About the Organization

Sinha & Partners is a boutique law firm with a solution-oriented approach. The Firm has been eminent in providing legal advisory and advocacy services to its clients in diverse sectors and subjects. The firm assists its clients in cases dealing with -Commercial & Civil Litigation, Insolvency, Arbitration and White Collar Crimes along with a whole range of legal services.

Internship Duration

3 Months (April to June)

Eligibility

4th and 5th Year Law Students having prior internship experience and practical exposure will be preferred.

Mode

Physical

Office Hours

10.00 am to 7.00 pm

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may send their CVs to internship@sinhaandpartners.com and adv.shiveepandey@gmail.com with the subject, “Application for an internship [Name] [Year]”

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

TATVA LEGAL CHENNAI is looking to onboard an Associate to expand their Litigation Team!

Eligibility

  • Candidates possessing 0-2 years of PQE.
  • Candidate has an inclination toward Civil & Commercial Litigation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, Insolvency & Bankruptcy, Corporate, and Real Estate Advisory.

Application Procedure

Kindly mail to venkatraman.r@tatvalegal.com and sachin.menon@tatvalegal.com

NOTE: Candidates based in Chennai with a willingness to practice before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras are encouraged to apply.

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 Organization

Mr. Sudhir Mishra founded Trust Legal to provide excellent and disruptive legal solutions to clients. Since a humble and yet envious beginning in 1998, Trust Legal has come a long way, has carved a niche for itself in various sectors, and has embraced a rich tradition of providing the very best in comprehensive legal representation. They build lasting relationships with our clients and are committed to supporting them at all times.

Deadline

31st March, 11:59 PM

Eligibility

2023 passing out batches from five-year law courses and three-year law courses too.

Application Procedure

Drop the cv at sudhirmishra@trustlegal.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

Chambers of Apartim Animesh Thakur is looking to hire Assessment Interns who are in the Final Year of their Law School.

Responsibilities:

  • Assist with legal research and analysis
  • Draft legal memos and briefs
  • Assist with case management and organization
  • Conduct legal document review
  • Collaborate with our legal team on ongoing projects

Requirements:

  • Final year law student
  • Strong legal research and writing skills
  • Ability to work in a fast-paced environment
  • Strong attention to detail
  • Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
  • This is a great opportunity for final-year law students to gain valuable experience in the legal field while working alongside experienced professionals.

Application Procedure

If you are interested in applying for this position, please send your resume and cover letter to¬†chambersofaat@gmail.com¬†with the subject line “Assessment Intern Application.”

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 Organization

Kumar Legal Research LLP serves a niche set of corporate clients across the corporate, taxation, litigation, intellectual property, and restructuring fields. Founded in 2017 with a focus into taxation and commercial litigation, the firm has now expanded into several other fields like criminal and real estate law.

Job Position

Legal Associate

Eligibility

  • Law Graduate (3 Yrs./5Yrs from a reputed institution)
  • LLM and/or Professional Qualification will be an advantage)

Experience

  • (2 to 5 Years) of working with a firm of repute.
  • Experienced in handling litigation before HC, NCLT, DRT, and DRAT and handled Direct & Indirect, Taxation Matters.

Salary

As per Industry Standards

Additional Skill Set required

  • Must have good Drafting & Research Skills.
  • Experience in leading law firms
  • Strong Communication skills (written & verbal)
  • Highly analytical and problem-solving ability

Application Procedure

Drop your CV at info@kumarlr.com /sushilbk81@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

-Report by Karan Gautam


The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993 filed an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No.1966 of 2007. During the pendency of the captioned appeal, the second appellant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2.1 to 2.4. The original first appellant and the impleaded legal heirs of the deceased second appellant are collectively described as ‘appellants’. The plaintiff prayed for a judgment for decree of permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs right, title and interest over and in the suit schedule property.


FACTS:


The appellants filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable, that there is no prayer for possession, that the suit was not valued correctly, and that the real owners of the suit property were not arraigned as parties. Subsequently, they amended the plaint by adding schedules A, B and ‘C’ and prayers qua them. The prayers in the amended plaint read as under: a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and not to interfere in the plaintiffs’ lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.


PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:


The plaintiff/respondent adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his claims, but the defendant did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit as per judgment dated 04.07.2007, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of suit ‘B’ schedule property from the defendants and directed the defendants
to vacate and deliver it to the plaintiff within two months. The surviving defendants challenged the judgment and decree before the High Court in RFA No.1966 of 2007. They did not adduce any evidence before the trial court. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of the appeal as the original suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court dispelled the objection and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Leave was granted and the Civil Appeal was disposed of as per judgment dated 03.09.2009. The trial Court was directed to record the evidence and submit a report to the High Court to dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated. The

Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and acting contrary to it is contrary to law. In this case, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal and directed the trial Court to record the evidence as directed by the High Court and forward it along with report to enable the High Court to dispose of the appeal taking into account the additionally recorded evidence of the defendants.


RESPONDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. The appellants had raised multiple grounds to assail the judgment, including that the plaintiff/the respondent had failed to establish his possession over plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The High Court failed to consider the contention that the subject suit was abated due to the failure of the respondent to bring on record the legal representatives of Sri Hanumaiah, the third respondent, and Sri Rama @ Ramamurthy, the deceased second defendant, who had purchased the suit property from Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao as per sale deed executed on 05.10.2000.


JUDGEMENT:


The High Court held that the defendants did not disclose their defence in their written statement and did not even contend that they are in possession of the suit property, which is based on the maxim ‘Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis‘. The High Court is also correct in holding the question of maintainability of the suit in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. The appellants argued that the suit ought to have been held as abated against all the defendants due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 3 upon his death, but the courts below have held that the original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession. The appeal is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40u8WAU

-Report by Bhavana Bhandari


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that a simple and literal interpretation of the severe requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 would make bail difficult to grant. The court was considering a criminal appeal in the case Mohd Muslim vs State (NCT) of Delhi to adjudicate whether grant bail to an undertrial prisoner who was arrested seven years ago under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for alleged participation in the distribution of a prohibited drug.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:


The case involved the seizure of 180 kg of marijuana from a total of four co-accused individuals seven years ago, namely Nitesh Ekka, Sanjay Chauhan, Sharif Khan, and Virender Shakiyar/Sakyabar @ Deepak and afterward Mohd Muslim. When the co-accused were found in possession of the prohibited drug, the appellant, Mohd Muslim, was implicated based on a confessional statement. When his co-accused was granted bail, the Delhi high court refused him bail. Nevertheless, despite Mohd Muslim was not found in possession of ganja, the assistant attorney general of India, Vikramjit

Banerjee stated that ” he prima facie looks to be the brains behind the supply and transportation of narcotic drugs from Chhattisgarh.”

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:


The appellant stated that because he has been imprisoned for more than seven years and the criminal the prosecution is only midway, the impugned judgment invalidated his plea for ordinary release under Sections 439 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter “CrPC”) before the Delhi High. The court, even if he was not found in possession of any drugs. Yet, his co-accused were granted bail despite this.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:


According to the prosecution, the four accused people who were allegedly in possession of 180 kg of marijuana‚ÄĒNitesh Ekka, Sanjay Chauhan, Sharif Khan, and Deepak‚ÄĒwere apprehended by the police as a result of secret details that were provided to authorities.


As part of the inquiry, the co-accused Nitesh Ekka was transported to Chhattisgarh to be identified, and on his request, the current appellant Mohd. Muslim was put into custody from the night of October 3, 2014, to October 4, 2015.


Based on several considerations, including the gravity of the alleged offenses, the severity of the sentence, and the appellant’s claimed involvement, the district court denied the appellant’s request for bail. It was observed that he had been in constant touch with his co-accused during the commission of the crime and that key witnesses had not yet been interviewed.


Further, the challenged decision states that the present accused was in prima facie frequent touch with other co-accused, as evidenced by phone records, and that the main accused, Virender Singh @ Beerey had made payments to the appellant’s bank account repeatedly. During the trial, one of the witnesses reportedly stated that the current appellant gave him Rs. 50,000.


As there was a prima facie case against him and no justification for relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act’s exclusions, the application for normal bail was denied, and the trial court was ordered to accelerate and conclude the matter within six months.

JUDGEMENT:


This observation was stated in the judgment by a bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta considered that the requirement of Section 436A, which applies to offenses implies that the grant of bail based on an unreasonable delay in the trial cannot be considered to be restricted by Section 37 of the Act. The bench observed that section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 positions that a court may only issue bail to an accused person if it is convinced that there are reasonable reasons to believe that he is innocent of the crime and that he is not likely to commit another crime.


The Supreme Court further cited the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673, which said that a ‘liberal’ approach to Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not be applied. The bench ruled that to effectively rule out the grant of bail completely, the appellant’s request for release must be evaluated ” within the framework of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 37.”

CONCLUSION:


As a response, the bench led by Justice Bhat remarked that the supreme court had maintained such stringent conditions in light of the balance between two conflicting goals, namely, the right of an accused to enjoy freedom based on the presumption of innocence and the interest of society at large. And yet, it also acknowledged that the only way a particular condition in law, like the one in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, could be taken into account within the bounds of the constitution is by relying on a prima-facie finding of the matter based on the evidence on the record. The bench ruled unequivocally that any alternative reading would result in a person accused of offenses such as those authorized under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is completely denied bail.

Therefore, since the appellant has been in detention for more than 7 years and 4 months and the the trial is moving at a snail’s pace, bail cannot be denied to an accused charged with NDPS Act offenses due to the operation of Section 37 where there has been an excessive delay in the trial.

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

About the Organization

Based in the capital of India, we are a well-established law firm that provides legal services in Litigation, Advisory, Consultation, arbitration, Agreement Drafting, and retainer services. Having legal practice spanning across all courts in Delhi – NCR, they have been handling cases with a result-oriented approach, both professionally and ethically, and further providing legal consultancy and advisory services.

Location

Greater Kailash 1, Delhi

Internship Period

April 2023

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may reach out to us at advrtalchambers@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

Kaleyra’s Legal team is hiring for two positions – ¬†Legal Assistant/Executive Paralegal and Legal Specialist/Senior Legal Specialist.

About the Organization

Kaleyra is a US-listed global Communications Platform as a Service company that provides API and visual tools to communicate with customers worldwide through various channels, including SMS, MMS, RCS, WhatsApp for Business, Video, and Voice.

Roles and Responsibilities

  1.  Legal Assistant/Executive Paralegal
    Work Experience and Skills
  • PQE: 0-0.5 years.
  • Comprehensive knowledge of relevant software (Windows, Word, Excel, etc.).
  • Experience with CLM tools (desirable)
  • A law degree/paralegal certification (highly desirable)
  • Knowledge of contract management and legal principles (desirable)

2.  Legal Specialist/Senior Legal Specialist
Work Experience and Qualifications

  • B.A., L.L.B; LLM is desirable but not mandatory.
  • PQE: 2-3 years.
  • Comprehensive knowledge of relevant software (Windows, Word, Excel, etc.).
  • Experience with CLM tools (desirable)
  • Knowledge of contract management and legal principles

Location

This is primarily a remote position, but the selected candidate should be willing to travel to Bangalore as and when needed.

NOTE:

Please do not apply if you are unable to fulfil these criteria:
1. Immediate joiner (within 15 days)
2. Comfortable with a contract-based position (extendable based on performance)

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

Manocha & Ghosh Law Associates is looking for an Associate with 3-5 years of work experience in litigation.

About the Organization

They are a litigation firm specializing in civil, commercial, insolvency, regulatory, and white-collar disputes across all forums in Delhi and other forums nationwide. They also handle arbitrations and corporate advisory. The firm is headed by Mr. Dushyant Manocha and Ms. Anannya Ghosh (Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court).

Location

Green Park Extension, New Delhi.

Joining date

Immediately (preferred)

Experience Required

3-5 years of work experience in litigation.

Application Process

The application, with a CV and Cover Letter, can be sent to doel@mglawassociates.com and chitra@mglawassociates.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