Author: LEXPEEPS editor

About the Moot Court Competition

The Moot Court Competition 2021 will be held virtually on 12^th March 2021.

The competition will be conducted in two sections; Law and Commerce. Teams from Law Colleges will compete against Law College teams and teams from Commerce colleges will compete against commerce college teams. There are separate prizes for Law and Commerce Sections.

Eligibility

The competition is open for undergraduate students of recognized Law and Commerce colleges/universities/institutes.

How to Register?

Interested participants, fulfilling the eligibility criteria are required to register for the event by completing this google form- click here and providing their details. The registration fee is Rs 300/- per team.

Team Composition

The team should consist of two mooters and one researcher only.

Mentoring/Training Session

The participants will be trained by law students on how to analyze facts, how to form arguments, how to make the memorial by doing the relevant research. The aim of the training session is to help participants have a grasp of the event and prepare for the competition.

Memorial Submission

 All participants will be required to submit a memorial as per the details provided in the brochure.

Preliminary Round

• In the Preliminary Round, each team shall compulsory present oral arguments from both sides- Plaintiff/appellant or Defendant/Respondent in accordance with the lots chosen by the organizers of the team at the orientation session.
• One participant from each courtroom with the highest total marks in Preliminary Round will proceed to compete in the Final Round.

Finals

The participants will be allotted either the plaintiff/appellant or defendant/respondent side in the final round.

Dress Code

As per The rules of the Bar of the Council of India (white shirt, black trousers, and  black blazer)

Submission

The participants should submit the soft copy of both the memorials, in ‘.doc’ format, no later than 23:59:59 on the date of memorial submission at bmccmootcourt@gmail.com with the subject line as “Submission of Memorials”.

Prizes

For teams with law colleges and commerce colleges

First team	Rs 7000/- cash + certificate
Second team	Rs 5000/- cash + certificate
Best memorial (team)	Rs 2000/- cash + certificate
Best advocate (individual)	Rs 2000/- cash +  certificate
Consolation (individual)	Rs 1000/- cash +  certificate

Important Dates

Last date for Registration	March 5, 2022
Doubt Clearing of Moot Proposition	February 4, 2022
Memorial Submission	March 9, 2022
Allotment of Side	March 11, 2022
Preliminary Round	March 12, 2022
Final Round	March 12, 2022

Contact Details

Mail at: bmccmootcourt@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on LexPeeps is true to our knowledge. But still it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About Organiser:

Lloyd Law College is a premier educational institution offering legal education since year 2003 in affiliation with CCS University, Meerut, U.P. (state university established in 1965), and approved by the Bar Council of India (Statutory body for professional legal education in India). The College greatly benefits from the mentorship and patronage of Padma Bhushan Late Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, “The living legend of Law” and the flag bearer of legal education reforms in India. Prof. Menon was a visionary of legal education who was also the designer and architect of the five-year integrated B.A.LL.B. Programme in India and the Founder of the premier legal institutions of the country including the National Law School of India University, Bangalore and the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Prof. Menon’s relentless efforts in revamping and modernising the legal education of the country has successfully brought Indian legal education at par with the legal institutions in the developed country.

About The Competition

Lloyd Law College is highly overwhelmed to announce the Third Edition of S.K. MISRA MEMORIAL
INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION AND NEGOTIATION COMPETITION 2022 powered by Trust Legal Advocates
& Consultants. The Second Edition of this Competition set a benchmark by registering the highest number of
Registrations among the world. With the Provisional Registrations reaching up to 450, LLC broke all the
records. Lloyd is back again with the spirit of creating another history in terms of spreading the knowledge
of Mediation and Negotiation among the maximum number of Law Students. The Objective of this
Competition is to promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution among the budding lawyers with a
mindset equipped to effectively resolve the dispute

Language:

The Official Language of this Competition will be English.

Eligibility & Participation

1. This Competition is open for all the law students across the world. However there is a limit of 4 teams per university
2. Each Participant must be a current Undergraduate Student of their respective institution. In exceptional circumstances, the Organising Committee may grant eligibility to institutions with Degree programs in International Relations, provided that adequate instructions in International Law will be available to all members of the team.

Stages of the Competitions

This Competition will comprise of total 6 rounds:

1. Green (Preliminary) Rounds (2) (Annexure-A)
2. Octa-Final Round (1)
3. Quarter Final Round (1)
4. Semi Final (1)
5. Final Round (1)

How to register?

Any Interested team across the world can register for this Competition according to the procedure laid
down here under:

• The Team shall complete the Provisional Registration on or before 22nd January 2022 through the given link of Google Form: https://forms.gle/fNZkWUaVxt7XF4A39
• Upon receiving the confirmation of the vacant slot from the Organising Committee, the Teams must confirm their Final Registration on or before 29th January 2022.
• Registration Fees for an Indian Team is Rs. 5000/- and for any International Team is USD 70.
• Kindly Note that once the payment is made, it is non-refundable in any circumstances.

Team Composition

• Each Participating team shall comprise of 3 members:
  • One Neutral Mediator
  • One Client
  • One Counsel
• Four Teams per University are allowed to participate.
• There will be Separate Problems for different rounds with different Confidential Information in each round.

Team Identification and Anonymity Rule

• After Registration, each Participating team will be provided with a Team Code which will serve as their Unique Identification Number (UIN). All Communications must be made in reference to this UIN.
• None of the Teams are supposed to reveal their Institution Name or any other details to other teams or the judges. All communication must be made in regard to the UIN.

For more details refer to the pdf below:

Contact Details

Mail at: skmmimnc@lloydlawcollege.edu.in

Call at: Ms. Daisy Pallawi – (+91) 9523981666

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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

This is a major decision by the Supreme Court, which determined that the online arbitration agreement is the most relevant arbitration document. Because the parties do not meet in person, but rather online, it is important to clarify all details of the dispute resolution method in the agreement. Furthermore, the court found that when entering into an agreement, a meeting of minds is critical, and the agreement must comply with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Facts

Trimex offered VAL the supply of bauxite through email, which the latter accepted after several exchanges of e-mails, confirming the supply of 5 ships of bauxite from Australia to India. Despite the fact that a draught contract had been developed, it still needed to be formalized. After receiving the first consignments of goods, VAL requested that Trimex hold back the next consignment of goods so that they may check the utility value of bauxite. Shipowners, on the other hand, nominated the ship for cargo loading on the same day. Trimex later requested damages from VAL for damages paid to ship owners after the contract was canceled, but VAL rejected by denying any contract. The Petitioner Company is based in Dubai and trades minerals globally. The Respondent is an Indian company that uses Aluminum Ore as one of its primary inputs. Supply of Bauxite (15.10.2007 Offer) (Shipment) The reply accepted the offer through e-mail on October 16, 2007, confirming the provision of 5 shipments of bauxite, in accordance with the contract’s material terms.

The response acknowledges the offer’s acceptance at a subsequent meeting. On November 8, 2007, the respondent sent the petitioner a formal contract with a detailed arbitration clause, which the petitioner accepted with some changes. On 09.11.2007, the petitioner signed a formal Bauxite sales agreement with Rio Tinto of Australia for the supply of 225000 tonnes of bauxite. On 12.11.2007, the respondent requested that the petitioner hold the next consignment. On 13.11.2007, the petitioner informed the respondent that the cargo could not be postponed and requested that they sign the Purchase Agreement. The ship owners nominated the ship for loading the material on November 28, 2007. The petitioner terminated the contract on November 16, 2007, reserving the right to seek damages. The petitioner formally informed the shipowners of the cancellation on November 18, 2007. The shipowner filed a claim for US$ 1 million in a commercial settlement. The Petitioner asked the Respondent to pay the shipowner the stated amount plus an additional 0.8 million US dollars in compensation for lost profits and other expenditures and expenses.

The Respondent denied the Petitioner’s claim, and as a result, the Petitioner was forced to pay the shipowners 0.6 million US dollars in two installments after negotiations. The Petitioner served the Respondent with a notice of claim-cum-arbitration on September 1, 2008, requesting that it either pay up or accept the notification as a referral to arbitration. The Respondent denied the arbitration notice, claiming that the parties had not yet reached an agreement. As a result, the Petitioner filed a request for the appointment of an arbitrator.

Issue

Whether there was any valid subsisting contract between the parties in absence of any formal contract?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The primary position of the Petitioners is that the Contract was legal and binding. The Petitioner argued that: the contract was formed upon the Respondent’s acceptance of the offer for five shipments. the offer of October 16, 2007, was made in response to the Respondent’s request and was based on a previous month’s similar transaction.• the offer that was accepted by the Respondent contained the arbitration clause, which was never objected to The Petitioner also argued for the Contract’s validity, claiming that the Respondent agreed to place an order for 5 (five) shipments only after several e-mail exchanges and agreement on the contract’s material terms, based on which the Petitioner contracted with a bauxite supplier in Australia and also entered into a charter party agreement with the shipowner. The Petitioner emphasized that the arbitration clause was included in Respondent’s copy of the Contract, and because it had not been changed, the apparent conclusion was that the arbitration clause was acceptable to both parties. It also claimed that the offer dated October 15, 2007, containing all of the necessary elements for the Respondents to accept it, including the offer validity period, product description, quantity, price per tonne, delivery (CIF), and payment terms (irrevocable L/C), shipping lots, discharge port, governing law, and arbitration.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that no contract could be made because the parties were not ad idem on a number of key and substantial aspects of the transaction. • the product specifications, price, contract price inclusions, delivery point, insurance, contract commencement and conclusion dates, transfer of title, quality check, and demurrage remain undecided, as evidenced by several email exchanges between the parties.• the product specifications, price, contract price inclusions, delivery point, insurance, contract commencement and conclusion dates, transfer of title, quality check, and demurrage remain undecided, as evidenced by several email exchanges between the parties. As a result, the Respondent asserted that in such a situation, (a) the parties cannot be said to be “of one mind” with respect to all parts of the transaction, and (b) the parties cannot be said to be “in agreement” with respect to all aspects of the transaction.

Despite the fact that the Respondent acknowledged exchanging e-mails with the Petitioner, it claimed that there was no concluded contract because the Contract remained unsigned, preventing the Petitioner from enforcing certain obligations reflected in those e-mails and invoking the arbitration clause as if there was a formal agreement. The Respondent argued that an agreement on the parameters that will govern a contract is not the same as entering
into the contract itself, citing the Court’s ruling in Dresser-Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd.

Judgment

The fact that the parties did not prepare a formal contract after the deal was completed orally or in writing has no bearing on the parties’ acceptance or implementation of the contract. A contract is said to be completed when the parties have agreed on the ‘terms and conditions’ of the contract, though small details can be left for them to decide later, is somewhat subject to other prerequisites as provided by S.10: without such necessary elements being decided, the contract cannot be enacted by law because it is deemed incomplete. After hearing both parties at length, the Court dismissed the Respondent’s arguments and declared that the offer made on October 15, 2007, was accepted on October 16, 2007, and that any dispute between the parties must be resolved through arbitration in line with the terms and conditions agreed to.

When a contract is signed orally or in writing, it becomes legally binding.
The Supreme Court held that all necessary elements for enforcing these types of shipment contracts, such as price, quantity, product specifications, delivery and payment terms, discharge port, shipment lots, demurrage rate, quality benchmark, applicable arbitration laws, and so on, were decided by the parties. Furthermore, minute-by-minute correspondences between the parties plainly reveal that both parties were fully aware of the contract’s different conditions and were ad idem (S.13) with respect to them.

According to S.4, communication of acceptance was complete as against VAL as soon as Trimex received confirmation of 5 shipment lots. Furthermore, the acceptance was unqualified and unconditional (S.7): “We affirm the transaction for five shipments”

The Court restated its position that one of the Act’s principal goals is to reduce the courts’ supervisory function. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that adding a variety of other conditions, such as seals and originals, stamps, and so on, to an arbitration agreement would amount to enhancing rather than decreasing the function of courts. The Court concluded, based on UNCITRAL Model Law, that adding a number of extra formalities not contemplated by the legislation would be improper and undesirable. The goal of the court should be to carry out the legislative intended. As a result, the Court ruled in the Petitioner’s favor and assigned a retired judge to arbitrate the case.

References

1. Trimex International Fze Limited v. Vedanta Aluminium Limited | Indian Case Law
2. Judgment Analysis Format | PDF | Arbitration | Justice (scribd.com)

Written by Vidushi Joshi student at UPES, Dehradun.

Equivalent citations

1965 AIR 491, 1964 SCR (4) 576

Petitioner

The University of Mysore and Anr

Respondent

C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr

Date of Judgement

26/08/1963

Bench

Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appeal was recorded by C. D. Govinda Rao, in the Mysore High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. C.D. Govinda Rao needed by that appeal, that a writ of quo warranto ought to be given, to call upon Anniah Gowda to show the authority under which he had the position of a Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore. It was additionally implored that a writ of mandamus is allowed calling upon the University of Mysore to choose him as the Research Reader.

There were sure capabilities to be selected as the exploration peruser. The capabilities are:

1. A First or High Second Class Master’s Degree of an Indian University of an identical the capability of a Foreign University in the subject concerned;
2. A Research Degree of a Doctorate Standard or distributed work of an elevated requirement;
3. Ordinarily, a decade (at the very least five years regardless) experience of showing post-graduate classes and directing exploration on account of Professors and no less than five years’ insight of showing degree classes and free examination on account of Readers;
4. The information on the local language Kannada is considered as an alluring qualification. Inclination will be given to up-and-comers who have had insight in educating and association of examination and have additionally accomplished progressed research work (1). According to him, the arrangement of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader was unlawful notwithstanding the endorsed capabilities and that he was able to be named to that post.

Hence, he needed that the arrangement of Anniah Gowda ought to be subdued. He in this way requested a writ to guide the University to designate him in that post.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether writs of mandamus and quo warranto can be given by the court?

DISPUTES RAISED

Mr. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, for the respondent, battled that the arrangement of Anniah Gowda was made in repudiation of the legal principles and statutes outlined by the college. He endeavored to contend that he had alluded to the legal principles and mandates in the High Court, in any case, sadly, the equivalent had not been referenced or examined in the judgment.

The court had painstakingly viewed as the oaths documented by both the gatherings in the current procedures and it had no delay in holding that at no stage did it seem to have been encouraged by the respondent under the watchful eye of the High Court that the sickness in the arrangement of Anniah Gowda continued from the way that the legal standards and laws made by the university had been contradicted.

The testimony documented by the respondent on the side of his request just portrayed the arrangement of Anniah Gowda as being illicit, and altogether added that the said arrangement and the disappointment the University to designate the respondent, were unlawful even with the endorsed capabilities, and these capabilities in the setting without a doubt alluded to the capabilities distributed in the warning by which the significant post had been promoted.

The court reviewed the four capabilities endorsed by the warning. The last one which connected with the information on the Kannada language was discovered not to be in question and was avoided concerning thought. The primary capability was that the candidate should have a First or a high Second-Class Master’s Degree of an Indian University or a comparable capability of an unfamiliar University in the subject concerned. Anniah Gowda got 50.2 percent marks in his Master’s Degree assessment.

It was encouraged by the respondent under the steady gaze of the High Court that when 50% is the base needed for getting a second class, it would be inactive to propose that an applicant, who acquires 50.2 percent, has gotten a high Second-Class Master’s Degree, thus the respondent argued that the main condition had not been fulfilled by the Anniah Gowda. The High Court has maintained this request. As to the subsequent capability, apparently, Anniah Gowda has gotten a degree of Master of Arts of the University of Durham. The High Court has held that as to this capability, assuming the Board took the view that the Gowda fulfilled that capability, it would not be only for the Court to vary from the assessment. At the end of the day, the High Court didn’t make a finding for the respondent concerning capability No. 2.

As to the third capability, the matter seems to have been bantered finally under the steady gaze of the High Court. The proof was driven by both the gatherings and the respondent genuinely questioning the case made by both the appellants that Gowda fulfilled the trial of five years’ insight of showing Degree classes. The High Court inspected this proof and eventually arrived at the resolution that however the material cited by the appellants on this point was inadmissible, it couldn’t make a finding for the respondent. In this association, the High Court has seriously condemned the direction of Anniah Gowda to which we will allude later.

Consequently, significantly the High Court chose to subdue the arrangement of Gowda on the ground that it was plain that he didn’t fulfill the main capability. In this association, the High Court has additionally condemned the report made by the Board and has seen that the Members of the Board didn’t seem to have applied their brains to the inquiry which they were called upon to consider.

In managing the case introduced before it by the respondent, the High Court had condemned the report made by the Board and had seen that the conditions unveiled by the report made it hard for the High Court to treat the suggestions made by the specialists with the regard that they by and large merit. Sheets of Appointments are assigned by the Universities and when suggestions made by them and the arrangements following on them, are tested under the steady gaze of courts, typically the court should do whatever it takes not to obstruct the feelings communicated by the specialists. There is no charge about mala fide against the specialists who established the current Board.

The analysis made by the High Court against the report made by the Board implied that the High Court believed that the Board was in the place of a chief power, giving a leader fiat, or was behaving like a semi-legal counsel, concluding questions alluded to it for its choices. In managing objections made by residents concerning arrangements made by scholastic bodies, similar to the Universities, such a methodology would not be sensible or suitable.

Indeed, in giving the writ, the High Court has mentioned a specific observable fact that shows that the High Court applied tests that could authentically be applied on account of the writ of certiorari. In the judgment, it has been seen that the blunder for this situation is without a doubt a manifest mistake. That is a thought which is more pertinent and applicable in a system for a writ of certiorari.

The High Court ought to have considered the issue of whether the arrangement made by the Chancellor was against any legal or restricting guideline or mandate. In doing as such, the High Court ought to have displayed due respect to the assessment communicated by the Board and its proposals which the Chancellor has acted. In this association, the High Court had neglected to see one extremely critical truth that when the Board considered the cases of the individual candidates, it inspected them cautiously and arrived at the resolution that not a single one of them should have been delegated as a Professor in the University.

These proposals made by the Board show that they considered the applicable factors cautiously and eventually reached the resolution that Anniah Gowda ought to be suggested for the post of Reader. Hence, the court fulfilled that the analysis made by the High Court against the Board and its considerations isn’t legitimized.

JUDGMENT

The requests were permitted and the request passed by the High Court was saved. The writ request recorded by the respondent was excused with costs all through. It was held that there will be one bunch of hearing charges in both the requests documented by the two appellants.

CASE COMMENT

The writ of quo warranto continuing assistance in managing the cost of a legal cure by which any individual, who holds a free considerable public office or establishment or freedom, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, establishment or freedom, so his title to it could still up in the air, and if the finding is that the holder of the workplace has no title, he would be removed from that office by legal request.

This truly intends that at the end of the day, by the technique of quo warranto, the legal executive is provided with the ability to control the leader from arranging public office against the endorsed law. It likewise assists with shielding a resident from being denied of public office to which he has a right. These procedures likewise will quite often shield people in general from usurpers of public office, who may be permitted to proceed either with the intrigue of the
Executive or because of its indifference.

It will, accordingly, be seen that an individual needs to fulfill the court, that the work being referred to is a public office and is held by a usurper without legitimate authority before the person can adequately guarantee a writ of quo warranto. He additionally needs to demonstrate that it would unavoidably prompt the inquiry regarding whether the arrangement of the supposed usurper has been made as per law or not.

Written by Sara Agrawal student at Sinhgad Law College, Pune.

About JoyceLaw Law Firm

JoyceLaw is a boutique corporate law firm with a special focus on the Indian startup ecosystem and has been recognized as amongst the most active 15 law firms for venture capital and private equity transactions by Venture Intelligence.

JoyceLaw has also been recognized for its work with startups by the IBLJ. JoyceLaw counts some of the most exciting high growth startups in the country as clients.

Location

Gurgaon

Number of Vacancies

Two (2)

Roles and Responsibilities

• Legal due diligence, drafting and review of transaction documentation for PE/VC/M&A transactions, assisting in closing and post-closing actions in the Firm’s transactions.
• Monitoring compliance under laws applicable to clients for doing business in India and investments agreements executed for raising and investing capital.
• Legal research and analysis.
• Drafting and review of corporate and commercial agreements such as service agreements, NDAs, employee agreements, referral agreements etc.

Eligibility

• The candidate shall have at least 3 years of experience in PE/VC/M&A transactions with an excellent academic record.
• Candidates shall be proficient in a broad range of corporate and business laws, especially in areas pertaining to the Companies Act and FEMA RBI regulations.

Salary

As may be discussed during the interview stage.

Application Deadline

25th February 2022

Contact Details

Mobile Number(s): +91807584613;+919530252009

Procedure to Apply

Please email your CV/Resume at knowledge@joycelaw.in 

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on LexPeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

bout Rashtriya Raksha University

Rashtriya Raksha University, an Institution of National Importance of India, Pioneering National Security and Police University of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is established by the Parliament of India, Act No. 31 of 2020.

About Prof. (Dr.) Bimal N. Patel

Prof. (Dr.) Bimal N. Patel, Vice-Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University, has been elected to the United Nations International Law Commission 2023-27 with the mandate to contribute towards the codification and progressive development of international law. This job involves assisting the member ILC by way of contributing towards the work, knowledge and experience purely on general public international law including the agenda items of the International Law Commission. Besides the academic rigour necessary for the job, the potential candidate must be able to apply their analytical thinking to assess the strategic effects / impact of the developments in international law, and appropriately balance it with the progressive development of international law.

Eligibility

The role is open for all nationalities and encourages nationals – students, academics and practitioners of public international law – from African, South and South East Asian, Central Asian, SIDS and CARICOM nations.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Assists in collection, preparations, analysis and evaluation of research materials in areas as assigned in the field of public international law.
• Assists in compiling, analysing, synthesising and preparing notes on state practice, precedents and doctrines in concise simple and understandable form
• Assists in compiling, analysing and keeping track on judicial decisions and pronouncements of nation states and international and regional courts and tribunals
• Assists in identifying and conducting literature reviews of highly qualified publicists in international law on designated topics.
• Assists in preparations of materials for submission to governments, international organisations, courts and tribunals

• Assists other researchers with various tasks, including data entry, research, field research, and presentation preparation.
• Supports the team in training activities, events, and meetings by contributing to event programming, training materials, evaluations, and reporting
• Update relevant communication platforms and information management tools, such as an internal and external webpage or communities of practice tools.
• Any other roles and responsibilities assigned by the Member from time-to- time.

Academic Profile

• Candidates with degree(s) in law, international relations, political science and other social sciences.
• Candidates with keen interest in public international law will be preferred.
• Previous research experience of working on topics related to public international law / International Law Commission
• Sensitivity and understanding for diverse state practices, precedents and doctrines

Work experience

1 year in any research roles preferable if has experience of working on matters of Public International Law, especially ILC.

Duration

May vary from minimum 6 months to maximum as per the mutual discussions between the candidate and the Member. Please specify duration and approximate availability of time for joining the research internship.

Application documents to be shared

• Interested candidates can submit their Resumé (maximum 2 pages, including names of two referees) on or before 31 January 2022 till 1700 hrs to ilc@rru.ac.in , addressing Mr. Digvijay Rewatkar.
• Motivation letter (maximum 1 page)
• A writing sample of up to 1000 words.
• Contact details: Full address, nationality, passport number, validity, mobile, social address details given application form.
• The short-listed candidates will be called for interviews(online/offline as per prevailing Covid-19 situation) after a due screening of the applications in the first or second week of February 2022.

Link to apply

https://lawbhoomi.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/1643211845794.pdf

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on LexPeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Aim to get admission into Harvard Law School?
Well, then this event is for you!

Student Youth Council is back with another event under JAGRUKTA

A Zoom webinar on how to crack admission to the Harvard Law School-

Date and time: 29th Jan 2022, 6 pm onwards.

Please fill out the registration link below to confirm your participation.

https://forms.gle/YLnghHa74sMH7axo7

Collaborative Partners:
– Honour of Women
– Lex Peeps
– Legal Shots
– The Statesmanship Programme

Let the Democracy Prevail

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on LexPeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Location

The organizers reserve the right to switch the mode of the Competition to Online/Virtual based on the COVID-19 guidelines issued by the Government of India, enforceable at the time. The participants will be notified in advance of the mode of the Competition in case of any modifications.

Team Eligibility and Composition

• Participation is strictly restricted to bona fide law students pursuing the three years or five years LL.B. degree course in any institution in India. Students pursuing their LL.M. and Diploma courses are not eligible for participation.
• Only one team shall be allowed to represent each participating institution.
• Each participating team should have three participating members. In a team, two members shall be designated as ‘Speakers’ and the third member shall be designated as ‘Researcher’.

Registration Procedure

The registration for the moot shall open on the 4th of January, 2022. A total of 36 slots are available for the moot, meaning thereby that the registration for the moot shall take place on a first-come-first-serve basis.

The interested teams are requested to get their universities provisionally registered via mail from the official email id of their MCC/MCA. Upon receiving the acknowledgement of the provisional registration, participants are requested to follow the procedure given here under final registration.

All the participating institutions have to confirm participation by filling the registration form via the registration link, on or before 30th January 2022.

The link to the registration form: https://forms.gle/opUVi8K3xahkmDK27

In furtherance to this, the participating Universities are required to send a detailed mail consisting of the details of the participating members along with an Authorization Letter/Mail.

Registration Fees

The participating teams are required to pay INR 6,000/- as registration fees at the time of registration. In case the Competition is conducted in Virtual Mode, the registration fees to be paid will be INR 3,500/-, the remaining balance will be refunded by the organizers to the concerned teams within a reasonable period of time.

The Link for the payment of Registration Fees: https://www.rgnulerp.org/lsa/eventPortal/loginFrom.jsp

The last date to deposit the registration fees is 5th February 2022. Non-payment of Registration Feesshallresult in the cancellation of the Registration of the Participating Team. In such a scenario, the newly available slot shall be given to the next team in line.

Prizes

The following awards shall be awarded in the Competition:

• Best Team: The Team winning the final round of the Competition shall be given a trophy and a cash prize of INR 30,000/- (Indian Rupees Thirty Thousand Only).
• Runners Up: The runners up team in the final round of the Competition shall be given a trophy and a cash prize of INR 20,000/- (Indian Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).
• Best Speaker: The speaker having the highest score in the preliminary rounds shall be given a cash prize of INR 8,000/- (Indian Rupees Eight Thousand Only).
• Best Written Submission: The team has the highest average written submission score from both sides shall be given a cash prize of INR 8,000/- (Indian Rupees Eight Thousand Only)
• Best Researcher: The participant having the highest researcher’s score shall be given a cash prize of INR 8,000/- (Indian Rupees Eight Thousand Only)
• Certificates of merit shall be given to all the teams qualifying for Quarter-finals and beyond.
• Certificate of participation shall be given to all the participating teams.
• The awards, certificates of merit and certificates of participation shall be given during the valedictory ceremony to be conducted on 3rd April 2022. No certificate will be given to the team before or after the valedictory function.

Contact Details

Mail at: mootcommittee@rgnul.ac.in on or before 12th February 2022

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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About Panjab University

One of the oldest universities in India, Panjab University (PU) established in Lahore in 1882, has a long tradition of pursuing excellence in teaching and research in science and technology, humanities, social sciences, performing arts, and sports. The glorious traditions of the University established during more than 138 years of its service to the nation are a source of inspiration for the present generation of faculty members and students.

About UILS, PU

University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS) was established as the constituent department of Panjab University, in the academic session 2004-05. During a short period, it has emerged as one of the premier legal Institutes in the country with a unique blend of tradition and modernity. Students are trained in the essence of the substantive laws, techniques of procedural laws, methods of client counselling, and skills in legal and social sciences research, etc

The Moot Court Competitions, Client Counselling Sessions, Quiz Contests, Seminars, Group Discussions, and Extension Lectures, etc. are regular features of the academic calendar of the Institute. The Institute’s Legal Aid Clinic, which provides free legal services to the economically weaker sections of the society as a part of the community outreach program of the Institute, also offers opportunities to the students to work in coordination with practising lawyers.

About the Society for Quiz

The Society for Quiz is a constituent society of the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The Society owes its existence to the vital role played by the quizzes in the learning process. Considering how promising the quizzes are in terms of expanding the horizons of one’s knowledge and improving the efficiency of mind, the Society is completely devoted to organizing various types of quizzes throughout the year, both online and offline.

Also, to keep the spirit of competition alive, the Society aims not to limit itself to its home institution but also to reach out to the students throughout the nation. Furthermore, believing in the potential of a quiz as an activity to raise general awareness, the Society is also unrestricted in its choice of topics for the quizzes and is not limited merely to the topics of the law. 

About the Article Writing Competition

UILS this year is celebrating the 73rd Republic Day of India by organizing an article writing competition. Come and participate in the competition.

Eligibility

• The competition is open to all the students pursuing a Bachelor’s/Master’s/PG degree or Certificate course from any affiliated University/College/Institute.
• The competition is also open to the school students (8-12 classes).
• No restriction on the number of entries from one University/College/Institute.

Themes

• Constitution as a Living Document
• Constitutional Morality- An Important Concept or Just a New Buzzword?
• Transformative Constitutionalism and Role of Judiciary
• Constitutional Role of Citizens in Upholding Sovereignty, Integrity and Unity of India

Submission Guidelines

• The article must be written in English and submitted in Microsoft Word document format (.doc/.docx).
• Co-authorship up to a maximum of two authors is permitted.
• Only one submission is allowed per author/team. Submissions, both as co-author and single, will be treated as multiple submissions and will be disqualified as an entry to the competition.
• The following formatting specifications need to be strictly adhered to:
  • Main Body: Font – Times New Roman, Font Size – 12, and Line Spacing – 1.5;
  • Footnotes: Font – Times New Roman, Font Size – 10, and Line Spacing – 1.0 and footnotes must follow the Bluebook system of citation (Harvard, 20^th edition).
  • Margins should be 1 inch or 2.54 cm on all sides.
• The word limit is 1500- 2000 words excluding footnotes.
• The article must contain an abstract, not exceeding 250 words (which would not be counted in the word limit for the article). It must indicate the theme/topic.
• All submissions shall be submitted via Google form through the link (Click here) , by 30^th January 2022, 23:59 p.m. (Indian Standard Time, GMT +5:30).
• The article must be accompanied by a cover letter containing the following information about the participant:
  • full name of the participant;
  • theme/topic chosen;
  • participant’s current year of study and name of the degree pursued;
  • name and full address of the participant’s university;
  • name and full postal address of the participant;
  • phone number of the participant and email ID of the participant.
• A Similarity Index report shall be attached in the G- Form showing similarity not more than 15%.

(Note: Participants are required to generate a Similarity Index Report using any free or paid online Similarity Index Software, e.g., Grammarly, Dupli Checker, Plagiarism Checker by Small SEO Tools, Plagiarism Detector, PrepostSEO Plagiarism Checker, etc.  These software’s are just for the purpose of suggestion and not to be treated as recommendations)

Note: The article must be original, unpublished and bonafide work of the participant. Incomplete or plagiarised submissions shall be summarily rejected. The Similarity Index limit is 15% (excluding footnotes).

Note: No part of the article should contain any form of identification of the participant such as the name of the author, University/College name, etc. on the article. Any form of identification will lead to disqualification.

Accolades

• 1^st Winner: Cash prize of Rs. 1000 + Certificate of Merit (E-Certificate).
• 2^nd Winner: Cash prize of Rs. 750+ Certificate of Merit (E-Certificate).
• 3^rd Winner: Cash prize of Rs. 500+ Certificate of Merit (E-Certificate).
• The Top 10 winners will get a Certificate of Commendation (E- Certificate).
• All the participants of the article writing competition will be given the Certificate of Participation (E-Certificate).

Contact Details

• Mail at: uilsrepublicday2022@gmail.com
• In case of any query, you can also contact our student convenors via:
  • Vaibhav Goyal (President): 9781520216
  • Rabia Mittal (Secretary): 9780212040
  • Pranjali Aggarwal (Treasurer): 7858820006
• For registration and certificate, kindly contact:
  • Gunjan Garg  (Event Coordinator): 7986718234
  • Salouni Chaudhary (Co- Coordinator): 9306260223
  • Yashna Walia (Co- Coordinator): 9878210844

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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Equivalent Citation

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, R. K. Agrawal, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, S. A. Nazeer, R. K. Agrawal, J. Chelameswar, A.M. Sapre JJ

Decided on

24th  August 2017

Relevant Act/ Section

Article 19,19(1)(a), 21 and 25

Brief Facts and Procedural History

The Government of India has launched a scheme called “Unique Identification for BPL Families.” For the initiative, a committee was also formed. The Committee suggested that a ‘Unique Identification Database’ be created for the project. The project will be divided into three phases, according to the decision. The Planning Commission of India then issued a notification on UIDAI in January 2009. (Unique Identification Authority of India). In the year 2010, the Planning Commission also approved the National Identification Authority of India Bill. The current case was filed by retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy, who is 91 years old, is against the Union of India, or the Government of India. The case was heard by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench that had been created specifically for the Constitution Bench. Following conflicting judgments from other Supreme Court benches, the special bench was constituted to assess whether the “right to privacy” was guaranteed as an independent basic right.

The case emphasized various concerns about the government’s Aadhaar program (a form of uniform biometrics-based identity card). In the near future, the government suggested that the above-mentioned plan become required for access to government services and benefits. Initially, the challenge was brought before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, claiming that the scheme invaded the “right to privacy” provided to Indian people by the Constitution. On account of the Union of India, the Attorney General disputed that the Indian Constitution does not give particular protections for the right to privacy. He based this on observations made at various times in the cases of M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench) and Kharak Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh (an eight-judge bench) (a five-judge bench). Following that, an eleven-judge panel determined that basic rights should not be regarded as separate, unrelated rights, upholding the dissenting opinion in the Kharak Singh case. This also acted as a precedent of following rulings by smaller benches of the Supreme Court which expressly recognized the right to privacy. Moreover, it was in this circumstance that a Constitution Bench was established, which found that a nine-judge bench should be established to assess whether the Constitution contained a fundamental right to privacy or not.

Finally, on August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, declaring the right to privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues before the Court

• Whether the ‘right to privacy’ is a basic part of the right to life and personal liberty provided under Article 21 and also a part of the freedoms provided by Part III of the Constitution,
• And whether the judgment was taken in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi was right in the face of law?
• And was the decision taken in Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh correct in a legal sense?

The decision of the Court

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India issued a major decision upholding the basic right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of India’s constitution. The Supreme Court’s historic nine-judge bench unanimously agreed that Article 21 of the Constitution secured the right to privacy as an essential aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. Privacy is a distinct and independent basic right granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which relied on six separate judgments. The decision’s most crucial element conveyed a broad interpretation of the right to privacy. It was clarified that the right to privacy is a broad right that covers the body and mind, including judgments, choices, information, and freedom, rather than narrow protection against physical derivation or an invasion right under Article 21. Privacy was found to be a predominant, enforceable, and multifaceted right under Part III of the Constitution. Overall, the Court overturned the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh because the latter found that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Court found that the judgment in M.P. Sharma was legitimate because the Indian Constitution did not contain any limitations to the laws on search and seizure comparable to the Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment was not a comprehensive concept of security and that the absence of a comparable assurance in the Constitution didn’t imply that India lacked a distinctive right to protection by any stretch of the imagination– and thus, the decision in M.P. Sharma was overturned. Kharak Singh’s biased perspective on close-to-home freedom was also invalidated by the Supreme Court. This viewpoint was referred to as the “storehouse” approach obtained from A.K. Gopalan by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Court stated that after Maneka Gandhi, this method of seeing fundamental rights in watertight containers was abandoned.

The Court stated that after Maneka Gandhi, this method of seeing fundamental rights in watertight containers was abandoned. The Court also pointed out that the majority conclusion in Kharak Singh was internally inconsistent, as there was no legal basis for striking down domiciliary visits and police monitoring on any grounds other than privacy – a right they referred to in theory yet ruled to be unconstitutional. The Court further stated that subsequent cases maintaining the right to privacy after Kharak Singh should be viewed in light of the principles set forth in the opinion. The court also considered whether the right to life, the right to personal liberty, and the right to liberty established in Part III of the Constitution protects the right to privacy in affirmative instances. The court decided that privacy “is not an exclusive concept.” It dismissed the Attorney General’s position that the right to privacy should be ceded in exchange for the state’s welfare rights. Overall, while ruling that the right to privacy is not self-contained, the decision also outlined a legal survey standard that should be applied when the state intrudes on a person’s privacy.

It was decided that the right to privacy could be limited where an intrusion met the three-fold requirement of legality, which assumes the existence of law; need, which is defined in terms of a reliable state point; and proportionality, which ensures a reasonable relationship between the objects and the methods used to achieve them. The fourth point of this criteria was added by Justice S.K Kaul, who demanded “procedural assurances against maltreatment of such obstacles. Chelameswar, on the other hand, feels that the “overriding national interest” threshold should be applied only to privacy claims that demand “close inspection.”

The court found that the fair, just, and reasonable criteria of Article 21 should be applied to additional privacy issues and that whether or not to apply the “national priority” standard depends on the facts. The court also stressed the importance of sexual orientation in terms of privacy. It also examined the negative and positive aspects of the right to privacy, namely, that the state is not only prohibited from interfering with this right but is also required to take reasonable steps to protect personal privacy. Information privacy is part of the right to privacy, according to the ruling. Despite the fact that the court recognized the need for a data protection law, it left the burden of enacting legislation to Parliament.

References

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India and Ors., 2017. | LawFoyer

Written by Vidushi Joshi student at UPES, Dehradun.