Month: February 2023

About the Advocate

Mr Rajan Hans is a First Generation Lawyer. He is the Founder of Law Firm HANS & HANS, a Boutique Law Firm Based out of Gurgaon, Haryana. His Core Areas of Work are in the fields of Property Law, RERA, Project Financing, Consultancy for Real estate projects, JVs, NCLT, etc. He has 16 years of experience in Various aspects of Business Law.

No. of Positions

Two (2)

Stipend

Rs. 5000 per month

Internship Period

March 2023

Location

Faridabad

Note:

• Preference to the Candidates in the Last year of their Law School.
• Preference to the Candidates based in FARIDABAD.
• Having your laptop is a must.

To apply, Click 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

-Report by Umang Kanwat

Family law conceptions still depend on parental control and the idea of “the family” as a unit, while privacy theories are mostly adult-centered and cannot be meaningfully applied to minors. In the recent case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Versus Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Supreme Court determined that it could not forgo the rights and best interests of a third party, namely the child, in order to grant one of the parties to the marriage the benefit of a fair trial.

FACTS:

In the current case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia involving a married couple was going through divorce proceedings suspecting that the appellant-wife was in an adulterous relationship. The husband requested the court to order a DNA test on their second child to determine if he was the biological father. The court granted the request, and this decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant declines to submit the kid to a DNA test in her capacity as the child’s mother and natural guardian in order to safeguard the child’s interests and welfare. She is actually acting in the child’s best interests by refusing to submit the child to a DNA test.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent is not contesting the child’s legitimacy, but rather accusing the appellant-wife of adultery, and since she refused to submit the child to a DNA test, a presumption under Section 114(h) of the Evidence Actmight be made against her. In other words, he argues that Section 114(h) rather than Section 112 applies in this particular case and that the court is not required to expose the kid to a DNA test if the appellant is unwilling.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court by concluding that the High Court and Family Court erred by granting the respondent’s request to subject the child to a DNA test, stated that in every instance when a parent declines to have their child undergo a DNA test, it is not prudent to infer the worst under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

The court also emphasised that children have the right to protection from having their legal status inadvertently called into question in court. A child’s understanding of privacy could differ from an adult’s. However, merely because they are young, children should not be denied this right to shape and comprehend their sense of self. Furthermore, children have a specific right to maintain their identity under Article 8 of the Convention. Parental information is a characteristic of a child’s identity. As a result, it is forbidden to arbitrarily contest a child’s parentage in front of a court of law.

As a result, the appeal was granted. The court did add that this would not prevent the respondent-husband from presenting more evidence to support the claims he made against the appellant in the divorce petition.

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

About the Organisation

GnS Legal LLP is a full-service law firm with a focus on commercial law, advising on transactions, disputes, and projects. Founded by a group of graduates from National Law Schools, who have earlier worked with top-tier law firms and senior advocates, the firm aims to provide cost-effective yet quality legal services, devoid of legal jargon and time-consuming hierarchy. The partners, associates and co-counsels at the firm have a hands-on approach with all clients, matters and transactions, ensuring direct and focused communication at all times.

Experience required

PQE of 1 to 2 years for the Corporate Law team

Eligibility

Candidate should have prior experience in Agreements vetting and drafting and advisory work.

Application Process

All those who are interested can apply directly at abhay@gnslegal.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

KS Legal & Associates are looking to onboard interns for the month of March & April for the Mumbai office. 

About the Organisation

Established in 2013, KS Legal is a full-service law firm comprised of industry-leading lawyers delivering expert legal advice to some of India’s most sophisticated and successful companies, institutions and private groups. We have grown with our clients to meet their evolving needs. At the same time, we have remained true to our core commitment – to be a leading law firm delivering outstanding results through the provision of responsive, strategic and commercially astute legal advice.

Internship Duration

Minimum two months

Application Process

Send your applications at info@kslegal.co.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

Shepherd Law Associates is inviting applications for various positions: Associates, freshers, and Interns.

About the Organization

Shepherd Law and Associates is a full-service law firm with an extensive range of services in Litigation, Advisory, International Law, Gender Incongruence and many others. Our objective is to be a respectable law firm providing proficient, skilled and competent services, to perform with fair-mindedness, honesty and persistence, to be socially responsible and to provide aid in socio-legal complexities and do good for society.

Positions Available

1. Associate having 2 to 4 years of litigation experience; those interested, kindly keep the subject as ‘Application for the post of Litigation Associate” and send it the email id mentioned below.

2. Associate having 1 to 3 years of corporate experience; those interested, kindly keep the subject as ‘Application for the post of Corporate Associate” and send it to the email id mentioned below.

3. Freshers– Recent graduates who have cleared the All India Bar Examination and have relevant internships. Those interested are requested to keep the subject as ‘Application by a Fresh graduate for corporate/litigation”

4. Interns – 4th and 5th-year students for our litigation team, corporate team, and content writing. Interested students are requested to keep the subject as “Application for internship for the month of February 2023 in content writing/litigation/corporate team”

Selected candidates will be reached out by the concerned members of the team via email. Applicants are assured that every application will be reviewed and they are requested to not follow up on their applications.

Application Process

Candidates are requested to attach their C.V. along with a draft of their writing sample (petitions/notices/research papers/projects, etc.) for us to assess their drafting skills. All candidates are requested to send their applications and queries at contact at shepherdlaw.co.in

Note:

1. Candidates are requested to be careful about the subject line.
2. We are looking for candidates with English language proficiency and fluency.
3. Candidates are requested to not reach out to the members of the team for clarifications or queries through LinkedIn messages, WhatsApp, calls, etc. Kindly restrict your queries to the email provided in this post only.

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

Urgent Opening at Thukral Law Associates, New Delhi.

About the Organisation

THUKRAL LAW ASSOCIATES is a full-service law firm providing an extensive range of legal services to specially NRI on various law-related issues. Our Offices provide the best and expert legal services to Domestic as well as International Clients from more than thirty countries around the globe. The firm offers a full range of legal services through two main Law Offices located in New Delhi & Punjab.

Location

Paschim Vihar, New Delhi

No. of openings

3 to 5 positions

Experience required

1 to 3 years PQE in Litigation

Deadline for Application

28th February 2023

Application Process

Interested candidates shall send email to thukralandcompany@gmail.com .

Contact details

Adv. Arora – 9821868995

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 Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs LT Governor decided whether the PIL filed is justified or not and looked into the fund’s misappropriation issue.

Facts:

The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and GHPS Society had mismanaged and misappropriated the funds and illegally removed the fund by conspiring with the members. They also run educational institutions the funds of which was also exploited by the member of the institute. The office members were involved in this misdeed. 

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff had filed a PIL to have a yearly audit of the entire accounts of the committee and society and provide appropriate guidance to the same due to the misappropriation of funds. It also asked to adhere to the appropriate sections of the DSG Act and a direction to conduct a Special Audit should be given.

Respondent’s Contention:

The only question which arose was that is the PIL filed by the appellant was acceptable and can this be heard in the Delhi High Court. The respondent also filled in small affidavits during the same. 

Judgment:

The court said that the matter of misappropriation of the fund was already decided. The right to act on the PIL was with the district court and not with them. It also said that the PIL was not acceptable firstly because there are a given law, process,and procedures by the Chartered Accountants of India to carry out the audit function so deviation from it makes no point and secondly the Comptroller and Auditor General of India cannot voluntarily carry out an audit on its own when the laws exist for the same. The PIL was dismissed.

READb FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KqLGyz

–Report by Shreya Gupta

In any circumstances, the interest expense cannot be denied u/s14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Act. The disallowance made by adopting Rule 8D is not only opposed to the statutory requirement, but also to the legal principles established.

FACTS:

The case is an appeal by the petitioner against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which the court allowed the respondent’s appeal. The respondent filed a return for the income of Rs.358,47,29,328/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.431,48,93,079/- under section (u/s) 115JB of the I.T. Act. The AO made various disallowances u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D amount to Rs.5,11,85,000/-. The AO investigated u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act 1961. The case then went to The Ld. CIT (A) which allowed the respondent’s appeal but then the case went to the Hon’ble ITAT which again ruled in favor of the respondent. 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner contended on the previous orders by the courts given against his favor and asked if they were correct. He contended that “the assessment order that setting-off interest costs of dividend income against other taxable income areagainst the matching concept of income and expenditure. He submitted that there was no need to rely on any presumption of own funds on account of the changed law that came into force from 2007-08 followed by the introduction of rule 8D in 2008- 09 which provides for a method of calculations. It is submitted that because of the above, the ITAT erred in endorsing the CIT(A)’s order which drew the presumption of its interest-free funds. He further submitted that the ITAT ought not to have deleted the addition of interest disallowed by the AO, in the absence of any evidence that indicated that borrowed funds were not used to make investments that yielded exemption. He further submitted that the ITAT ought not to have been considered interest while calculating disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 5D since the assessee had not maintained a separate account for the investment related to exempt income.” 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent took the court through previous orders and stated that they were correct u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) and prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In justification to his arguments, he took the help of the previous cases Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another and South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. 

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that “To put it another way, in respect of payment made out of the mixed fund, it is the assessee who has such right of appropriation and also the right to assert from what part of the fund a particular investment is made and it may not be permissible for the Revenue to estimate a proportionate figure.” The court stated that the AO has not recorded that there was any inadmissible expenditure u/s 14A. He stated that there are no powers u/s 14(2) which allow AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessee’s claim in respect of expenditure incurred concerning the exempt income. The court further stated that the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) under any circumstances and therefore dismissed the appeal.

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

–Report by Shweta Sabuji

The judgment and order from the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated April 4, 2019, that overturned the Trial court’s orders by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being contested in the present case of MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus MAHENDRA JAIN.

FACTS:

Mahendra Jain was given a contract by the appellant company, M/s.Mita India Pvt. Ltd., for the relocation of a 33 K.V. electrical overhead line at its Dewas factory. The appellant company unintentionally paid an excess payment in connection with the aforementioned contract. The respondent sent two checks to the appellant company for its return after agreeing to refund the excess money. Cheques were returned due to “stop payment” instructions. By section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the appellant company filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas through its authorized representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli. Respondent made two petitions in the aforementioned complaint. – Kavindersingh Anand cannot testify in court because the complaint nowhere claims that he is aware of the facts and transactions, according to the first allegation that the complaint was not submitted by an authorized person.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the company’s authorized representative, submitted the lawsuit on behalf of the appellant company, according to a cursory review of it. Thus, the appellant corporation is filing the lawsuit under its name. It hasn’t been submitted in the power of attorney holder’s name. The appellant corporation, the complainant, is allowed to file the complaint on its behalf through the holder of its power of attorney. 10. The appellant corporation has granted Kavindersingh Anand, one of its directors, a broad power of attorney.

The aforementioned power of attorney was implemented following its proper approval by the board of directors at its meeting on May 1, 2010, which took place. As a result, KavindersinghAnand, one of the appellant directors, business’s is the true and legal representative of the company and holds power of attorney on its behalf. The aforementioned power of attorney expressly grants him the right to choose “counsel” or “special attorneys” to handle every case and to carry out any other actions necessary for the proper prosecution or defence of legal or fictitious judicial proceedings anywhere in the world. The power of attorney mentioned is based on the aforementioned power of attorney, Kavindersingh Anand gave Ripanjit Singh Kohli permission to file the relevant complaint.

JUDGEMENT:

The trial court denied the initial application in a ruling dated January 30, 2018. After the second application was turned down on July 23 of this year, a criminal revision was filed and later dismissed by a decision dated September 26. The respondent invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge these three orders. By the contested order, the High Court granted the petition brought under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed that the aforementioned orders be set aside because the complaint was not brought by the person authorized and that Kavindersingh Anand, who was granted the power of attorney, lacked legal standing to sub-delegate the said power to Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the designated representative. Second, Kavindersingh Anand is not authorized to testify on the company’s behalf.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3YQqm9T

–Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The High Court of Delhi on Monday 20^th February, 2023 in SHIWANG TRIPATHI & ORS versus UOI & ORS reiterated the stance taken by a learned Single Judge’s bench while dismissing the matter that a Right of Absorption or regularization of post does not arise merely because of an agreement of apprenticeship between parties.

FACTS:

The National Insurance Company had invited applications for an apprenticeship programme on a pan India basis and the candidates participating in the same were appointed for a term of 2 years which were later extended twice. Several recommendations were made in support of regularisation of these apprentices due to their excellent performances but the responsible authority did not act accordingly. That is when the present issue arose when these apprentices demanded regularisation of their post based on the agreement for apprenticeship that were provided to them.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellants tried to present the case in the manner that they were eligible according to the basic statistics that vacancies were open and their performances were at par with what the authorities shall ask and that is what made such absorption valid and legal.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondents tried to highlight the point that such right to absorption does not arise since the appellants were merely recruited for apprenticeship trainee purpose and no separate promise was made to them regarding any kind of conversion or regularisation of such a contract into one of a permanent appointment.

JUDGEMENT:

The primary issue was already dismissed by the learned Single Judge’s bench and nothing new happened in case of the appeal either. The honourable appellate bench by referring to Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. Vs. Dr.Vinay Kumar & Ors. [C.A.No. 4150 of 2022] clearly observed that no person or apprentice can claim a right to absorption or permanent employment, when they are devoid of any proper employer employee relation. By objectively pointing out the absence of a proper contract between the said parties the appellate bench reiterated the Single judge’s decision to deny the grant of such relief for regularisation and highlighted the fact that the respondents were not obligated to regularise positions just because someone has been an apprenticeship in the said organisation.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3SeHR1b