Month: February 2023

–Report by Sneha Sakshi

In the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.
VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., the appellants had brought a discrimination claim against the Maharashtra government’s Industry, Energy and Labour Department’s decision dated 29.03.2010 in that procedure.

FACTS:

The workers of the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation who retired or passed away between January 1, 2006, and March 29, 2010, were not granted the benefit of the pay scale change that the Fifth Pay Commission had recommended. The modification, however, became effective on January 1, 2006.

The determination of the implementation date for the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations as they relate to the respondent corporation is at issue in this case. That formulating a policy on fixation of pay for the wages of its employees, the scope of its revision, as well as the date of its execution, are undeniably matters of exclusive executive decision-making power. Special leave to appeal granted.

The appeal was finally heard with the parties’ knowledgeable counsel’s permission. A ruling by the Bombay High Court is being contested by the appellant organisation.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:

➢ The expert counsel for the appellants, Mr Jay Salva, asserted that, notwithstanding the fact that the most recent pay modification had been in effect for its employees from 1986 to 1989, MSFC believed it had gone into effect on January 1, 1999. While the previous version was being authorised, five more revisions were due.
➢ The board of directors decided to follow the pay commission’s recommendations starting in January 1996 without giving those modifications any thought.
➢ Only the 115 current employees who were working at the time that the benefits were passed on were subject to the enhanced salary, depriving the 900 previous employees of comparative advantages.
➢ All people who were employed received temporary reliefs beginning in September 1993, including those who ultimately lost out on the pay revision owing to retirement.
➢ Mr Salva contended that the MSFC owed no more than 32 crores to all former workers, including those who had retired, asked for VRS, or had passed away. He said the GR failed to recover the money paid for interim relief and ad hoc amounts paid to current employees between September 1993 and July 2001.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

➢ The employee in question was not subject to any scheme and chose to leave the company of his or her own volition. However, the Corporation had less obligation to pay salary dues.
➢ The defence attorney for MSFC contended that the state government shouldn’t intervene because of the contested judgement.
➢ It was contended that MSFC is an independent company and is exempt from Maharashtra Government regulations.
➢ Expert counsel emphasised that by paying the benefits on the terms proposed by the appellants, the Corporation was suffering losses.
➢ These characteristics made these workers eligible for benefits above and beyond what they would have gotten if they had remained in their jobs.
➢ Before issuing such a ruling, the Court, according to Mr Patil, must consider the financial impact on the employer.

JUDGMENT:

On January 1, 1996, the State Government adopted and put into practice the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations. Without choosing whether to impose those scales for its employees, the MSFC forwarded the idea to the State Government (as required by S. 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act). During this period, all present employees received a little reprieve in the form of wage revision.

The Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations for pay modification were put into action by MSFC on March 29, 2010. The State of Maharashtra letter dated 29.03.2010 served as the basis for the decision to apply the wage revision to the workers who were already working there and to minimise the arrears that would be due as of the first of January 2006 in the future.

By Office Order dated 09.04.2010, the MSFC decided to implement the decision of the Government of Maharashtra and grant the benefits of the Fifth Pay Commission to employees of the Corporation who were on its rolls on that date.

The highest court in India has ruled that voluntarily leaving one’s job before finishing it is still eligible for rewards. The employer cannot discriminate against or split a homogeneous class of workers using a fake cut-off date, the court said.

It was held that VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation. Those who died during that period shall be entitled to arrears based on pay revision, accepted by the Corporation. The Corporation was directed to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on these arrears from 01.04.2010 till the end of this judgment.

LINK TO FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Rw1Qbk

About the Organization

A full-service law company was established in 1993 by Mr Paritosh Sinha and is situated in Kolkata (the Advocate-on-Record for the State of West Bengal).

Areas of Work

A long-term intern for their High Court Original Side Department, which essentially deals with Civil Laws and IPR matters.

Eligibility Criteria

The candidates preferably should be in their 4th year or Final year and based in Kolkata.

Application Procedure

Interested please send your CV to internship@sinhaco.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 LPJ and Partners LLP

They are one of the fast-emerging and leading law firms in Delhi with a nationwide presence through its channel partners. Some of their areas of expertise include Debt Recovery, Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Mergers & Acquisitions, Contract Management and Employment Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Policy & Regulatory Advice, Due Diligence, Deal Management, Consumer Protection, Labour Law Incorporations, Certifications, Compliances, etc.

They are well conversant with the drafting of representations and initiating, defending, and pursuing litigation on the original and appellate side in civil, criminal, consumer protection and service matters in District Courts, Commissions/Forums/Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.

They are offering internships to law students interested in pursuing a career in litigation after graduation.

Stipend

Promising interns will be offered long-term internships along with a stipend.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates can apply to office@lpjpartners.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 Shweta Sabuji

In the recent case of K.T.V. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, UNION OF INDIA & ORS., an appeal filed in opposition to the judgment and decree rendered on the file of the Commercial Division of this Honourable High Court on July 3, 2018, by the learned Single Judge in A.No.1253 of 2018 in C.S.No.706 of 2017.

FACTS:

The appellant was established in 2008 as a company under the Companies Act of 1956. The purpose of forming this Company was to take over K.T.V. Oil Mills’ operations. The late Shri. K. T. Varadaraj Chetty launched an oil trading company in Kotwal Market in 1971. Under the name and style “K.T.V Oil Mills,” the company operated from 1999 to 2008 as a partnership firm. The partnership firm was then changed into a private limited company in 2008 under the name “K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited,” and they applied to the Trademark Registry for the registration of the trademark “ROOBINI,” claiming usage as of June 1, 1995.

On December 30, 2007, K.T.V. Oil Mills and the appellant engaged in an assignment deed, and as a result, the trademark “ROOBINI” was transferred. The K.T.V. Oil Mills partners all acquired shares in the appellant-Company. The assignment deed was completed in favor of the appellant by the partners of K.T.V. Oil Mills because they chose to operate the company under the appellant’s Company name. As a result, the appellant learned that the respondent was using the contested trademark “ROOBEN” in 2017, which is a slavish replica of the appellant’s trademark “ROOBINI” regarding a similar product.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

The plaintiff responded to the request for the plaint to be rejected by filing a counter, claiming that the plaintiff’s predecessor, K.T.V. Oil Mills, conducted business from 1995 to 2007 under the name and style of “ROOBINI,” and that all necessary applications for the trademark’s registration were also made. Ultimately, the trademark “ROOBINI” was registered on 22.01.1999 under registration number 837894, claiming use from 01.06.1995. Totake its business to the next level, K.T.V. Oil Mills, a partnership firm, became a private limited company. As a result, the Partners of K.T.V. Oil Mills assigned their ownership of the entire business as well as the trademark “ROOBINI” to the appellant-Company, which then became known as “K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited.”

On December 30, 2007, an assignment deed was made. After that, the appellant filed the proper paperwork to transfer the trademark “ROOBINI” that the Partnership Firm had previously assigned to the appellant in favor of the plaintiff. As a result, the Trademark Registry registered the same on January 25, 2018. Due to the assignment deed executed on December 30, 2007, only theappellant/plaintiff is currently the owner of the trademark “ROOBINI” at the time the lawsuit was filed.

Additionally, the appellant submitted the required paperwork in 2015 to modify the registration in the appellant Company’s name. As a result, the plaintiff is the “ROOBINI” trademark’s owner. Since the plaintiff has been conducting business through its branch office on Chennai’s Thambu Chetty Street, which is squarely within this Court’s jurisdiction, the matter was brought before this Hon’ble Court.

JUDGEMENT:

Following a hearing with both parties, the learned Single Judge granted the request to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the telephone bills by themselves were insufficient to establish that the appellant was operating at the branch office, which is located at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai. Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner of the trademark “Roobini” when it was registered. Even if it is assumed without admission that the assignment deed was executed in the plaintiff’s favor and that the trademark “Roobini” was registered in the plaintiff’s name as a result of the said assignment deed, the plaintiff is not entitled to any rights in the trademark “ROOBINI” based on the assignment deed.

The plaintiff is also not permitted to file the current lawsuit in this court without having their principal place of business within its jurisdiction, even though they maintain a branch office at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai, which they claim is within that court’s jurisdiction because those provisions, as well as Sections 134(2) of the Trademarks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copy Act, define “carrying on business” respectively.

The plaint is therefore susceptible to being dismissed as long as neither the defendant nor the plaintiff’s primary place of business is engaged in business within the jurisdiction of this Court. As a result, the plaint was dismissed by the contested order. The appellant has chosen the current Original Side Appeal because he is unhappy with the aforementioned order.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3I1cbcl

-Report by Shreya Gupta

In the case of UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. M/S KALRA ELECTRICALS, the two parties Delhi University and M/S Kalra Electricals were the former was the petitioner and the latter was the respondent. The dispute between the parties arose from a work contract and the dispute was referred to the arbitration for settlement where the arbitrator ordered the petitioner to pay rupees 20 lakhs for other 44 contracts which were not referred to it.

FACTS:

The case was filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, of 1966. The dispute arose from the work contract dated 09.06.2005. There was no dispute regarding the other 44 contracts between the parties. The dispute was regarding the sum of Rs. 92,101.25. It was referred to arbitration in view of clause 25.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner’s advocate contends whether the arbitral tribunal can provide relief for the case that has not been referred to it. She contends that the awarded sum was time-barred. She further states about section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 which states that “the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside”. She contended that the relief provided under the other 44 contacts to the respondent was not disputed and the respondent would have filed a claim under it if that was the case.

The court has separated the subject work contract from all other contracts and therefore it was beyond the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. She further in support stated some of the previous cases- Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), MSK Projects India (JV) Limited vs. the State of Rajasthan and Another, State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises, Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd, Indus Biotech Private Limited vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund (Earlier Known as Kotak India Venture Limited) and Others5 and DLF Home Developers Limited vs. Rajapura Homes Private Limited and Another.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The respondent’s advocate stated that the arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction because the case arose regarding the other 44 contracts from the subject contract and that the petitioner paid for it maliciously. He stated that the assistant engineer gave the letter to the arbitrator to give orders for the other 44 contracts as well.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that the payment of Rs. 93,033 is not due and is in order and so DU should deduct any amount in payment to KE. The court ordered DU to make the pending payments of 20lakh at 9% per annum interest to KE from the date of raising the bill to the date of actual payment. The court stated that the award of Rs. 20 lakhs regarding the other 44 contracts were out of the arbitral jurisdiction and is set aside. The court further stated that the arbitrator fell foul of Section 34 (2) (a) (ⅳ) which is impermissible in law as it caused patent illegality. The order of arbitration was set aside from the other contracts and was followed for the subject contract. The court stated in its order “I find that since there is no fraud committed by KE and since the contracts are not inter-related it was wrong and illegal on part of DU to withhold the amount of Rs 20 Lakh in 44 contracts for settling an amount of Rs.92,033/- or Rs. 93,688/-or even both related to just one or two contracts”.

About the Organization

Dubey Law Associates are a team of effective attorneys with considerable experience appearing before numerous courts, including the Supreme Court of India. Since 2012, they have been represented before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, APTEL NCDRC, DRT, DRAT, DRAT, NGT, SAT, CCI, CAT, and other Courts and Tribunals are all places where we as a team practise. The following are the areas in which they practise and offer advisory services: Litigation in the areas of civil, criminal, company, competition, financial, intellectual property, securities, labour, arbitration, family, and property law, among others. We are skilled, dependable, and dedicated specialists.

About the Opportunity

The firm has a requirement for in-office Law Interns at its office in Delhi.

No. of Position

2

Stipend

The stipend would be Rs.4000/- per month.

Eligibility

3rd, 4th, or 5th-year student would be preferred. The student must possess a good academic background, research, and content creation skills.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply at career@edla.in

Location

Delhi, India.

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 School of Law, NMIMS, Hyderabad

School of Law, NMIMS, Hyderabad established in 2018 by NMIMS University, one of the premier Deemed to be Universities in India, the programs offered in our law school has all qualities and niceties of the programs offered by world-class Universities over the world. The school’s faculty members are well qualified and experienced with a wide range of quality legal publications and are also associated with social justice legal education.

The most advantageous fact is that the NMIMS student community is well diversity rich irrespective of region, religion, sexual orientation etc. School of Law 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 socially responsible outlooks 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 Conference

The year 2022 witnessed several discussions in the public domain on critical areas of both substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law. Many of these discussions concern key research areas for academicians and lawyers alike. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (SCI) kept the archaic sedition law under s.124 A, IPC, in abeyance, pending its decision on the constitutionality of the provision. On the other hand, it was observed that cases were still being registered under s. 66A, IT Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the SCI.

There were polarized debates after the release of convicted prisoners in a rape case, which again pointed our attention towards state-level policies for premature release. We also witnessed how a drug case involving a celebrity’s son brought to the fore important issues surrounding the discretion of agencies involved in the apprehension of suspects. There were also significant debates on PMLA, bail, rights of prisoners, criminalization of politics, etc. Criminal law, therefore, occupied an important space in public discourse. Criminal law discourse has to promote a deeper understanding of several issues surrounding crime prevention, prosecution and punishment.

Themes and sub-themes

• Track 1: Punishment/Rehabilitation Policy
• Track 2: Procedural and Evidentiary Aspects
• Track 3: Substantive Criminal Law
• Track 4: Inter-disciplinary Studies

Submission Guidelines

• The author shall submit an abstract of not more than 300 words with a cover letter containing the name(s) of the author(s) and address, designation, institution/affiliation, the title of the manuscript, theme, and contact information (email, phone, etc.).
• The authors of the selected abstracts will be asked to submit manuscripts. The authors of the final selected manuscripts will be called for Paper Presentation. Co-authorship is permitted for up to 2 authors.
• The manuscript should be on A4-sized paper in MS Word, typewritten in British English using Times New Roman, font size 12, 1.5 line Spacing, justified, and 1-inch margins on each side. Footnotes should be in font size 10 and with single-line spacing.
• The Authors should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th Edition).
• Authors should provide their contact details, designation, institutional affiliation, and address in the cover letter for the submission. The Manuscript should not contain any identification of the author/s, which shall be a ground for rejection of the submission.
• The submission must be the original work of the authors. Any form of plagiarism will lead to direct rejection.
• Manuscripts shall be assessed by subjection to Blind Review Procedure. Reviewers shall not be informed of the author’s name, university, year in college, or any other personal information.
• The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit, change, shorten and add to your article for the original edition and any subsequent revision along with the right to republish the article as part of an anthology in later years: provided that the meaning of the text is not materially altered.
• There shall be a Zero tolerance policy on Plagiarism and Copyright. Similarity up to 10% is permissible. The organizing committee is not responsible for any copyright infringements by the authors.
• The copyright for all entries shall vest with the organizers who herewith reserve the right to modify the contributions as per the requirements of necessity.

Eligibility

Undergraduate students, post-graduate students, academicians, researchers, and professionals are invited for paper presentations in the Two-Day National Conference.

Registration Fee

Participants/Paper Presenters have to register after the acceptance of the abstract with payment of the required fees. The registration fee (including GST) is as follows:

• For Academicians, Professionals, and PhD. Scholars:- INR 750 per author
• For Students enrolled in undergraduate or post-graduate programmes:- INR 500 per author

Location

Virtual Mode

Important Dates

• Submission of Abstract:- February 10, 2023
• Communication of Acceptance:- February 13, 2023
• Submission of Final Paper:- March 1, 2023
• Date of Conference:- March 3 and 4, 2023

Contact Information

In case of any queries, please contact:

• Prof. Sridip Nambiar, Organising Secretary: +91-9656415634
• Mr. Jatin Patil, Student Co-Ordinator: +91-9322114491
• Email: cclp.research@gmail.com

Click here to Register.

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 Organisation

Mandla & Singh Law Chambers is a law firm consisting of partners Ashima Mandla and Mandakini Singh. The firm specialises in criminal and constitutional matters. Notable matters handled by the firm are Tablighi Jamaat, community kitchens under ‘Food for All’, and gender-neutral laws for sexual offences, to name a few.

Position

Associate

Location

Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India

Who can Apply?

Candidates with a degree in law.
PQE: 0-2 years

Salary

Industry standards

Application Procedure

Interested applicants can apply at mandla.singh.lawchambers@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