AAA Legal is a law firm with an illustrative legacy of 14 years of practice and advisory. Areas of practice include, Arbitration, Competition laws, Data protection, and Employment and labour laws among others.
Availability of slots
Two (2) slots
Mode
Physical internship
Internship Duration
May 2023.
Location
South Delhi
Application Procedure
Email your CV to contact@aaalegal.pro (The subject of email should read ‘Physical internship in May 2023’).
NOTE: Selected learners will receive an email confirmation by this weekend.
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.
Delhi High Court in the case of LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER Vs SANTOSH & ORS. on April 18 passed an ex parte decision imposing a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiff’s trademark for manufacturing and selling goods and granted other temporary reliefs.
FACTS:
The plaintiff company Louis Vuitton Malletier was set up in France and is a Frenchluxury fashion and leather goods company owning the brand named Louis Vuitton. In 2003, it established its first store in India and currently, there are three stores of the plaintiff in India. It uses its trademark ‘LV’ from the initials of the name of its owner Louis Vuitton. The plaintiff has been using its canvas designs since 1986 popularly known as ‘ Toile monogram’. The plaintiff has also registered its trademarks, ‘the LV’, ‘the Toile monogram pattern’, ‘the Damier pattern’, and ‘theLV flower pattern’. Their ‘LV’ trademark has also been included in the list of ‘well-known trademarks’ by the Indian Trademark Office.
Through the periodical market surveys in 2018, theplaintiff came to know about the selling and manufacturing of goods under histrademark by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff appointed an investigator toascertain the activities of the defendant and the same was confirmed by theinvestigator. Accordingly, the suit was filed in the court for granting a permanentinjunction to restrain the defendant.
While keeping in view the irreversible damages that canbe caused to the plaintiff, the court on 23rd February 2018 granted an interiminjunction against the defendant until the delivery of the final order. Hence, thedefendant was temporarily restrained from using the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. Also, three local commissions were set up to seize the manufactured products by the defendant under the trademarks of the plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
1) The assertions made by the plaintiff had not been rebutted and therefore, it was established that the defendant was aware of his illegal acts.
2) He had proved his goodwill and his reputation in respect of the trademarksby registration of the same.
3) He also succeeded in establishing statutory and common law rights as he was using his ‘LV’ trademark for a long time.
Since the defendant was not appearing in the court despite summons, theplaintiff pleaded for a permanent injunction.
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant did not appear in court despite the service of a summons andalso, no written statements were filed by him.
JUDGEMENT:
The court while referring to Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs . Satish Kumar held ‘since,thedefendanthasmaintainedsilence, therefore,theguiltofthedefendantspeaksfor itself’.Hence, it is evident that he’s aware of his illegal acts and has failed to contend the case on merits. Therefore, to avoid further irrevocable damages and to avoid deterioration of the plaintiff’s reputation, the court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant.
The defendants were ordered to provide compensation ofRs.5,00,000. to the plaintiff. As per the volume of seizure products, they were further liable to provide compensation of Rs.1,50,000 and the defendants engaged in manufacturing such products were made liable to compensateRs.3,50,000 in favour of the plaintiff. In total, Rs.9,59,413 was granted to the plaintiff which included fees of local commissions, court fees, and legal fees.
The recent judgment of ISOLATORS AND ISOLATORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. SANDHYA MISHRA V/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. & ANR.is concernedwith the debarring of the contractor in course of tender.
FACTS:
The appellant, a sole proprietorship company, has been in the transformer manufacturing and maintenance industry for the past 30 years. Its facility is located at Govind Pura, Bhopal. The appellant’s only clients are distribution businesses (Discoms). Two renders were issued by the respondent Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited. No response on rescheduling the delivery and due to extraordinary storm accompanied by heavy rains caused the roof of their plant to collapse. Half of the project is ready to be delivered and the same was asked to defer by the respondent. Chief General Manager has cancelled all the purchase orders and debarred the company for 3 years and also imposed a fine of 27,98,960. The aggrieved party approached the high court Also high court didn’t even consider the other part(penalty) of the review petition. Nevertheless, the High Court issued an order that was identical to the chief general manager’s order.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there has been a violation of natural justice and there was no reason specified by the respondent for debarring the appellant. TS-494, the appellant had supplied 300 out of 586 transformers and as regards TS-532, the appellant had supplied all 63 KVA transformers. It was unlawful to terminate the order for the delivery of the remaining transformers after a significant quantity of transformers had been provided against purchase. The respondent intentionally had not considered the heavy rainsresulting in damage to the plant and loss of raw material.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has not performed on the terms and conditions of the contract and debarring was done after the hearing opportunity given to the appellant. The order has been given in the exercise of the relevant clauses of the purchase order. The termination order had never been challenged by the appellant and the same has attained finality. The learned counsel, imposition of penalty has been consequential to the aforesaid order the same had been as per the terms and conditions of the rate/contract/purchase order.
JUDGEMENT:
The court has quashed and set aside in debarment of the appellant and imposition of penalty, no recovery shall be made from the appellant thereunder and if any amount has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the appellant within a month from today or else, it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of recovery and until the date of repayment.
The further court explained that:-
1) Imposing of penalty
A) the appellant was only made aware of the potential debarment in the show-cause notice, and nothing concerning the proposed imposition of penalty was included in the notice.
B) Without explaining why the maximum penalty was sought to be applied, the relevant body has gone ahead and levied the maximum fine of 10% of the deficit supply. The appellant’s list of pertinent considerations could not have been completely disregarded. The respondents have not provided a particular amount of loss in order to support the imposition of the maximum penalty.
Therefore, the lack of particular show-cause notice, the application of a penalty against the appellant cannot be allowed and it is to be set aside.
2) Debarring the appellant for 3 years
The respondent themselves postponed taking the balance of delivering further there has been no instructions, or communication provided by the respondent to resume the supply. The debarment judgment had been made against the appellant without taking into account the evident factual situation, in which the appellant could not have been solely blamed or held responsible.
Court has also referred to a case Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi) where it was ruled that a prior show-cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity to be heard is a crucial component of all administrative decision-making, especially when those decisions involve blacklisting and carry serious repercussions for the entity being blacklisted. In these situations, providing a legitimate show-cause notice is essential, and failing to do so would render any order of blacklisting based on said order null and void.
Therefore, debarring the appellant for 3 years is also set aside.❖ Both of the orders could only be disapproved because the High Court failed to approach the situation correctly, whether in deciding the writ case or the review petition.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday while referring to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, upheld that the question of whether the notice or demand for recovery was given within a reasonable length of time considering the case’s facts and circumstances should be considered by the pertinent official. Moreover, it is established law that jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable amount of time even if a time limit is not specified. If there exist nojustified reasons to condone the delay cause, then the relevant case becomes unreasonable in the court of law. Through the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pt. Ltd. v. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Ors., the court further iterated the fact that the definition of ‘reasonable time’ is sufficiently open-ended to take account of the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
FACTS
In the matter at hand, the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the IndianPartnership Act, 1932. The petitioner company was a contractual worker which was tasked with building residential flats by the Housing Board, Haryana (HBH) during July 2005 which had been completed thereafter. The Anti-Evasion branch of the Respondent organisation proceeded investigation as to why the petitioner company hadn’t paid taxes amounting toapproximately
2.15 crores in addition to not having registered with the Service Tax Department.Accordingly show cause notices and letters were issued to the petitioner from the respondent. After initial proceedings, the petitioner did not receive further communication from the respondent, and considered the case to be closed. But the respondent further asked the petitioner to submitshow cause as to the inability to pay taxes. The show cause notices and letters are being challenged in the present court by the petitioner on the grounds of exceeding the limitationperiod and the nature of the contracts between the petitioner company and its clients beingstatutory bodies in nature.
CONTENTIONS
Petitioner
The petitioner’s learned counsel has submitted before the High Court that the contractsprovided by the Housing Board of Haryana were composite in nature and were solely ‘workcontracts. Moreover, since the construction of the residential flats was made in the interest ofpublic good, alongside HBH, the petitioner company was merely aiding in a statutory activityand was hence not liable for service tax. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that theperiod of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, the present case had exceeded its capacity.
Respondent
Contrary to the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent’s learned counsel submits that therespondent no.1 had immediately placed the matter at hand in the ‘Call Book’ with theapproval of the commissioner, as had been prescribed by the norms of the CBEC Circulars.Additionally, the respondent also claims that the petitioner was not eligible to attain 67%value of the benefits from the taxable service since the supplies for these services were received by the Petitioner at zero cost from the HBH.
JUDGEMENT
Upon giving due regards to the facts and law in the above-mentioned case, the Hon’ble HighCourt finds it challenging to accept that the impugned show cause notice could not have been decided upon because the Supreme Court was still debating the controversy it involved as regards to the matter of M/s Sobha Developers Ltd. when it came to the concept of ‘CallBooks.’ Even if the concept of such books was assumed to be true, it was still quintessentialfor the respondents to have maintained communication with the petitioner company which itwas unable to do. Moreover, there is no excuse for delaying the decision on the notice formore than fifteen years after the show cause notice and letters were issued. The respondents were directed to restrain from taking any actions regarding the same and the petition was allowed, disposing of all other pending applications.
We all vision our Nation to be at the top of its zenith, be it economically, culturally, socially or politically. But the obstacles we face aren’t just limited to poverty or corruption or mere resolves. The major issue we face every day is fighting the restricted and orthodox mentalities of people. While it’s the common man/woman who helps the Nation progress, it’s they who pull it back with the burden of their thoughts.
While we could flaunt discussing the legality of Same Sex Marriages in India, and say that the taboo of Inter Religion Marriage has been totally eliminated, the case on the ground isn’t that simple.
Inter-religion marriage is a union between two individuals belonging to different religious communities. In India, inter-religion marriage is a socially and culturally sensitive topic, especially when it involves Hindu and non-Hindu communities. The complexity of this issue arises from the fact that India is a country of diverse cultures, languages, religions, and social customs. The practice of inter-religion marriage is often met with social and familial opposition and can even result in legal complications. India is home to many religions, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Each religion has its own set of beliefs, customs, and practices, which can influence inter-religion marriages.
The issue of inter-religion marriage has been the subject of debate in India for several years. While some argue that inter-religion marriage can promote social harmony and unity, others view it as a threat to cultural and religious identities. The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the right of individuals to marry the person of their choice, irrespective of religion or caste.
In India, inter-religion marriage is governed by different personal laws that vary according to the religion of the parties involved. For instance, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, governs Hindu marriages, while the Special Marriage Act 1954[1], governs marriages between individuals of different religions. The Muslim Personal Law governs marriages in the Muslim community. Further, light is thrown on the Societal issues and taboos related to Inter Religion Marriage, briefly explains all the provisions under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, talks about how Inter Religion Marriages are governed under this law and finally a conclusion with some recent judgements and the Author’s views related to the Topic
Stigmas Related to Inter Religion Marriages in India
Inter-religion marriages in India are still considered taboo in many parts of the country. While the issues are prevalent in different spheres of society, all the possible efforts to culminate it have been effective, but not as effective as expected. The situation can be summarized in the following points which put up a clearer perspective of the antagonistic situation[2]:
Social stigma: In India, inter-religion marriages are often frowned upon, and couples can face social stigma and discrimination from their families, communities, and even the society at large.
Legal hurdles: While inter-religion marriages are legal in India, couples often face legal hurdles when it comes to obtaining marriage registration and other legal documents. This can be especially challenging when one partner belongs to a minority religion.
Religious barriers: Some religious communities in India do not permit inter-religion marriages, and couples who belong to these communities can face significant opposition from their families and religious leaders.
Family pressure: In many cases, families put immense pressure on their children to marry within their own religion, which can cause significant stress and strain on the couple’s relationship.
Violence and threats: In extreme cases, inter-religion couples can face violence and threats from their families and communities, which can make it difficult for them to live together in peace and safety.
Lack of acceptance: Despite the legal recognition of inter-religion marriages, many people in India still do not accept such unions as legitimate, which can make it difficult for couples to live and work in certain communities.
Need for social change: Given the challenges faced by inter-religion couples in India, there is a need for greater social acceptance and support for such unions. This requires a change in attitudes and beliefs about marriage and religion, as well as greater legal protection and support for inter-religion couples
Introduction to Special Marriage Act, 1954 and its Basic Outline
The Special Marriage Act 1954 is a legal framework that provides for the solemnization of marriages between individuals of different religions, castes, and nationalities. It is designed to allow for civil marriages and to create a legal mechanism to register such marriages. It provides legal recognition to civil marriages and protects couples from social stigma and discrimination. The Act has been instrumental in promoting secularism and unity in diversity in India. The Act is applicable to the whole of India, except for the state of Jammu and Kashmir[3]. Some of the Key Provisions of the Act which are evident in the Daily Court Procedures are: –
Applicability: The Special Marriage Act is applicable to any Indian citizen who wishes to solemnize a marriage regardless of their religion, caste, or creed. It applies to any person who is a resident of India or domiciled in the country, as well as to those who are outside India and intend to marry in the country.
Notice of Intended Marriage: The Act mandates that both parties intending to marry under this Act must give notice of their intention to do so. The notice must be given in writing to the Marriage Officer of the district where at least one of the parties resides.
Objections to the Marriage: Once the notice of intended marriage is given, the Marriage Officer must display it in a prominent place in the office for thirty days. If no objections are raised during this time, the marriage can be solemnized. However, if objections are raised, the Marriage Officer must conduct an inquiry to determine whether the objections are valid or not.
Solemnization of Marriage: Once the Marriage Officer is satisfied that there are no objections to the intended marriage, the marriage can be solemnized in the presence of three witnesses, including the Marriage Officer. The ceremony must conform to the provisions of the Act and can be performed by a registered Marriage Officer, a Registrar of Marriages, or any person authorized by the government to do so.
Registration of Marriage: After the marriage is solemnized, the Marriage Officer must enter a certificate of marriage in the Marriage Register. The certificate must be signed by the parties to the marriage, the witnesses, and the Marriage Officer. The certificate is conclusive proof of the marriage, and a certified copy can be obtained from the Marriage Officer upon request.
Dissolution of Marriage: The Special Marriage Act also provides for the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent or on grounds of adultery, cruelty, desertion, or conversion to another religion. The procedure for obtaining a divorce under the Act is similar to that of obtaining a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955.
Miscellaneous Provisions: The Act also contains provisions relating to maintenance, custody of children, and the rights of children born out of wedlock. It also provides for the registration of marriages performed outside India under this Act.
Inter Religion Marriages under Special Marriage Act 1954
In India, inter-religion marriage can be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act 1954. The Act provides for the registration of marriages between persons of different religions, castes, or creeds. Here are the legal sections and conditions for inter-religion marriage under the Special Marriage Act 1954:
Eligibility: Any two individuals who are of marriageable age (21 years for the groom and 18 years for the bride) can marry under the Special Marriage Act, irrespective of their religion, caste, or creed. The conditions laid down for the eligibility have been mentioned by Section 4[4] of the Special Marriage Act 1954, for it also says that they must not be within the degree of a prohibited relationship, and they must not have a living spouse at the time of the marriage.
Notice of Intended Marriage: The first step is to give a notice of intended marriage to the Marriage Registrar of the district in which at least one of the parties has resided for a minimum of 30 days prior to giving the notice. Section 5 [5] of the Special Marriage Act is responsible for this clause of the law.
Objections: After the notice is published, any person may file an objection to the marriage if they have a valid reason for doing so. According to Section 7[6] of the Special Marriage Act 1954, Any person may object to the intended marriage within 30 days of the publication of the notice by filing an objection in writing to the Marriage Officer. The Marriage Officer is required to investigate the objection and decide on the validity of the objection.
Waiting Period: After the notice is published and there are no objections, a waiting period of 30 days is mandatory before the marriage can be solemnized. Based upon Section 6[7] of the Special Marriage Act 1954, Upon receipt of the notice of intended marriage, the Marriage Officer is required to display the notice at a conspicuous place in his office and issue a copy of the notice to the parties involved.
Declaration: Both parties must sign a declaration stating that they are not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of the relationship as specified in the Act.
Solemnization: The marriage can be solemnized in the presence of a Marriage Officer and two witnesses. The Marriage Officer will register the marriage and issue a certificate of marriage. Section 12[8] of the Special Marriage Act lays down the conditions for the Solemnisation and Registration of the marriages, which are either inter-religious or inter-caste.
Registration: The marriage must be registered within 90 days of the solemnization, failing which the registration may be done only with the permission of the Marriage Officer and on payment of a penalty.
It is important to note that the Special Marriage Act 1954 does not allow for any religious ceremony or rites during the solemnization of the marriage. The marriage is considered a civil contract and is governed by the provisions of the Act.
Recent Judgement Related to Inter Religion Marriages
Recently, the Supreme Court turned down a public interest lawsuit recently that contested elements of the Special Marriage Act that require posting interfaith spouses’ personal information ahead of their wedding.
According to Sections 6[9] and 7[10] of the law, couples have 30 days before their wedding to invite or consider objections by posting a public notice in a visible place or on the notice board in the marriage officer’s office. Their names, phone numbers, dates of birth, ages, occupations, addresses, and identifying information are all included in the notice’s details.[11]
The appeal against these two Act clauses, as well as the portions allowing anybody to object to the marriage and the marriage officer’s ability to inquire into a couple’s past, was rejected by a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi. According to the petitioner’s attorney, his client wed a guy of a different religion in accordance with the Special Marriage Act. The bench answered, “It ceases to be a PIL if it is your personal cause.
The Act had begun to take force in 1954, the court also found, citing Bar and Bench. It asked the attorney, “Where’s your cause of action?” as it rejected the PIL.
Case Laws Pertaining to Significant Inter Religion Marriage Judgements
Smt. Lata Singh v. State of UP[12]: This case marks the Supreme Court announced that a person has the right to choose their life partner and that inter-caste and inter-religion marriages should be encouraged. The court also directed the police to provide protection to couples who marry against the wishes of their parents.
Salamat Ansari v. State of UP[13]: Being a legendary case in the history of Family Laws in India, the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case said that an inter-religious marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act is valid and that the consent of parents or guardians is not required.
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana[14]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the choice of an adult to marry a person of their choice is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and that interference by family members or society in such marriages is illegal.
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa[15]: As per the Supreme Court, the Special Marriage Act allows parties to register their marriage without any religious ceremonies, and parties to an inter-religious marriage can choose to follow the customs and traditions of their respective religions.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India[16]: For all those who are well-versed in the case laws of India, they would understand the significance of this specific case. Supreme Court in this Judgement held that a person cannot convert to another religion just for the purpose of marrying a person belonging to that religion and that such conversions are illegal and void. The court also directed the government to enact a law to prevent such conversions
Conclusion to the Unfathomable Taboo of Inter Religion Marriage
Inter-religion marriage has been taboo in India for a long time, and it has been the subject of political and social debate for many years. The laws related to inter-religion marriage have evolved over time to address this issue and provide legal protection to couples who wish to marry outside their religion or caste.
The Special Marriage Act 1954, provides a legal framework for inter-religion and inter-caste marriages in India. It lays down the conditions for the solemnization of special marriages and mandates that the parties involved must give notice of their intention to get married to the Marriage Officer. The Act also provides for objections to the marriage, and the procedure for solemnization of the special marriage.
Despite the legal framework in place, inter-religion marriage continues to face opposition from certain sections of society. Some political parties have also used this issue to further their own agendas. However, in recent years, there has been a shift in the public perception of inter-religion marriage, with more and more people accepting it as a personal choice.
The law has also evolved to keep pace with changing social norms. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement, decriminalizing adultery, which was a major step towards recognizing the individual autonomy of adults in their personal relationships. This judgement, along with other legal developments, has provided greater legal protection to couples in inter-religion and inter-caste marriages.
Inter-religion marriage is often met with resistance from society and families, which can lead to social ostracism and even violence. Families may object to inter-religion marriages on the grounds of cultural and religious differences. The couple may also face legal challenges, such as cases of abduction, forced conversion, and even honour killing.
In conclusion, inter-religion marriage continues to be a contentious issue in India, with social and political factors influencing public perception. However, the legal framework has evolved to provide greater protection to couples who wish to marry outside their religion or caste. While there is still a long way to go, there are signs that society is becoming more accepting of inter-religion marriage, and this is reflected in the changing legal landscape.
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.
They are an enthusiastic team of Advocates and other corporate professionals who provide Litigation, Non-Litigation, Financial, and Corporate secretarial services from individual to corporate levels. A team of legal practitioners with varied specialisations backs the firm. The firm has a wide area of practice, both in litigation and non-litigation relating to Corporate Laws, Civil, Banking, Consumer protection, Family laws, IPR, Property laws and arbitration. We also provide services in setting up of business models and supporting them in forming effective corporate compliance management system.
Internship Duration
Duration of this internship is for a period of 45 days.However, this shall be renewed at the option of both in every 45 days.
Eligibility
Students who are pursuing law / Students who are pursuing CS.
10.30 a.m. to 05.30 p.m on days when there is no college (Monday to Friday).
1st and 3rd Saturdays are working.
Saturday timings will be 10.30 a.m to 5.50 p.m.
On college working days, the same will be flexible.
Note: Intern shall bring their own laptop. They can choose to leave the laptops at the office during their internship after working hours.
Areas of Practice
Company Law
IBC (Insolvency code)
Property Laws (TN)
Family Law cases.
Trademark and copyright laws.
Arbitration.
Writ petitions relating to company law
Company law compliances ( ROC filing related works).
Partnership firm, societies & Trusts law
General civil law
Agreements and contracts.
Note: The intern can choose and communicate his/her areas of interest in advance to allot work accordingly. However, intern may also have to work in other areas as well depending on the requirement.
Roles and Responsibilities
Drafting of documents (Case documents, property documents, opinions, and business communications) with guidance.
Tracking of cases and maintaining case dairy (Physical and Excel sheet).
Taking dictation and preparation of letters, emails to be sent to clients.
Preparation of notes on important legal updates and assisting in preparation of newsletter.
Preparation of documents for courts.
E-filing of Trademarks, registration of documents, with guidance.
Visiting Client place, Registrar office or court filing section and help in executing filing or collecting documents or enquiry. (Metro card/ Petrol Conveyance for two wheeler will be duly provided).
Helping in writing legal articles and newsletters.
Stipend
No Stipend. If the intern wishes to continue after 45 days, the stipend will be decided.
Termination
In the event of non – satisfactory performance or any other reasons, the intern will be terminated with a notice period of 15 days. Interns can resign with a notice period of 15 days. In either case, a certificate of internship or the dues if any, for the period of internship served will be provided.
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.
Arun Singh & Associates is a Pan India woman-owned law firm network that is primarily based in Gurugram District & Sessions Court. They nurture young talent and train them to become court-ready (independent practitioners) while they train and work for them.
Areas of Practice
138 NI Act Cases
Appeals
Consumer Cases
Criminal Cases – Fraud, Forgery, Cheating, etc.
Execution Petitions
Hindu Marriage Act Cases – Divorce, Maintenance, DV, etc.
Insolvency
Mediation
Permanent Lok Adalat Cases
Recovery Suits
Succession
Trademark, SFIO, SARFAESI Cases, etc.
Responsibilities
Compile a list of matters listed in the coming week
Mark’s presence in the listed matters
Maintain and update daily diary (legal reference)
Work on live cases and prepare case synopsis
Create first drafts of replies/complaints/petitions, etc.
Perks
Candidates will learn how court proceedings are conducted
Candidates will also be taught how to prepare and generate summons, warrants, etc.
Excellent opportunity to get exposure to live cases
Opportunity to attend session courts, learn the art of argument/pleading/defending, etc.
Qualifications
Law Degree (Pursuing Internship /Completed for FTEs)
MS Excel
MS Word
Emailing & Mail Merge
Excellent verbal and written communication skills
Additional Information
Proper training will be provided to work on the mentioned responsibilities.
Interviews will be conducted in offline mode only.
Stipend/Salary will be decided based on knowledge, experience, aptitude, etc., and will be communicated during the interview.
Position for law/legal associate with PPO (internship with a job offer).
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.
In this case, we are going to discuss the rights of the prisoners, and also as the fundamental right ( right to privacy) of a prisoner and the right to live with dignity, in this case, the prisoner is an accused and he asked to be nude in front of the prison official while there are electronic gadgets available to check him whether he has anything under his clothes or not but still the prison officials asked him to be nude so they can check him. when the accused took this to the Court where the court held that it was a clear violation of his rights.
FACTS:
An application had been submitted to the judge by Ahmed Kamal Shaikh, one of the defendants in the 1993 Bombay bombings case. The 1993 Bombay bombings trial is currently in its third round. The accused had stated that every time he is brought before the court and hauled back to jail, he is strip-searched at the jail’s entrance, which is humiliating and against his rights, in the motion submitted through counsel Farhana Shah. Shaikh asserted that he had objected to it, but the jail staff began abusing, humiliating, and threatening him with unparliamentary words. He approached the court in distress.
ISSUE:
Whether misbehaving with an accused person in jail is a violation of his rights or not.
RELATED LAWS:
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, no person shall be deprived of his liberty except according to the procedures established by law.
This article also includes the right to privacy as well as the right to live life with dignity.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:
The applicant/accused Ahmed Kamal Shaikh is upset because after appearing before the court, he is returned to jail. He is made naked in front of other prisoners and staff members while being searched by the searching guard at the entry, which is humiliating and a violation of his right to privacy. When he objected to the same, the concerned searchers misbehaved with him, used unparliamentary words towards him, and humiliated him in front of other people. Threats were made to him as well as detainees. Therefore, he asks for instructions from the Superintendent or Jail Authorities not to misbehave, embarrass him, or speak to him in an offensive manner. He also asks for guidance on how to conduct his own search using a scanner or other technical devices.
Respondent contention: The superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison informed the court that the accused had not received any such degrading treatment. The superintendent contended that the current “false” application was only submitted to put pressure on the jail administration. Hence the court should reject the application.
Judgment: The claims made by the accused had some merit, according to the special judge. When conducting personal searches, the judge instructed the prisons’ superintendent and search guards to employ scanners and electronic tools. The judge further stated that the officers are not obligated to act inappropriately, humiliate the accused, use profane language, or strip them naked if such devices are not accessible and a physical search must be undertaken. The Court further highlighted that in addition to the current applicant, several prisoners who were awaiting trial had come before it with comparable grievances. The same judge had instructed the superintendent and search guards of Arthur Road Jail in February of this year after an accused
In the case of VIRENDRA SINGH VS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, the appellant was disqualified under Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
FACTS
The appellant was elected as a member of the Zilla Parishad, Chimthane Block, Taluq Shindkheda, District Dhule, as a candidate of a recognized party. He was, however, disqualified from this office by an order issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, in response to a plea made by the respondent, who had lost the Zilla Parishad election.
The respondent sought the appellant’s disqualification because the appellant had abused his elected position for personal financial advantage. This financial gain is said to have occurred due to the appellant’s role in adopting a resolution by which the Aarave Gramme Panchayat sanctioned the repairing and tarring of a road from Aarave Phata to Mauje Aarave.
Following that, the appellant’s Zilla Parishad, Dhule, granted administrative sanction to the project. This sanction order documents that the Zilla Parishad, Dhule, sanctioned the project for Rs. 15 lakhs by exercising its powers under Section 125 of the aforementioned Act.According to Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, the respondent filed the plea.
An e-tender was floated by the Aarave Gram Panchayat upon the sanctioning. The appellant’s son was successful against the other two candidates who had applied. As a result, he got the tender and was assigned the work of repairing roads at Mauje Aarave for a sum of Rs 14,62,871/-
The Divisional Commissioner observed that it was obvious the appellant would be able to influence the same because the Aarave Gram Panchayat was in the Chimthane Block, which was under the jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad, Dhule. Additionally, it was noted that there was no proof that the son of the appellant had received work orders from any other blocks under the jurisdiction of the Dhule Zilla Parishad, and as a result, there was a prima facie indication of misuse, which was sufficient to disqualify the appellant under Section 16(1)(i) of the aforementioned Act.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
The appellant’s main argument was that Zilla Parishad Dhule, not Gram Panchayat Aarave, had assigned his son work. The allocation was carried out using an electronic tendering procedure that was made public on the Maharashtra Government website. Although it was formally approved by the Zilla Parishad, the Gram Panchayat also paid the appellant’s son for the work.
The second argument was that the appellant had no personal stake in his son’s business and that they didn’t even live in the same house.
Third, it was argued that in disqualifying the appellant, the Divisional Commissioner did not follow the rules of natural justice. It was urged that an elected official cannot be hastily dismissed from office without investigation.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 attempted to emphasize the goal of Section 16 of the impugned Act, namely, to inject probity into the operation of the Zilla Parishads.
In this situation, the job was done on the instruction of the Zilla Parishad, and the payment was also made through the Zilla Parishad. As a result, it was argued that the facts fit fully within the purview of Section 16(1)(i) of the aforementioned Act, and the disqualification was obvious.
There were some controversial changes in the translated version of the Gram Panchayat Resolution, which has served the purpose of awarding benefit to the appellant’s son in one way or the other.
JUDGEMENT
It is undeniably true that elected officials should not be disqualified on frivolous grounds.However, we are also obligated by the statutory mandate, which states that activities that undermine the goal of transparency should not be tolerated.
The only contract he received was one in which funds were sent to the Gramme Panchayat from the Zilla Parishad, of which the appellant was a member. The appellant attempted to excuse the circumstance by arguing that his son was registered as a contractor shortly after the appellant’s election since he had just finished his studies. This fact, in our opinion, raises more questions regarding the appellant’s involvement in his son’s business.
The Zilla Parishad’s issuing of the work order dated 09.06.2020 demonstrates the Zilla Parishad’s supervisory and sanctioning role in the contract, which falls within the broad reach of Section 16(1)(i) of the aforementioned Act.
As a father, the appellant had a higher responsibility to ensure that his son did not sign into a contract that is sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad itself. We can see from the lower courts’ findings of fact that nothing had been put on record to demonstrate even a separation of residence between the son and the father, other than a ration card purporting to show that the son was living with his grandmother.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The consequential disqualification would take place from the date of the judgement.
