Author: LEXPEEPS editor

Office of HMJ Anish Dayal, High Court of Delhi is inviting applications for the position of law researcher/law clerk commencing from May, 2023.

Eligibility

Applicants must be enrolled with the Bar Council. Prior litigation/research experience is preferred although not mandatory.

Deadline

29.04.23 by 11:59 PM

Application Procedure

Interested applicants must email their CV along with a cover letter to hmjad.applications@gmail.com with the subject “Application for Clerkship – May 2023” no later than 11.59 P.M., 29.04.2023.

NOTE:

1. Please note that the appointment shall be subject to an assessment internship.
2. This position is only intended for graduates and is unsuitable for students in their final year of law school.

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 Organization

White and Brief Advocates and Solicitors is a full-service law firm, headquartered in the heart of the commercial hub of Mumbai. The Firm has rapidly and successfully grown multi-fold since its inception and is one of the emerging legal advisory firms of the country.

Job Position

Associate/Article Assistant for Indirect Tax Advisory

Required Skills/Experience

For Associate:

• 0-3 Years PQE (CA/LLB) experience in Indirect Tax with strong technical knowledge of GST, Customs, other Indirect Tax and Allied Laws.
• Advance working experience of MS Office Suite with excellent communication skills (written and spoken English)

For Article Assistant:

• A candidate who possesses a degree in law or a related field with excellent writing skills and the ability to conduct legal research.
• Candidate should have a strong understanding of legal terminology and possess excellent attention to detail.
• Previous experience in legal writing and journalism is preferred but not required.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates are kindly requested to submit their CVs at hr@whiteandbrief.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.

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

‘PSS Legal’ is recruiting Lawyers specialising and practising in ‘Corporate Transactions’.

Job Description

Legal Due Diligence, Mergers, Acquisitions, Joint Ventures, Structuring, Restructuring, Capital Markets and Securities, Commercial Contracts and advising on all regulatory matters related to transactions.

Requirements

• Law Degree from a registered University and enrolment with a State Bar Council.
• Three to fifteen years of post-qualification experience in legal practice.
• An in-depth understanding of corporate law and corporate transactions.
• Excellent negotiation, communication and interpersonal skills.
• Ability to work independently as well as collaboratively.
• Candidates who meet the above requirements and who are pursuing or have a CS qualification are preferred.

Application Procedure

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.

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 Organization

INTTL ADVOCARE was established in 1991 by Hemant Singh, Managing and Founder Partner, as well as a leading IPR lawyer based at New Delhi with a branch office at Mumbai. Hemant Singh has handled over 2000 IP litigation cases on various subjects such as trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, patents etc. The firm has been involved in several landmark judgments delivered by Indian Courts in the IP field.

Team

 IP Litigation and IP Prosecution team.

Experience

3+ Years

Desired Qualification

• Should have prior experience in handling matters in Court
• Should have good drafting skills
• Should have excellent research and communication skills
• Should have strong knowledge of IP Laws

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may share their CV at hr@inttleadvocate.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.

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 Organization

Khurana & Khurana (K&K) is a full-service Intellectual Property, Tax, Media-Entertainment, and Commercial/Corporate Law firm giving high-end technology backed Corporate/Commercial Law, Tax, and IP Prosecution/Litigation Support, and represents over 30000 Indian and Global Corporates ranging from Fortune 500 Corporates to SMEs to Start-ups. K&K is among the youngest Indian Firms to have been ranked and recommended by Legal 500, IAM, MIP, Chambers & Partners, Asia IP, Corp-INTL, and Acquisition-INTL, and is a niche law firm with over 220 Professionals that was started by Attorneys having extensive corporate experience in handling IP and Commercial Law issues. 

Location

Chennai and Hyderabad

PQE

Minimum 4-6 years, having Core Focus on Arguing all types of Civil Litigation Matters across tribunals and Dist/High Courts, preferably with IP Litigation matters.

Requirements

• The Attorney should be willing to work independently and, apart from engaging on current matters of the firm, focus extensively on helping grow the firm’s Litigation Practice in the region by undertaking business development/network and allied mandates.
• The colleague would be responsible for independently and comprehensively handling all the Chennai oriented Litigation of the firms’ practice across High Courts and Tribunals such as NCLT, NGT, NCDRC, NBA, among others including making core arguments before different benches are concerned along with reviewing drafts prepared by Associates/Sr. Associates.
• The colleague should be comfortable working from the Chennai Office of K&K with a core focus on growing the Litigation Practice.
• Should have a thorough practical knowledge of CPC and procedural issues pertaining to various forums and tribunals.
• Should have strong verbal and written communication skills, should be willing to work independently as well as in a team.
• Should not have any ego/hangover of a previous job/position. Should be willing and open in participating in business development mandates.

Application Procedure

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.

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 Organization

Established in 1897, the Godrej Group has its roots in India’s Swadeshi movement. Our founder, Ardeshir Godrej, lawyer-turned-serial entrepreneur failed with a few businesses, before he struck gold with the locks business that you know today. One of India’s most trusted brands, with revenues of USD 4.1 billion, Godrej enjoys the patronage of over 750 million Indians across our consumer goods, real estate, appliances, agri and many other businesses. You think of Godrej as such an integral part of India that you may be surprised to know that over 25 per cent of our business is done overseas.

Job Position

General Manager- Litigation

Responsibilities

• Managing litigations and disputes proceedings
• Coordinating with and instructing legal counsels ▪ Providing strategic legal advice including in relation to litigations matters
• Drafting, negotiating and reviewing international and domestic agreements
• Providing legal support to businesses on a wide range of legal, business and contractual interpretation issues
• Providing legal support for interactions with government, industry bodies and other external stakeholders
• Keeping abreast and updating stakeholders of legal developments, in particular new legal and regulatory requirements and compliance risks that arise
• Providing legal support and proactively improving Godrej’s processes and legal productivity, through simplification, digitization, standardization, model contract clauses and contracting toolkits.
• Facilitating knowledge management.

Qualification and Experience

• LL.B. from an accredited law school
• At least 10 years experience in related areas of law
• Experience with a reputed law firm or an in house legal department of a large organization.

Requirements

• Significant experience in :

➢ litigation and disputes management including contractual disputes, consumer complaints, vendor/customer disputes, Labour and employment disputes, at different forums (SC, HCs, Tribunals etc.)

➢ contract drafting and negotiations, including procurement/supply / services contracts, infrastructure contracts, software and other licensing contracts, conveyancing, leave and license agreements, distributor agreements etc.

• Ability to advise on day to day operational, business and strategic issues
• Superior advocacy skills, ability to effectively communicate and interface with all levels of the organization, aptitude for practical negotiation, capability to think clearly and quickly under pressure
• Excellent analytical and drafting skills, strong commercial acumen, strong desire to learn and time sensitivity
• Fluency (oral/written) in English
• A strong commitment to integrity and professionalism
• A work history that affirmatively demonstrates leadership and ability to persuade and push others to deliver
• Good to have but not a must: Dealing with FMCG or manufacturing industry.

Application Procedure

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.

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 Nehha Mishra

In the case of DILIP KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA, the court said that the “petitioner may be unfit to perform the duty for the post he was appointed but certainly, punishment of “removal from service” inflicted upon him is too harsh.”

FACTS

The petitioner joined the Indo-Tibetan Police Force (ITBP) in 1993 as a Sub-Inspector and was later elevated to Subedar Major and Assistant Commandant (Group A)/General Diary Duty in 2008.

According to the Shape system of annual medical examination, the petitioner claims to be in Shape -1 absolute medical fitness through 2014. He was sent to Cuttack, Orissa for 28 days under Shape-2 after the petitioner’s wife made a complaint saying that he was an alcoholic.The petitioner was then transported to Base Hospital Tigadi in New Delhi, where, by the opinion, he was determined to be in Shape-1 medically fit. But once more, in their opinion from June 25, 2013, the respondents put the petitioner in Shape 3 for a period of six months.

Petitioner preferred representations in opposition to the opinion from June 25, 2013, but those were not responded to. Six months passed, and the petitioner had been deemed fit for Shape-1. The petitioner claims to have been in an accident and off work for 256 days, which the respondents approved of before allowing him to resume his job. Although the petitioner had not disclosed his medical condition, the 256 days were treated as unpaid leave for not doing any duties.

Petitioner was Shape 1 on January 4, 2014, but changed to Shape 2 again on August 6, 2015, and again on July 20, 2016. On April 11, 2017, it was suggested that he be placed under Shape-5 and removed from service. At another facility, the petitioner underwent a self-examination and was given the all-clear. 

The petitioner claims that despite repeated requests, he was not granted leaves. On 03.07.2017, just as he was about to leave for his hometown, he was informed that his Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) was scheduled in the 9th battalion and instructed to report there. When the petitioner arrived there, he was informed that there was no order for the formation of the IMB; as a result, he returned and reported to his 10th battalion. 

After that, the petitioner was under the doctor’s care, when he was deemed fit, but in the medical report, he was once more placed in the Shape-5 category. On the petitioner’s request, he was sent for a second test, during which time he was determined to be qualified to carry out his duties. But by instructions provided by the MHA, the defendants held the petitioner under observation in Shape-5 and forwarded him to IMB. The Medical Board recommended that the petitioner be terminated from ITBP services.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

When removing the petitioner from his position, the respondents, according to the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney, failed to consider the provisions of Rule 23 of the ITBP Rules, 1994, which state that the officer or board issuing such an order must believe the incumbent is physically unfit, even though it is clear from Dr. Bhatnagar’s report that the petitioner was healthy on the day of his examination.

The seasoned attorney further argued that the MHA guidelines, do not state that anyone who is in Shape-5 must be terminated from employment. The Board considered the period from 2013 to 2016, which includes the 122 days that he was absent from work due to an accident rather than ADS. Since 2013, no complaint has been filed against the petitioner. The relevant fact is that neither of the doctors mentioned above determined that the petitioner had ADS and that he was therefore fit to carry out his obligations. It was argued that the respondent’sactions were malicious, and as a result, they should be disregarded.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The petitioner was discovered to be intoxicated and was sent for a medical examination, first to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bhubaneshwar where he was kept in a Low Medical Category; next, he was referred to a Referral Hospital, ITBP for the opinion of a psychiatrist who opined it a case of “Mental and behavioral disorder due to use of alcohol, Harmful use,” according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

Further claimed that the petitioner was assessed by a psychiatrist before being submitted to the IMB. The psychiatrist concluded that the petitioner had been given more than three years to improve and stop drinking, but he had failed and was held under Shape 5. He was then taken before the IMB, which, after considering the specialists’ opinion, advised that the petitioner board out on 06.12.2017.

JUDGEMENT

According to MHA guidelines dated 31.07.2007, para.235(f)(vi), the Controlling Authority is required to watch for any signs of relapse, but in the present case, we do not find any mention of a relapse of ADS in the petitioner. Instead, various reports from different doctors and psychiatrists at various points noted that the petitioner was in a normal, stable state of health.

The court ordered the respondents to have the petitioner examined to determine whether or not he is currently experiencing ADS. As a result, a Medical Board was established, and the petitioner had a physical examination at the Base Hospital in Delhi Cantt by Dr. Virendra Vikram Singh.

According to Dr. Virendra Vikram Singh, a prolonged full remission of the petitioner cannot be predicted with absolute confidence in light of the petitioner’s elevated AST/LFT and sickness, which has the potential for lapse and return. It is widely accepted that it is unfair to intervene in situations involving the Medical Board’s opinion while seated in an appellate or writ jurisdiction, particularly if the opinion is provided by subject-matter experts.

The petitioner may not be qualified to carry out the duties of the position to which he was assigned, but this Court believes that the punishment of “removal from service” meted out to him is excessive. This Court determines that if the petitioner received a lighter sentence, the interests of justice would be served.

As a result, the challenged orders from the respondents, dated 13.04.2021 and 05.05.2020, are hereby reversed. The petitioner will be regarded as having “compulsorily retired from service” and will be eligible for pensionary and other benefits as of the date he was let go from his position. The respondents have four weeks to issue the required orders and provide the necessary benefits.

The present petition is disposed of as a result of the instructions.

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

-Report by Sejal Jethva

ZAFAR BADYARI VS. SANDEEP SINGH, in this matter, the appellant/defendant seeks to challenge the decision made by the learned, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, according to Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC.

FACTS

The respondent/plaintiff had brought the underlying lawsuit, CS No.461/2021, following Order 37 CPC, to collect possession, licence fees, and damages of Rs.13,30,000. It was said in the lawsuit that the suit property, a shop on the ground level (apart from the mezzanine floor), had been licenced to the appellant for 11 months at a rate of Rs. 1,33,000 per month, minus additional costs. The dishonoured checks that the appellant had given to the respondent to cover the arrears were the basis for the lawsuit. The contested order states that on September 17, 2021, the appellant received summonses in the suit and was deemed to have been served. Due to the appellant’s refusal to present and/or submit a leave to defend under Rules 3 and 5 of Order 37 CPC, respectively, the trial court issued the ex-parte decree by using Rule 6 of Order 37. A finding of respondent serving of process had been made by the Trial Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Rather than using Order 37 Rule 4 as provided for in the CPC, an application was submitted for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. The impugned order makes it clear that the trial court did not suffer any harm as a result of this misunderstanding and treated the case exactly as if it had been submitted in accordance with Order 37 Rule 4 and made identical decisions as such. The appellant did not establish “exceptional circumstances,” as the trial court noted in the impugned ruling, and this suggests that the trial court decided the application in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 37 and not Order 9 and Rule 13.

The appellant attempted to make arguments regarding the case’s merits, but given that the maintainability of the case has been questioned, this Court will first address the maintainability problem because the merits of the case are not currently a factor that should be taken into account. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to cite any CPC provisions under which the appeal would fall, but he argued that because the two provisions, which essentially deal with the court’s ability to overturn an ex-parte decree, are similar, the appeal may be deemed to be maintainable against the Order 37 Rule 4 order because it is maintainable against an Order 9 Rule 13 order.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent’s knowledgeable attorney, Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, raised a preliminary challenge to the appeal’s maintainability. He claimed that because the contested ruling was issued in accordance with Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, it is not subject to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. In order to speed up the resolution of commercial lawsuits, Order 37 CPC relates to the summary trial method. After being served, a defendant is obligated under sub-rule 2 to appear in court; otherwise, the averments in the plaint are deemed conceded, and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Within ten days of receiving the summons, the defendant must appear in court and submit a memo of appearance. The plaintiff must serve the defendant with a summons for judgment upon the defendant’s attendance, and the defendant must submit an application for leave to defend the action within ten days of receiving the summons. The Court then decides whether to grant unconditional leave to defend, conditional leave to defend with the conditions it may deem appropriate, or dismiss the leave to defend and pronounce the lawsuit. 

2. A challenge to the order issued in accordance with CPC Order 37 Rule 4 is not admissible under Order 43 Rule 1. As a result, the appeal is denied and the respondent’s initial objection is upheld. The appellant is free to look for a legal remedy if one is available. It is made clear that this Court has not addressed the arguments made by either party about the case’s merits.

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

-Report by Nehha Mishra

In the case of DELMA LUBNA COELHO VS EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES, the petitioner filed the petition seeking the transfer of the pending case before the family judge at Mangaluru, Karnataka to the family court at Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

FACTS

The couple met on Facebook in December 2019 and married on December 5, 2020, according to Christian rites and customs at Our Lady of Miracles Church in Mangaluru. Following the marriage, the petitioner lived with the respondent in her matrimonial house in Mangaluru, where she was abused, insulted, and humiliated by the respondent and his family members.

She was accused of everything, and foul language was used against her. Under the guise of providing her with a 10-­15­day break, the respondent booked a one-way ticket for the petitioner and despatched her to Mumbai on January 15, 2021.

After COVID­19 Pandemic limitations were lifted on July 5, 2021, the petitioner returned to Mangaluru. The defendant and his family members, however, refused her admission into her matrimonial house. She was completely distraught. She went to the Pandeshwar Police Station in Mangaluru and filed a complaint. 

The Superintendent of Police intervened and summoned the respondent to the Police Station. The respondent replied that he has already served a divorce notice and that his divorce petition is being prepared.  Despite the petitioner’s repeated appeals, the respondent did not change his behaviour. On 06.08.2021, she responded to the legal notice, claiming that she is ready and eager to come to her matrimonial home and want to live a happily married life. On October 10, 2021, she received a summons from the Court, along with a copy of the divorce petition filed in the Mangaluru Family Court. 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The petitioner’s learned counsel stated that she lives in Mumbai with her elderly parents. No one at her home can accompany her from Mumbai to Mangaluru to defend the petition, which is over 1,000 km away. She doesn’t even know the Kannada language.  The respondent, on the other hand, will experience no difficulties if the petition is relocated to Mumbai (Maharashtra).

The petitioner claims that if given the chance, she would try to rework the marriage. The petitioner was obliged to obtain a job with a bank because the respondent failed to financially support her. If she routinely travels to Mangaluru to attend the proceedings, she risks losing her job as a newbie. She will be unable to bear the additional expenditure.

The petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of marital rights in response to the respondent’s Divorce Petition. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

On the other hand, experienced counsel for the respondent contended that, even though the parties met on social media, one year before their marriage, she had visited Mangaluru after the COVID19 Pandemic/restrictions were removed and they met often.  

She was well aware of the respondent’s familial background as well as the condition of his family. The petitioner’s behaviour was not the same after the marriage as it was before the marriage.

The petitioner, a permanent resident of Canada, was accustomed to such a way of life. The marriage was just intended to ruin the respondent’s life, even though she first claimed to love Indian culture and traditions. Though it is claimed that the respondent forced the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home, the petitioner chose to leave on her own.   She applied for a job with ICICI Bank immediately after arriving in Mumbai and resigned from the organizationon February 19, 2021, where she was working with the respondent.

The marriage was irretrievably broken since the parties could not reconcile despite several mediations. Without the parties’ consent, this Court may issue divorce under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

In marriage disputes, several Transfer Petitions are filed, typically by wives requesting transfer of the matrimonial procedures launched by the husband. Normally, the court accepts the prayer given while being lenient towards ladies.

Given the status of the parties and the fact that it is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of the husband’s case from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra, we believe no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra.  The wife is a Canadian permanent resident. She must travel abroad frequently.

She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the case hearing and can also request an exemption from the appearance when necessary. Despite this, we do not believe that there is a basis for ordering the respondent to reimburse the petitioner’s travel expenses to Mangaluru based on the financial circumstances of the parties as they currently stand. However, if she wishes to seek compensation for expenses, she may do so by applying with the appropriate court, which will be considered on its own merits. 

We do not believe this is a suitable case for exercising power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, despite the parties’ good faith. The judgments relied on by the respondent’s learned counsel are distinguishable, as in those cases, there was adequate evidence on file, and the cause on which the marriage was dissolved in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

We do not believe the current petition has substance for the reasons stated above.  As a result, the same is dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ak0sR6

About the Organization

A full-service law firm based out of Kolkata, founded in 1993 by Mr. Paritosh Sinha (the Advocate-on -Record for the State of West Bengal).

Eligibility

5th Year Student, Fresher

Requirements

• Can dedicate full-time working hours
• Interest in Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Code.
• This will be a physical internship (no online mode of working allowed)

Application Procedure

Apply to career@sinhaco.com with the subject ” Long term Internship application for Arbitration Department “

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