Author: LEXPEEPS editor

-Report by Pranav Mathur

The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 10th of February 2023, in the case of Narendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, upheld the conviction of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) given to the present appellant. The date of the judgment given by the Trial Court was the 11th of October 2012, and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment with the submission of a fine.

FACTS:

The appellant was a son born out of the confines of marriage. After the demise of his father, his mother remarried, and eventually passed away. Subsequently, his stepfather solemnized his marriage with another woman, who is the complainant represented by the respondent in the present appeal. The appellant wanted to sell his father’s land in a village, and would therefore frequently ask his step-father to execute the sale, only to be advised against it. One fateful night, after dinner, when the appellant went to sleep with his stepfather, the complainant woke up to the sound of the appellant assaulting his stepfather with an axe, eventually killing him. Due to the gathering of people caused by her screams, the appellant ran away, and a complaint against him was filed the next day. The appellant abjured guilt and signified his willingness to go to trial. He was eventually charged with murder by the Trial Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence in the case. It was further argued that the prosecution in the Trial Court failed to establish various key events that led to the appellant’s conviction. The complainant admitted during her cross-examination in the Trial Court that there were no sources of light to properly ascertain the face of the appellant and his alleged acts. It was further argued that no human blood had been found on the axe when it was seized from the appellant, and in conclusion, the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

Placing reliance on the competence of the Trial Court, the respondent contended that due care and attention had been given to the evidence on record, and was only then appreciated by the Court. They mainly argued that the statements given by the complainant and other spot witnesses were in perfect sync with each other, and therefore the case had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT:

The Court took into consideration the group of witnesses examined by the prosecution. It carefully took into consideration the post-mortem report submitted by the concerned medical officer, and based on those facts, concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. The appellant did not challenge the medical report, and the statements of the witnesses, which painted the entire scenario, based on which the Court, also taking cognizance of the number and nature of wounds caused, concluded that it was an act of murder with the intention to do as well. The Court, after taking into consideration the examinations and the cross-examinations of the witnesses, and the objections raised against them, concluded that the version given by the complainant cannot be said to be unbelievable. The Court opined that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant himself, and the appellant has not been able to give valid reasons for the injuries that the deceased sustained, which further supported the claim of the petitioner.

As held in the case of Gosu Jairami Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P., when direct evidence for an alleged crime is available, there is no need to search for the motive. Based on this principle, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court made no error in law while convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court, therefore, upheld the decision of the Trial Court, however, since the period of life imprisonment in default of payment of the fine wasn’t mentioned, the Court modified the punishment from life imprisonment and a fine of twenty thousand rupees to just the term of life imprisonment. The judgment of the Trial Court was therefore affirmed with the aforesaid modification.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZDd6Wn

This is a call for a paid internship opportunity for the month of March-April 2023.

Duties and Responsibilities

The work includes drafting, research & filing concerning commercial laws (IBC, Companies Act, etc.), tax laws (GST, Income Tax, etc.), civil laws (CPC, Contract, Arbitration, consumer, property disputes, RERA, etc.) & white collar crimes before the High Court, district courts, tribunals, etc. in Delhi-NCR.

No. of Positions

The opportunity is open for 2 candidates at the moment.

Requirements

• The candidate should be at least in the 4th/5th year of a 5-year law course or the final year of a 3-year law course.
• The candidate should have a preliminary knowledge of basic commercial and/or civil laws/concepts & a zeal to learn/apply their mind.
• They try to make the internship a valuable experience for the candidate with extensive discussions, learnings & delegation.
• The candidate will have to attend office & courts with the liberty to work online after prior discussion.

Location

The office is at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may apply by sending their CVs along with published articles/research papers/writing samples on any subject (mandatory) to mail@deepakjoshi.in on or before 26.02.2023 i.e. Sunday. Only those emails will be considered which include “Internship – March & April 2023” in the subject line. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed on or before 28.02.2023.

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

AK & Partners is a collaboration of new-generation advocates who believe that transaction advisory and dispute resolution go beyond applying laws of jurisdiction to factual situations. The firm believes that businesses in present times deserve techno-commercial, legal advisory aligning with international best practices. Legal advice should not only be legally correct but commercially and financially feasible with a focus on risk management.

They are now accepting applications for internships for the month of March 2023.

Tenure

A minimum period of 30 days

No. of Positions

Two

Mode of Internship

Selected candidates would be required to join and attend the office in New Delhi from Monday to Friday 10 AM to 8 PM and on Saturdays 10 AM-6 PM.

Applications Process

Interested candidates are requested to send their updated CVs with one writing sample to recruitment@akandpartners.in and mention ‘Application for internship- March’ in the subject line.

Note: They are accepting students from the third year and onwards.

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

-Report by Arun Bhattacharya

In the matter of M/S WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR the High Court of Delhi on Wednesday 22^nd of February, reiterated the fact “it is now well settled that the power to blacklist the contractor is inherent in the party allotting the contract”. 

FACTS:

The petitioners were successful bidders regarding an e-tender floated by the respondent which dealt with engaging security guards and security personals for a period of one year. Agreement was signed between the parties and according to its terms a 2015 work order was to be followed in the present matter too but issue arose when a show cause notice was issued against the petitioners alleging a failure of submission of necessary training certificates thus violating the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. With such allegations of the forefront, the petitioner had requested back the deposit money from the respondents along with a request to not take any action related to blacklisting or restraining them from further bidding. But the respondents had issued an order thereby blacklisting the petitioners who in turn filed the present writ petition challenging the same. 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

The petitioner primarily highlighted the non-necessity of providing such training certificates with respect to the aforementioned work order and that the principles of Natural Justice was violated by the respondents while debarring the petitioners from further biddings. More so, the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction regarding the arbitrary and disproportionate decision to bar them for a period three years.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The respondents while refuting all the claims of the petitioners stated that the requisite of training certificates were mandatory and perfectly in compliance with law prescribed and the work order provided. It was highlighted that the decision of blacklisting was taken on the basis of repeated failures on part of the petitioner who was unable to justify their position even after receiving repeated opportunities. Thus a breach of such contractual obligations was enough to justify their stand of debarring the petitioner.

JUDGEMENT:

The honorable court referring to multiple decisions like M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (1975) 1 SCC 70 and Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) [(1978) 3 SCC 36] reiterated the stand taken by the Supreme Court that power to blacklist any party remains with the person providing such contract and that such decision of blacklisting shall remain beyond the purview of appellate judicial authorities, except in circumstances when the principles of natural justice are violated. The honoroble  court highlighted the inability or noncompliance on part of the petitioner regarding non submission of certificates which was a requisite according to law prescribed but also pointed out the arbitrariness on part of the respondents regarding the debarment of the petitioners for a period of three years. Such debarment could only have arisen in cases of grievous offences as prescribed by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore referring to certain other judgments by the same court, the Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order and disposed of the petitioner making room for fresh inquiry regarding the same matter. 

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

-Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday 23^rd of February, 2023 had to resolve a bizarre case of appeal by a by a mother who had allegedly strangulated her five-year old child in desperation and desire to live separately. The aforementioned matter has been dealt in VAHITHA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU. 

FACTS:

A wife having to live without her husband finds herself in desperate need to live separately and not with her mother-in-law. Out of desire to remove the only obstacle in her way of liberation that in this case happens to be her five-year old child, strangulates and murders the child causing asphyxia. Trial court had found the woman to be guilty under the offence of Murder and sentenced her accordingly. Thehonourable High court also reiterated the stand taken by the lower court hence being aggrieved by the same; she filed the present appeal under a Special Leave Petition before the apex court of the nation.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

The appellant highlighted many of the discrepancies in the prosecution’s case specifically focussing on the fact that there was no motive for the appellant to commit such a heinous act. (Here it must be noted that motive is something which prompts a person to take action, intention is the act done in order to achieve the motive and knowledge is merely the awareness of the consequences of such acts.) Appellant tried to establish her plea of alibi as to the absence of her during the death of the child and that she was elsewhere with her fatherand was arrested at the bus stand while she was returning after hearing the news of her child’s demise. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The prosecution/respondents clarified that the evidences were satisfactory as to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and since it was established by the witnesses that the appellant was the person with whom the deceased child was last seen, the conviction by the learned Trial Court and the High Court was justified.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court while referring to the guidelines as enshrined in Sharhad Bidhichand Sharda analysed the matter on the basis of circumstantial evidences rejected the plea of alibi by the appellant citing clear contradictions in the testimonies of the hostile witnesses and upheld the prosecution’s argument regarding motive of the appellant as to the desire to live separately.

Thus upholding the decision taken by the learned Trial Court and the honourable High Court, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal.

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

-Report by Shreya Gupta

The petition and respondent in this case is SMT. SUNITA GARG and M/S SCRAFT PRODUCT P LTD respectively. The case arose due to the arbitration clause in the lease agreement.

FACTS:

The present case has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in order of appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute has risen between them due to a lease deed according to which the petitioner is the owner of the property and the respondent is the tenant. The tenant had approx. 25000 sq. feet on ground floor, 25000 sq. feet on first floor, total area 50000 sq. feet which also included the mezzanine floor sides, washroom and rooms at the back, genset panel and the sundry assets area etc. at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,00,000/- exclusive of all other charges.

PETIONER’S CONTENTION:

The petioner contended that the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rents and he is required to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.29,49,350/-.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The respondent contends that the clause 25 in the lease deed does not constitutes an arbitration agreement rather it states an alternative to reach to the Delhi high court. He also draws attention to the clause 27 of the agreement. He contends further that when cluse 25 is read with clause 27 it gives the option to either invoke arbitration or to approach a civil court for getting the leased premises vacated in the event of any violation or infringement on the part of the lessee, whereas, for the purpose of the claims of the respondent, no such option has been given. He further takes support of the previous judgements of Wellington Associates Ltd. vs. Kirti Mehta and Shri Chand Construction and Apartments Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that “ the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that Clause-25 in the said lease deed gives an option to the petitioner/lessor to either take recourse to the arbitration or pursue her remedies in a court of law, is misconceived and is based on a misreading of the Arbitration Clause. The clause unambiguously provides that any disputes arising with regard to “interpretation and/or implementation of terms and conditions of this deed the same shall be referred to an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whose decision shall be final and binding on both the parties‖. The later part of the clause i.e., the words “and/or the same may be defended subject to Delhi Court Jurisdictions only”, are evidently, intended to convey that any decision of the arbitrator would be subject to jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. The Clause cannot be construed as giving an option to any party to either take recourse to arbitration or alternatively, file a civil suit.” The court stated that the reliance placed on the previous judgements is completely misconceived. The court appointed Mr. Vikas Gupta as the sole arbitrator in this case.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41qr3IE

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001285                    

The Firm is looking to retain a Patent Paralegal/ Admin/ Secretary for its Intellectual Property Practice.

About the Organization

Wadhwa Law Offices is a multi-disciplinary firm rooted in the conviction that businesses do not need lawyers. They need counsel. Counsel who go beyond advising on the law and works with the client’s business problems to render commercial advice and not just legal opinions. Every counsel at Wadhwa Law Offices is practical about the law, simplifies the issue, gives advice from multiple possibilities, and is the sounding board to clients on different aspects of their business. The firm’s non-legacy non-conformist leadership trained in global law firms lends distinct sophistication and international best practices.

Positions

Patent Paralegal/ Admin/ Secrertary for its Intellectual Property Practice

Eligibility

• PQE: 1-4 years with an IP Firm, specifically in the Patent practice, with experience in preparing forms, filing patent applications, prosecuting patent applications, checking patent formalities at the Indian Patent Office, updating patent portfolios, docketing, and sending reporting emails.
• Proficiency with MS Office suite and good communications skills with fluency in English is required.
• Working knowledge of any software used in an IP Firm will be appreciated.

Location

Gurugram, Haryana

Application Procedure

Interested professionals can drop us an email with their resume at lavanyaj@walaw.in  

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

 

About the Organization

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

Position

Junior Associate

Experience

0 to 2 years PQE

Eligibility

• Knowledge of arbitration and civil law
• Willing to join immediately

Location

Kolkata

Salary

Negotiable

Application Procedure

Please send your CV to career@sinhaco.com

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Advocate

Advocate Sattyajeet Karale Patil is one the top three youngest advocates in India, practising in crimes, Narcotics, cyber law, family, consumer and other arenas. He is enrolled with the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.

Vacancy

09 interns

Mode of the Internship

Hybrid (Virtual/Offline)

Duration

2 months

Application Procedure

Send your RESUMES at +91 7977564462 before 26th February 2023

Note – Applicants will be selected through ONLINE INTERVIEW only.

Contact details

Mahenoor Khan (Associate): +91 7977564462

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Internship

Drafting petitions along with research work related to Criminal & Constitutional matters.

ELIGIBILITY

3rd , 4th Years of 5-year course , 2nd-3rd years of 3 year course

Mode of Internship

Virtual/online

Application Procedure

Please send your CV along with the cover letter on advrajnigupta3@gmail.com

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

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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