. The Parliament has the authority to make legislative choices, and it has intervened in the past by restricting the choice of a candidate to two seats in the same election.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3HCQ5v3

About Vaidat Legale Services

At VLS, we aim at providing specialized services to all our patrons in the field of foreign collaborations and investments, mergers, acquisitions and takeovers, international trade, anti-dumping, multilateral/bilateral trade treaties, international taxation including taxation of ex-pats/non-residents, double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA), corporate & commercial conveyancing, international stock listings, capital markets, fundraising through international debt instruments such as FCCB, ADR, GDR and participatory note, etc., international cyber laws, global intellectual property rights, tax havens across the world including SEZs, project finance, project setups, regulatory approvals, etc.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Work on legal research
• Work on legal drafting
• Learn legal compliance

Perks

Certificate

Stipend structure

This is a performance-based internship. In addition to the minimum-assured stipend, you will also be paid a performance-linked incentive.

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 Lexpar Chambers

A South Delhi-based Law Firm handling litigation in High Court and District Courts, Delhi.

Areas of Work

Intern’s day-to-day responsibilities include:

• Attending court hearings
• Drafting petitions
• Research work

Who can Apply?

Only those candidates can apply who:

• are available for full-time (in-office) internship
• are available for 1 month or more
• are from or open to relocating to Delhi and neighbouring cities
• have relevant skills and interests

Perks

• Courtroom exposure
• Internship Certificate
• Expenses shall be reimbursed
• Tea/Coffee

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may send their resumes to lexparchambers@gmail.com or What’s App at +91 8860736866.

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 Gaurav Datta Law Offices

Gaurav Datta Law Offices has been set up by Adv. Gaurav Datta is an ex-judicial magistrate with a magistracy of 10 years and an experience of 2 years as an advocate. Having disposed of thousands of cases from various domains of law as a judge, this law firm commits to providing a one-stop solution to all legal, and para-legal needs of our clients.

Gaurav Datta Law Offices is looking to hire a junior associate in Chandigarh.

Positions

One

PQE

Minimum 2 Years

Location

Chandigarh

Qualification

LLB

Job Description

The junior associate will handle diverse kinds of matters in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Remuneration

Depending on the experience, between 12,000 – 35,000

Interested candidates can send applications (CV) to: Princesheokand41@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

Water and Shark Legal LLP is looking to hire associates and senior associates for its office in Mumbai. Water and Shark are looking for young lawyers interested in a dynamic role in the field of law with exposure to global law.

The firm is seeking candidates with an interest in cross-border transactional advisory as well as an interest in laws of various jurisdictions including the United States (US), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Singapore. The firm is looking for dynamic candidates who are willing to apply their knowledge, skills, and experience to assist clients in meeting their business purpose across various jurisdictions.

No of Positions

Three

PQE

1-2 Years, 3-4 Years

Location

Mumbai

Qualification

Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) / Master of Laws(LL.M)

Job Description

Lawyers with 1-2 years of PQE 

• Candidates should have relevant experience in drafting of agreements, corporate advisory, FEMA advisory, legal due diligence, venture capital funding, and private equity deals. 
• Candidates should be willing and able to undertake extensive research assignments for laws of various jurisdictions inter-alia including the United States (US), United Arab Emirates (UAE), United Kingdom (UK), Singapore and such other jurisdictions as may be required from time to time. 
• Candidates would be expected to have a good academic record with excellent oral and written communication skills, the ability to carry out extensive research, and blog writing, and the ability to work independently. 
• Prior experience in global law, particularly in the United States (US), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Singapore will be an added advantage.

Lawyers with 3-4 years of PQE 

• Candidates should have relevant experience in drafting/ vetting of definitive agreements, corporate advisory, cross-border restructuring, FEMA advisory, legal due diligence, venture capital funding, and private equity deals. 
• Candidates should be willing and able to undertake extensive research-based assignments for cross-border restructuring, advisory reports, and structure notes, on laws of various jurisdictions including the United States (US), United Arab Emirates (UAE), United Kingdom (UK), Singapore and such other jurisdictions as may be required from time to time. 
• Must have excellent oral and written communication skills with an ability to lead a team and work independently on matters. 
• Prior experience in global law, particularly in the United States (US), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Singapore will be an added advantage.

Remuneration

As per industry standards.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates can send applications to: legal@waterandshark.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

​​​​​​​-​Report by Shivansh Pratap Singh

In the case of MR. JAY SURYAKANT KAKADE Vs MRS. ANUNAYA JAY KAKADE  dated 02.Feb.2022 a husband has filed an application for transfer of proceedings from the magistrate to the family court but the wife argues her right to appeal will be infringed.

Facts of the case:

The Applicant (Husband) seeks to transfer the proceedings filed by the wife under the Protection of Women under the Domestic Violence act,2005 before the Judicial Magistrate to the family court where he has filed a divorce petition.

Applicant’s Contention:

As the primary evidence in both cases remains the same there is the risk of conflicting judgements by two different judges. Further, the efficiency of cross-examination would be reduced and the judicial time of different courts will be wasted.

Respondent’s Contention:

Respondent disputed the applicant’s contention about conflicting judgements and the efficiency of cross-examination as misplaced. Domestic Violence Act aims to provide speedy remedy to women and such transfer will take away that right and also would be a serious infringement upon her right to appeal.

Judgement:

Amit Borkar opined that it is consistent with the court’s previous decisions to transfer the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act to the family court as the application filed under the Magistrate can be effectively tried under the family court. Further, the transfer is “Necessary” to avoid conflicting judgements. Whereas when it comes to the right to appeal, no such right is being infringed upon as the right being referred to here is just the right of revision. Further, the claim for speedy right of justice can be negated by the inversion test as not being the orbiter dicta or binding precedent.

KeyTakeaway from the judgement:

While delivering the judgement Amit Borkar sir referred to the ‘inversion test’ by Eugene Wambaugh to counter two points of the respondent, inversion test is a test to identify the ratio decidendi or obiter dicta of a judgement by treating a point to be absent and checking if the outcome/result varies. If it does vary then it’s the ratio decidendi or orbiter dicta but not if the resulting doesn’t vary. Further Orbiter Dicta is that part of the judgement that has to be treated as a binding precedent. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: MCA/500/2022