Office of HMJ Jyoti Singh, Judge, High Court of Delhi is inviting applications for the position of Law Researcher/Law Clerk commencing from June 2023.

Eligibility

Applicants must be enrolled with the Bar Council. Prior litigation/research experience is preferred.

Application Process

Interested applicants are required to email their CVs along with a cover letter to pskamalkumar.dhc@gov.in,
with the subject “Application for Clerkship – June 2023”.

Deadline

Not later than 11.59 P.M., 30.05.2023.

Please note that the appointment shall be subject to an interview and assessment period.

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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

Celebal Technologies Private Limited, a private limited company, twice in a row certified as Microsoft India Partner of the Year. Celebal is in the business of IT service and consulting. It established in the year 2016 and recently funded by Norwest Venture Partners in Dec’ 2022. It has its head office in Jaipur, Rajasthan and has subsidiaries in Singapore, the USA, Japan, UAE, Australia, and Canada.

The company is providing Internship opportunities in the Non-Litigation Legal Department of the Company.

Roles and responsibilities

  1. Support in drafting, reviewing and redlining contracts e.g. NDA, Service Agreements, Software Agreements and other transactional documents received from business teams. Highlighting legal risks involved and aligning the same with the organization’s objectives and applicable laws. Communicate contract-related information to all stakeholders and ensure complete contract closure, extension or renewal, as appropriate.
  2. Draft and assist in designing standard contract templates with different versions to accommodate varying business scenarios. Maintaining clause playbook/library with various scenarios including best and fallback positions
  3. Perform appropriate operational research in areas of commercial law as relevant to the company’s business and prospects to support contract development.
  4. Facilitate escalation of unresolved issues, approval and signature.
  5. Research and analyse areas of commercial law as relevant to the company’s business and prospects and prepare memos or position statements for different audiences.
  6. Prepare and maintain a repository of all legal records and Legal MIS.
  7. Support in digitalization of legal processes and workflows.

Eligibility

5th Year law students enrolled in 5 year Law degree course; 3rd (final year) students of 3 year Law Degree course.

Location

Jaipur, Rajasthan (Work from office – Work hours – 10 am to 7 pm)

Stipend

Minimum Rs.5,000/ per month

Tenure of internship

2-3 months; First available slot starts on 1st June 2023

Official link (organisation’s website/social media link) – https://celebaltech.com/

CLICK HERE 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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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

Case Number

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22nd June 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 613 of 1965. Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1965, decided on the 6th day of September 1965.

Equivalent Citation

1966 AIR 424 1966 SCR (1) 702.

Bench

  • Hon’ble Justice K. Subba Rao.
  • Hon’ble Justice K.N Wanchoo.
  • Hon’ble Justice J.C Shah.
  • Hon’ble Justice S.M Sikri.
  • Hon’ble Justice V. Ramaswami.

Decided On

06/09/1965

Introduction

The law on the rights of detainees has been a developing one. It involves the most extreme disgrace that a nation like India doesn’t have classified laws on the rights of prisoners. There is additionally no thorough regulation to manage prisoners’ privileges and direct their lead while in jail. Notwithstanding, the legal executive of the nation has given due acknowledgement to the convicts and held their fundamental rights time once more. Without exhaustive regulation, it has figured out how to start trends and standards maintaining the different privileges of detainees that guide as well as tie every one of the courts in India.

Brief Facts

Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri was kept by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 30(1)(b) of the Protection of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay Region Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the safeguard of India, public security, and support of the public request. With the consent of the public authority, Sanzgiri composed a book in Marathi named “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The High Court passed judgment on investigating the book’s chapter-by-chapter guide and reasoned that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to teach individuals and disperse information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request The High Court of Bombay held that the request for confinement didn’t control Sangir’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his detainment. The State of Maharashtra pursued against the High Court’s organization, The Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, which regulates the particulars of Sanzgirt’s detainment, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of jail for distribution. Be that as it may, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t control the conveying of jail books for distribution.

Issues before the Court

Whether the High Court’s choice that Sanzgiri’s book was simply of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the guard of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request was right, and whether Sanzgini’s social equality and freedoms were controlled by the request for confinement?

Arguments

The request passed by the High Court was right, and the appeal fizzled and was excused.

The High Court decided to survey the book’s chapter-by-chapter list and inferred that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to instruct individuals and scatter information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias against the guard of India, public wellbeing, or support of the public request. The High Court of Bombay held that the request for detainment didn’t control Sanzgari’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement.

The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which directs the particulars of Sanzgini’s confinement, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. Nonetheless, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t direct the conveying of jail books for distribution. Whether or not this standard applies to the conveying of jail books for distribution might emerge on the off chance that a suitable condition is forced limiting the freedom of an accused in this.

The decision of the Court

  1. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been kept by the Public authority of Maharashtra under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Safeguard of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the protection of India, public wellbeing and support of the public request, has composed, with the consent of the said Government, a book in Marathi under the title “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The learned Adjudicators of the High Court who had gone through the chapter-by-chapter guide of the book offered their viewpoint on the book subsequently:

    “We are satisfied that the manuscript book deals with the theory of elementary particles objectively. The manuscript does not purport to be a research work, but it purports to be a book written to educate the people and disseminate knowledge regarding quantum theory”.
  2. The book is, thusly, simply of logical interest and it couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public security, or upkeep of public request. In September 1964, the accused applied to the public authority of Maharashtra looking for consent to send the composition out of the prison for distribution yet the Government by its letter, dated Walk 27, 1965, dismissed the solicitation He again applied to the Administrator, Arthur Street Jail, for authorization to send the original copy out and that also was dismissed. From that point, he documented a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution In the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay for guiding the Province of Maharashtra to allow him to convey the composition of the book composed by him for its possible distribution. The Public authority of Maharashtra in the counter-sworn statement didn’t affirm that the distribution of the said book would be biased to the objects of the Protection of India Act, yet asserted that the Public authority was not legally necessary to allow the accused to distribute books while in detainment. The High Court of Bombay held that the social equality and freedoms of a resident were not the slightest bit checked by the request for detainment and that it was generally open to the revenue to carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement. It further held that no standards were disallowing an accused from sending a book outside the prison to get it distributed. In that view, the High Court guided the Public authority to permit the composition book to be sent by the accused to his significant other for its possible distribution. The Province of Maharashtra has favoured the current allure against the expressed request of the Great Court.
  3. The conflicts of the took in Extra Specialist General might be momentarily expressed thus: When an individual is kept he loses his opportunity; he is as of now not a liberated person and, consequently, he can practice just such honours as are given on him by the request for confinement. The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which manages the details of the primary respondent’s confinement, doesn’t give him any honour or right to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. On the side of his conflict, he depends upon the perceptions of Des, 1, as he then was, in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras, wherein the learned Appointed authority has communicated the view, with regards to principal privileges, that assuming a resident loses the opportunity of his individual because of a legal detainment, he can’t guarantee the privileges under Craftsmanship. 19 of the Constitution as the evenings revered in the said article are just the characteristics of a liberated person.
  4.  Mr. Garg learned counsel for the accused, raised before us the accompanying two focuses: (1) a limitation of the nature forced by the Public authority on the accused must be made by a request given by the suitable Government under Cls. (f) and (h) of sub(1) of R. 30 of the Guard of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the Remnants, and that too in severe consistency with s. 44 of the Guard of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Demonstration, and that as the reprimanded limitation was neither made by such a request nor did it consent to S. 44 of the Demonstration, it was an unlawful limitation on his freedom; and sub(2) neither the confinement request nor the states of detainment which administered the primary respondent’s confinement empowered the Public authority to keep the expressed respondent from sending his original copybook out of the jail for distribution, and consequently, the request for the Public authority dismissing the said respondent’s solicitation in such manner was unlawful.

Conclusion

Prisoners don’t stop being people when put in bars. The Supreme Court and numerous different courts in India have repeated this situation in a few cases with the goal that detainees don’t turn into a casualty themselves. Furthermore, are furnished with a legitimate rehabilitative climate to help them improve and turn out to be better creatures. It is officeholder upon the Focal and State legislatures to not just furnish the detainees with empathetic circumstances professionally yet additionally teach them about their privileges, so it isn’t manhandled by the strong inside the prison.

One might say that the legal executive of the nation plays a vital impact in defending the privileges of detainees at whatever point the regulative and leader have failed. It has gone about as the deliverer of the convicts and maintained their essential freedoms endlessly time once more. It has completely practised its abilities through legal activism and has more than once concocted new cures and instruments to safeguard the common freedoms to life and individual freedom. Be that as it may, much actually should be finished. In such a manner, the wide dissemination of basic liberties accessible to prisoners, immense exposure of prisoners’ rights in the media, and corner-to-corner observation in prison could be a portion of the keys to maintaining the freedoms of prisoners and guaranteeing their place of refuge in the prison.

This case analysis is done by Pranita Dhara, a student of Lloyd Law College.

RELATED TO THIS BLOG:

A Legal Take on Safeguards of Liberty in India

About Delhi International Arbitration Center

Delhi International Arbitration Center has the distinction of being the first ever High Court-annexed Institutional Arbitration Centre; DIAC has made a significant contribution to the growth of Arbitration by acting as an effective catalyst to the dispute resolution mechanism. The Centre provides state-of-the-art infrastructure, pre-established rules/procedures, organized structure, equitable fees and outstanding administrative as well as secretarial support for the conduct of Arbitration. DIAC is overseen by the Arbitration Committee of the High Court of Delhi and day-to-day functioning and general administration of the Centre are managed by the Coordinator and Additional Coordinators.

About The Opportunity

Applications for Law Researcher are invited from Indian Nationals (Citizens of India as defined in the Constitution of India or under any law made by the Parliament to regulate the rights of citizenship) who fulfil the essential qualification and other eligibility conditions.

Number of Positions

03 (three)

Location

Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), High Court of Delhi situated at S block, 2nd floor, Delhi High Court campus, New Delhi – 110503. 

Important Dates

  • Opening date for the submission of the online application:  12.05.2023 
  • Closing date and time for the submission of the online application:  22.05.2023 (5:00 PM)

Note: Date, time and mode for the interview: to be announced later through a public notice on the official website (https://dhcdiac.nic.in/)

CLICK HERE 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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 GNLU International Research Colloquium

GNLU International Research Colloquium (GIRC) is an annual event organized by the Research and Development Cell, GNLU which it aims to bring together researchers from across the country, and the world, to deliberate and discuss matters of contemporary relevance through an interdisciplinary perspective. The Colloquium will commence in the month of July and will end in the month of June of the succeeding year. It will be conducted in three phases; each phase will be called a workshop. There will be eight sessions in each workshop, conducted by national and international experts on various dimensions of research methodology, publication, and the theme(s) of the Colloquium.

The participants shall be expected to develop a research article on the theme(s) of their choice during the one-year time period and the same shall be presented before the expert panel. Based on the review, selected papers shall be published in the form of a book or in a national/international journal of repute.

The workshop will end with an Annual Research Meet where academicians and research scholars will get an opportunity to present their work to experts and get their valuable input. Apart from this, the Meet would also bring together research scholars from diverse fields and disciplinary backgrounds to interact with each other and share the progress of their research.

Theme

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Successes, Challenges and the Way Forward

About the Workshops

Workshop I (Two Days, Eight Sessions)
The first workshop spread over a period of two days and eight sessions, will give the participants an opportunity to present their ideas and proposals to experts from the research and publication industry along with experts specialising in the particular theme(s) of the Colloquium. The experts would also conduct sessions on diverse areas of research
writing and publication and on the main theme, and sub-themes, of the Colloquium.

Workshop II (Two Days, Eight Sessions)
The second workshop spread over a period of two days and eight sessions, will give the participants an opportunity to present to experts the progress they’ve made in the area that they chose to work on in workshop I. Experts from relevant theme(s) would go through the work of the participants and provide them with feedback and suggestions, if any. Apart from this, expert sessions would be conducted on advanced research techniques like Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review (SLR).

Workshop III (Three Days)
The third and final workshop would conclude the year-long event with the final presentation of the Research Paper or Manuscript written by the participants.

Eligibility

  • Researchers and Scholars registered for M.Phil. /Ph.D./PDF in Law, Social Sciences or Interdisciplinary Research is eligible for participation in the Colloquium.
  • For international participants, the Colloquium may be in hybrid mode.

Selection Process

The Colloquium invites a proposal of 500-1000 words from the applicants along with the duly filled application form. The selection shall be based completely on the basis of the proposal. The proposal should be a detailed summary of the work that s states the problem, the objectives, and the methodology to be used.

It should be single-spaced in 12-point Times New Roman font. Co-authorship is not allowed.

Link for proposal submission: https://forms.gle/fvDNx3tPKpUNST637

Important Dates

Last Date for Proposal Submission31st May 2023
Intimation About Proposal Selection10th June 2023
Last date for Registration20th June 2023
Workshop I (Two Days, Eight Sessions)July 2023
Workshop II (Two Days, Eight Sessions)December 2023
Workshop III & Annual Research Meet (Three Days)June 2024
Final Chapter Submission31st July 2024

Registration Fee

  • For Indian Participants : â‚ą10,000/-
  • For Foreign Participants : 130 USD

This fee is exclusive of boarding and lodging for the workshops . The accommodation on GNLU Campus may
be made available based on availability . Total Intake : Sixty (60)

CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Ankit Hinnariya

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi granted anticipatory bail to Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners in a case registered under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Laxmi Nagar Police Station. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, took into account the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the State. This article provides an overview of the case, the contentions raised by the parties involved, and the court’s decision.

Facts

The case at hand involves an FIR registered at Laxmi Nagar Police Station in Delhi under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR was lodged against Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners, on the basis of allegations made by the complainant. The FIR accused the petitioners of offences including assault, molestation, and rape.

The initial PCR call made by the complainant on September 9, 2022, alleged molestation by the petitioners. The following day, another PCR call was made, claiming that the petitioners had threatened the complainant and intended to rape her along with their friends. 

Subsequently, at 2:04 PM on the same day, another PCR call reiterated these allegations.

It was only on September 26, 2022, when the written complaint was forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), that the allegations of rape were levelled against the petitioners. Prior to this, the charges primarily revolved around molestation.

The medical examination of the complainant conducted on September 9, 2022, did not reveal any signs of rape. The observations made by the doctor from Hedgewar Hospital suggested physical assault rather than rape.

On October 19, 2022, another PCR call was made by the complainant, alleging molestation once again by the petitioners.

These facts form the basis of the case, indicating the sequence of events leading to the filing of the FIR and the subsequent allegations against the petitioners. The court took into consideration these facts while evaluating the merits of the case and deciding on the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Petitioner’s Contention

In their petition for anticipatory bail, the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, presented several contentions to support their innocence and request protection from arrest. These contentions were put forth by their advocate, Ms. ParulAgarwal, during the court proceedings.

The petitioner argued that the allegations levelled against them in the FIR were false and frivolous. They claimed that there was an ongoing family dispute and various civil suits related to property matters, which might have prompted the filing of the FIR as an attempt to harm their reputation and grab their share of the property.

The petitioner highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, specifically regarding the charges under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). They contended that the allegations of rape were added later, after the complainant’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), suggesting that these additional charges were an afterthought.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unnecessary. They emphasized that the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the investigation and were ready to join it whenever required by the investigating officer. The petitioner further stated that no recovery was to bemade from the petitioners, indicating that their presence in custody was not warranted.

The petitioner asserted that there were no grounds to believe that the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. They assured the court that their clients had no intention of evading the law and would actively participate in the proceedings.

These contentions were presented to establish the petitioners’ innocence and argue for the grant of anticipatory bail, ensuring their protection from arrest pending the investigation.

Respondent’s Contention

The respondents, represented by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Assistant Public Prosecutor, He was accompanied by SI Sanyukta from the Laxmi Nagar Police Station. Additionally, Mr. Ankit Mehta, Mr. Varun Singh, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar served as advocates representing the second respondent in the case, and presented their contentions opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan.

The prosecution argued that the allegations against the petitioners were grave and serious in nature. They emphasized the severity of the charges under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the IPC. The respondents contended that considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail.

The respondents highlighted that the complainant had submitted a detailed complaint to the police, providing a comprehensive account of the allegations made against the petitioners. They also pointed out that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. further supported the charges brought against the petitioners.

The complainant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The respondents argued that the complainant’s objection was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter.

While the respondents focused on the gravity of the charges and the complainant’s detailed complaint, they did not contest the petitioners’ contention that custodial interrogation was unnecessary or that no recovery was to be made from the petitioners. Instead, their primary contention revolved around the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT 

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar carefully considered the arguments presented and examined the facts of the case. The court noted that the initial PCR calls made by the complainant only alleged molestation and the charges of rape were added at a later stage. Additionally, the medical examination conducted on the complainant did not indicate signs of rape but suggested physical assault.

Referring to relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Justice Bhatnagar emphasized that the severity of the accusations alone should not be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the importance of an individual’s liberty. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court allowed the bail applications and ordered that if arrested, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Bkc33a

-Report by Harshita Kaul

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted with the object of resolving disputes within a certain time framework which will promote confidence among the individuals who are opting for this Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism.

Therefore, the view of the Supreme Court was in the right direction that the applications filed must be decided within a specific time period as provided in the Act to foster and protect the very idea for which the Act was enacted in the first place.

Facts

On 06.10.2010, M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions, who was the applicant in this case entered into a Contract Agreement with Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Services and others, who were the respondents for the construction of two blocks of Admin-cum-Technical accommodation with double storey in RCC framed structure with PCC solid block masonry along with connected services.

During this period, certain modifications were requested by the Respondents, and accordingly, the Applicant carried out the required modifications as per the instructions. The dispute arose when the Applicant requested for the release of payment and even after making persistent requests, the Respondent kept postponing the same as according to them the items used for modifications were not scheduled items.

When the dispute was not been able to settle amicably, the Applicant on 30.03.2013 issued a notice to the Respondents for appointment of the Arbitrator within 30 days as per the conditions 70 and 71 of IAFW-2249 under the contract but the Respondents did not give any reply to the notice. Due to this unresolved issue, an Arbitration Application was filed by the Applicant under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court for the State of Telangana seeking to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties.

On 30.06.2020, the Application filed under Section 11(5) of the Act was dismissed by the High Court on the basis that in the case no Arbitral Dispute exists as satisfaction and accord was established.

Aggrieved by the impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court, for the appointment of an Arbitrator, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Judgement

Pursuant to the earlier orders, the respective High Courts have sent the statements regarding the pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, pending in the respective High Courts. It is seen that the number of applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act are pending for more than one year. In many High Courts, applications for appointment of the arbitrator(s) are pending for more than four to five years. Even, in the statement of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, many applications are pending, which are found to be defective. Some of the defective applications are pending since 2016 onwards. The pendency of a large number of applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, shows a very sorry state of affairs.

The arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are said to be a part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution System. Having found that it takes a number of years in deciding and disposing of suits by the civil courts for a variety of reasons and with a view to see that Commercial disputes are decided and disposed of and resolved at the earliest, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been enacted and hence, the Arbitration proceedings have been accepted as an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Therefore, if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If the Commercial disputes are not resolved at the earliest, not only it would affect the commercial relations between the parties but it would also affect the economy of the country. It may affect the ease of doing business in the country. If the country has to compete with global business, confidence has to be fostered that in our country commercial disputes are resolved at the earliest and it does not take a number of years in resolving such Commercial disputes.

Even the amended Arbitration Act as well as the Commercial Courts Act mandate that the Commercial disputes are to be decided and disposed of within a period of one year. Further, the Arbitrators are mandated to declare the award within a period of one year. Therefore, if the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it would defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as the Commercial Courts Act. The litigant may lose faith in the justice delivery system, which may ultimately affect not only the rule of law but commerce and business in the country. Therefore, the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and other applications, either for substitution and/or change of the Arbitrator have to be decided and disposed of at the earliest.

In that view of the matter, we request all the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to ensure that all pending applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and/or any other applications either for substitution of arbitrator and/or change of arbitrator, which are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, must be decided within six months from today. The Registrar General(s) of the respective High Courts are directed to submit the compliance report on completion six months from today. All endeavours shall be made by the respective High Courts to decide and dispose of the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and/or any other like application at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the applications.

Conclusion

A key step towards strengthening the process of appointing arbitrators is to amend the Act in light of the Supreme Court’s direction in Shree Vishnu Constructions and prescribe a time limit for the Courts’ appointment of arbitrators. Second, the government should notify the 2019 Amendment at the earliest by establishing arbitral institutions and providing a procedure for the appointment of arbitrators by such institutions. Further, it could adopt international best practices which allow for the quick and timely appointment of arbitrators while also involving the disputing parties in the process of constituting an arbitral tribunal. In the meantime, the respective High Court could, in its first hearing, designate an existing arbitral institution to appoint arbitrators as per institutional rules. These measures will not only help address the issue of the pendency of arbitration applications but also streamline the entire process in the long term.

Arbitration provides a sense of confidence to the parties to resolve their dispute but the delay in disposing the case not only dilutes the purpose of the Act, but the litigants may also lose faith in the justice delivery system. It will raise the question of Arbitration as an effective mechanism to resolve the dispute and will also affect the ease of doing business as well as the economy of the country.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/42tHQuH

-Report by Tushar Yadav

Applications of 299 organisers were rejected by the Ministry of MinorityAffairs out of 810 applications to organize Haj 2023, in the case of AL HATIM TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA.

Facts:

The judgement was given by a single judge bench of Delhi High Court, by Justice Pratibha M. Singh. These petitions were filed by Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) for Haj 2023, challenging the public notice dated 5th May 2023 issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs (Haj Division). By way of the impugned public notice, the Ministry has declared the eligible and ineligible HGOs for Haj 2023. The Ministry of Urban Affairs invited a total of 810 applications for Haj 2023, under 2 categories (244 in Category-1 and 566 in Category-2) out of which, 171 HGOs in Category-1 and 340 HGOs in Category-2 have been found eligible for registration for Haj 2023. The rest of the 280 HGOs were not found eligible for Haj 2023.

Petitioner’s Contention:

The grievance of the petitioners is that they fall on the list of 280 HGOs who have been rendered ineligible as per the above public notice by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. The issue raised by the petitioners is that the reasons for declaring them as ineligible have not been communicated to thePetitioners.

Thus, though the above public notice gives an opportunity to the Petitioners tosubmit a representation by the due date of 8th May 2023 (5:00 pm), since the petitioners are not even aware of the reasons which have rendered themineligible, no representations can be made.

Respondent’s Contention:

The Ministry of Minority Affairs through Mr. S.S Verma, Deputy Secretarysubmitted that the reasons for all of the Petitioners, who have been renderedineligible, are being prepared and shall be served upon all the 280 HGOs latestby tomorrow i.e., 10th May 2023, such HGOs are free to file their

representations within two working days. The representations would bedecided within one week and the allotment of quota would not be exhausted prior to the decision on the representations.

Judgement:

After hearing from both sides, the court came to the conclusion that the totalnumber of visas that are to be allotted to the HGOs this year is 35,005 in whicheach Category-1 and category-2 operators are entitled to 60 visas and 50 visasrespectively. Thus, insofar as the eligible HGOs are concerned, a total of 10,260and 17,000 would be exhausted. There would be a large number of remainingvisas which would have to be dealt with in accordance with the HGO Policy 2023 of the Ministry.

Considering the fact that the reasons for declaring the petitioners have not beencommunicated to the petitioners, the opportunity to make representations by 8thMay 2023 at 5 PM is of no account now, as there is no basis for filing arepresentation. Accordingly, the new directions are issued under which theMinistry will communicate the reasons for ineligibility to the Petitioners on orbefore 10th May 2023 by 6:00 pm. and the petitioners who are aggrieved by thereasons which are communicated to them are free to make their respectiverepresentations to the Ministry by 12th May 2023 midnight, as also remove deficiencies, through the e-mail address mentioned in the public notice. Therepresentations shall be decided by the Ministry and shall be communicated tothe Petitioners through email by 6 pm on 19th May 2023. In case any of the Petitioners are found eligible, their candidature shall be considered for the allotment of the remaining visas in accordance with the Ministry’s Policy.

Judgement on-09/05/23

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41tE2bi

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1977.

Equivalent Citation

1957 AIR 540

Bench

The Supreme Court of India

Decided On

1st February 1957

Relevant Acts / Sections

The sections that are relevant in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya v N. Subbiah Choudhury are:

  • Article 133 of the Constitution of India1, deals with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the appeals that can be filed before it.
  • Order XLV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which provides the procedure for filing Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.
  • Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, allows for appeals to the Supreme Court in civil cases if certain conditions are fulfilled.
  • Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083, lays down the grounds on which a second appeal can be filed before a High Court.
  • Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19084, which defines a “decree” is the official statement of a judgment that definitively settles the rights of the parties concerning one or more of the contested issues.
  • According to Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19085, a “judgment” is defined as the pronouncement made by a judge based on a decree or order.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

OVERVIEW

This legal case concerns an application for special leave to appeal, which arises from a previous lawsuit that was filed on April 22, 1949, and had a value of Rs. 11,400. On February 10, 1955, the high court overruled the decision of the trial court, which had earlier dismissed the suit. However, when the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the high court refused the application, arguing that the value of the lawsuit did not meet the minimum requirement of Rs. 20,000.

The applicant contended that they had a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court, which was the highest court in the land at the time the suit was instituted, and that this right of appeal had been transferred to the Supreme Court under Article 135 of the Constitution6. The applicant argued that they were therefore entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right.

The court held, with Chief Justice Das and Justices Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha, and S. K. Das concurring and Justice Venkatarama Ayyar dissenting, that the applicant’s contention was well-founded. 

The court held that the right to appeal was a significant right that could be utilized only in situations where the verdict was unfavourable. However, it stated that this right was subject to the laws applicable at the commencement of the legal action and included all subsequent appeals from one court to another, effectively forming a single proceeding. The court also held that such a right could be taken away only by a subsequent enactment either expressly or by necessary intendment.

The court cited the case of Colonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd. v. Irving (1905) A.C. 3697 and held that the vested right of appeal was a matter contemplated by Article 135 of the Constitution. The court ruled that Article 135 could not be limited to cases where the right of appeal had actually arisen in a concrete form and that the appeal was entertainable by the Supreme Court.

The court also held that Article 133 of the Constitution had no application to such cases. It was not intended to have a retrospective operation so as to take away this vested right, nor did it do so either in express terms or by necessary intendment. To summarize, the court ruled that the applicant had an inherent right to appeal to the Federal Court, and under Article 135 of the Constitution, he had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court also held that Article 133 of the Constitution did not apply to such cases. Furthermore, the appellant’s vested right of appeal acquired under the old law fell under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Appellant’s Argument: Acquisition of Vested Right to Appeal to the Federal Court

The appellant in this case argued that he had a vested right to appeal to the Federal Court from the time he filed the suit on April 22, 1949. He contended that the Indian Independence Act of 1947 expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to allow it to hear appeals that previously went to the Privy Council. 

As per the Act, starting from the appointed day, i.e., February 1, 1948, any decision falling under the purview of the Act could be appealed to the Federal Court. The appellant argued that he was entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court as of right under Article 135 of the Constitution, and Article 133 of the Constitution did not apply to cases like his.

Respondent’s Argument: Inapplicability of Article 135 and Refusal of Special Leave

The respondent argued that the appellant’s reliance on Article 135 of the Constitution was misplaced, as Article 133 was the relevant provision. They claimed that there was no vested right to appeal to the Federal Court immediately before the Constitution came into effect, and therefore, Article 133 applied. The respondent contended that since the jurisdiction to hear appeals to the Federal Court ceased to exist, the appellant had no right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, they maintained that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed.

Issues before the Court

  • Should the petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution8 be granted or not, in relation to the judgment and decree dated March 4, 1955, of the Andhra High Court?

In this particular case, the main issue revolved around the petitioner’s entitlement to appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner claimed that he had a vested right to appeal to the Federal Court, which was replaced by the Supreme Court. This right, according to the petitioner, was acquired at the time of the suit’s institution, which occurred before the Constitution came into force. In contrast, the respondent argued that the case fell under the jurisdiction of Article 133 of the Constitution, and there was no vested right to appeal to the Federal Court. As per the respondent’s argument, the petitioner had no right to appeal since the Constitution had extinguished this right.

Therefore, the court was required to determine whether the petitioner had a valid claim to appeal under the previous law and whether Article 135 or Article 133 of the Constitution was applicable to the case. Ultimately, the correct interpretation of these articles was key to the final decision, and whether the petitioner’s right to appeal had been preserved despite the constitutional changes.

Decision of the Court

After considering the opinions of several courts, the final decision was reached in this case. The majority of the courts agreed that the appellant should be granted Special Leave to Appeal to the Court on usual terms. In its judgment, the Court clarified the interpretation of Article 133 and stated that it applies to all appeals against judgments, decrees, and final orders of the High Courts in India, regardless of whether the proceedings were initiated before or after the Constitution’s commencement in civil proceedings.

The Court’s decision provides a clear and consistent legal framework for all appeals against the High Courts’ judgments. This interpretation ensures that all appeals are treated uniformly, irrespective of the time the proceedings were instituted. It also provides clarity to litigants seeking to appeal a decision, as they can now have a clear understanding of the legal provisions applicable to their case.

The Court’s ruling is an essential milestone in Indian legal history, as it resolves the ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of Article 133 and provides much-needed clarity on the scope of appeals against the High Court’s decisions. This decision will have far-reaching implications for future cases, as it provides a standard framework for interpreting and applying Article 133 in all cases involving appeals against the High Court’s decisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya v N. Subbiah Choudhury, handed down in 1957, is a significant milestone in the legal history of India. This ruling provided valuable insights into the interpretation of Article 133 of the Indian Constitution, which applies to all appeals against judgments, decrees, and final orders of the High Courts in India, irrespective of when the proceedings were initiated in civil cases. As a result, this case established a uniform and unambiguous legal framework, ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all litigants.

The Garikapatti Veeraya case underscores the importance of having a clear and consistent legal system that provides clarity and consistency in the interpretation and application of the law. This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for future cases, emphasizing the need for uniformity and consistency in legal rulings. The Court’s decision, in this case, serves as a guiding light for Indian courts and legal practitioners, helping to establish a clear and uniform legal framework for the entire nation. Overall, the Garikapatti Veeraya case is a crucial milestone in India’s legal history, representing a significant step forward in ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all litigants.


Endnotes:

  1. INDIA CONST. art. 133.
  2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 109.
  3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 100.
  4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 2(2).
  5. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 2(14).
  6. INDIA CONST. art 135.
  7. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, (1905) A.C. 369.
  8. INDIA CONST. art. 136.

This case is analysed by Sohini Chakraborty, a first-year law student at RGNUL Patiala.

The Directorate of Legal Affairs, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs is entrusted with defending all indirect taxes matters (Customs, Central Excise, Service Tax and GST) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Directorate hereby invites applications for internships for the FY 2023-24.

Eligibility

(i) Law students who are pursuing a 3-year LLB course/5-year integrated LLB course.
(ii) Law graduates who have completed a 3-year LLB course/5-year integrated LLB course for not more than two years.

Students who have appeared in the final year/ semester examination on the cutoff date are eligible to apply in the Law graduate category. Such candidates, applying as having appeared in the final year/ semester examination, will have to
show proof of having passed the LLB course at the time of joining.

Scope of internship

The internship shall take place in Delhi. The interns are expected to study case files, assist in legal research and drafting of petitions, brief the counsels and extend any other related legal/general assistance to officers/counsels. The interns may also accompany the departmental officers to the briefing meetings if needed. The interns will be deployed in different sections of the legal establishment in CBIC.

Number of Positions

A maximum of ten law students and ten law graduates (a total of twenty) will be taken at a time for an internship. The internship is likely to commence on 01.07.2023.

Tenure

  • Law students shall be taken as interns for one to two months. The period of internship may be increased to the maximum total period of three months by the Principal Commissioner, Directorate of Legal Affairs on mutual
    agreement.
  • Law graduates shall be taken as interns for up to six months. The period of internship may be increased to the maximum total period of one year by the Principal Commissioner, Directorate of Legal Affairs on mutual
    agreement.

Stipend

  • The student interns will receive a stipend of Rs. 5,000/- per month for satisfactory conduct of the internship.
  • The graduate interns will receive a stipend of Rs. 15,000/- per month for satisfactory conduct of the internship.

Application Process

Eligible & willing candidates may furnish their application in the attached form by emailing to dlasmc-cbic@gov.in by 19.05.2023. Selected candidates shall be informed by email. No further communication shall be made with the rest of
the candidates.

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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