Author: LEXPEEPS editor

About the Organization

A registered company in Delhi, Tabish Sarosh (OPC) Pvt Ltd. offers legal services, forensic services, legal and forensic trainings, and consulting. Since 2009, our legal team has been actively engaged in the field of criminal litigation. Our attorneys are highly qualified, experienced, and committed.
Our legal team handles a wide range of cases, including criminal and forensic matters involving murder, attempted murder, POCSO cases, rape cases, sexual harassment cases, bail matters, Negotiable Instruments Act, cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, cyber-crimes, corporate frauds, medical malpractice, PNDT cases, Motor Vehicles Act, matrimonial cases, and consumer matters.

About the Responsibilities  

Law students have the chance to participate in an offline internship programme.

As an intern you are required to: –

• Criminal Litigation
• Forensic Science
• Investigations techniques
• Drafting in Criminal cases
• Work in Court and Police station

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  tabishsaroshassociates@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, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

-Report by Nandini Gupta

In the case of The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah ordered that appointment on the mere grounds of compassionate after several years is unsustainable.

FACTS

The father of the respondent died in harness while working in clerical cadre with the appellants. Following this incident, the mother of the respondent i.e., the wife of the deceased was given an appointment on the grounds of compassion. But she also died in service. On 18th August 2011, the elder daughter (elder sister of the respondent) submitted an application for an appointment on the grounds of compassion which got rejected as she was married and not dependent on the deceased parents. Later, after two years on 26th February 2013, government issued another notice instructing to provide employment to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on the grounds of compassion.

In the following next month, another daughter (respondent) of the deceased mother who is also married submitted an application asking to provide employment on the grounds of compassion. This application was also rejected dated 23rd April 2013. The respondent filed an application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Judicature at Bombay where the judgement was in favor of the respondents ordering to consider the appointment on compassionate grounds.

The court while delivering the judgement considered the precedents where it was ordered that the appointment on compassionate grounds for all the vacancies or posts of the government equal opportunity should be provided to all the aspirants as per Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Employment under the State) of Constitution of India.

Moreover, the appointment on compassionate grounds is merely a concession instead of a right granted for the sake of economic stability to the family member or one of the dependent of the deceased. Reference was made to the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] where the court has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source or gateway for recruitment, instead it is a way to walk over the sudden financial crisis suffered by the deceased of the family.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court considering all the facts of the case and precedents, quashed the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The court observed that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal have given an erroneous decision by directing the appellants to appoint the respondents on the grounds of compassion when appointment after several years of death of the mother is unjustifiable.

-Report by Mahak

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted anticipatory bail in the case of GURPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. This application was made under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant, who was arrested at the police Station Karahiya, District Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicant is a 27-year-old man who is the husband of the complainant and anticipates his arrest for the offence mentioned above.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the primary allegation against the applicant is of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and that the allegation of rape is against his brother-in-law Boota Singh. However, it is alleged that he did not respond to the complaint made by the complainant/prosecutrix (the applicant’s wife), and this case was registered six months later.

Since the lawsuit stems from a marital disagreement, the applicant’s counsel alluded to several settlement discussions between the two parties. The compromise was incapable of producing an effective settlement. In addition, mediation processes were performed at the request of this court but were not successful. He referred to the recurring inclusion of allegations of violation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in domestic disputes. Confinement may result in social disgrace and personal benefit. The applicant agrees to assist with the investigation/trial. Under these conditions, he requests that his bail application may be considered.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Counsel for the respondent/State argued against the prayer. The learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and argued that the applicant is the complainant’s spouse and did not respond to her complaint when she was mistreated by family members and the principal defendant Boota Singh. He also brought up the issue of police authority not cooperating. He begged for the application to be denied.

JUDGEMENT

This court granted an anticipatory motion in light of the arguments and the facts that the applicant is the spouse and that he is not accused of a rape-related offence. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon providing a personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

This order further had 8 conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant such as complying with the process and not threatening any person acquainted with the facts.

– Report by Mahija Sinha

The Supreme Court in the case of  M/S. Emmar India Ltd. V. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP & Anr.  has stated that the HC must perform a preliminary inquiry to determine if the dispute is arbitrable to justify the appointment of arbitrators in an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act.

FACTS

The appellants challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision and ruling in the Arbitration Petition in a civil appeal. Both parties had entered into a Collaboration Agreement and a subsequent Addendum Agreement for building a residential colony in Gurugram’s Sector 62 and 65. The parties got into a dispute, and the respondents, in this case, claimed that the appellant had broken the Addendum Agreement’s responsibilities. The respondents sent a legal notice demanding actual control of five plots totalling 2160 square yards and alleging losses of Rs. 10 crores. The disagreement was arbitrable, according to the respondents in this case, and an ex-High Court judge was chosen as the arbitrator. However, the appellants, in this case, reject the arbitrator’s appointment. As a result, the respondents, in this case, submitted an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act asking the Court to select the arbitrators in accordance with Clause 37 of the Addendum Agreement. The appellants made a number of arguments in opposition to the aforementioned arbitration petition. The High Court granted the application under sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act and appointed the arbitrator while keeping in mind clauses 36 and 37 of the Addendum clause. This infuriated the appellants, who then brought the current appeal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The legal representatives for the appellant argued that the High Court completely overlooked the fact that, in the appellant’s opinion, the issue occurs under Clause 36 of the Agreement and not Clause 37 while granting the application under Sections 11(5) and (6) and selecting the arbitrators. They referred to the cases Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation and Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited, where the Court noted “that at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, a preliminary” injunction must be filed, and Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited, where it was held that the appointment of an arbitrator could be refused if the arbitration agreement is not in writing. As a result, it was finally argued that the High Court must conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the disagreement between the parties is covered by Clause 36 of the Agreement

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Referring to Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation, the legal representatives for respondents argued that it would be best to leave the decision of whether or not the dispute is arbitrable to the arbitrator in a request made under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, as it is the arbitrator’s job to make that determination. He continued by saying that the High Court’s selection of the arbitrators was correct, given a combined reading of Clauses 36 and 37 of the Agreement and the parties’ determination to settle their dispute through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act.

COURT’S DECISION

 The bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that

“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering Clauses 36 and 37 of the Agreement and when a specific plea was taken that the dispute falls within Clause 36 and not under Clause 37 and therefore, the dispute is not arbitrable, the High Court was at least required to hold a primary inquiry/review, and prima facie come to a conclusion on whether the dispute is arbitrable. Without conducting this preliminary investigation and despite knowing the fact that a party does have the right to seek enforcement of an agreement before a court of law as per Clause 36, the arbitrators were only appointed after it was noted that the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the resolution of disputes through arbitration.”

The Court stated that the High Court, however, did not recognize or consider that a dispute involving the enforcement of the Agreement as described in Clauses 3, 6, and 9 is not subject to arbitration at all. According to this interpretation, the High Court’s contested judgment and order appointing the arbitrators is invalid and should be repealed and overturned.

-Report by Sanstuti Mishra

It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC. vs. STATE BY ULSOOR PS that the videography containing confession made before the police is inadmissible as evidence

FACTS

The appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a Criminal Appeal which continued the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants which convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, which sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Appellants were arrested by the Police Inspector and Investigation Officer in a case of dacoity and murder which was registered at Police Station, Vijayanagar under Sections 354/397, IPC. A voluntary statement was then given by Accused No. 2 and lastly, all five accused confessed that they had committed the murder of S. Ramakrishna by cutting his neck with some strident weapon on the night of 11th October 2000. This happened at their residence and they fled after stealing around Rs.3000/-. They also volunteered to show the place where they had committed the crime on that night along with how they murdered the old aged person and then decamped with the cash and jewellery. A videography statement of the accused was recorded. The accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the High Court.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that this was a case of circumstantial evidence and it had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire case of the prosecution was based on the accused’s confession/voluntary testimony to police, the recovery of the murder weapon allegedly seized and the stolen goods from a jewellery store. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed a grave error while relying on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20(3)7 of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Further, a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence.

It was observed

“both the High Court as well as the Sessions Court have ignored the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudences and have relied upon facts and evidences which are clearly inadmissible in a court of law. The crime indeed was ghastly, to say the least. Yet, linking the crime to the present appellants is an exercise which was to be undertaken in the court of law under established principles of law. This has not been done.”

The orders of conviction were thus set aside.

-Report by Nandini Gupta

The Supreme Court has held it in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. & ors. vs. Union of India that a balance has to be struck between the right to privacy and the right to information.

FACTS

The banks have stated that the Reserve Bank of India has given instructions to the Banks to disclose confidential data under the Right to Information. However, the banks cannot ask for such data according to section 8 Reserve Bank of India Act and the Banking Regulation Act, of 1949. This influences the right to privacy of such Banks and their purchasers. The Reserve Bank of India had given such bearings considering the decision of the High Court in the case of Reserve Bank India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Girish Mittal versus Parvati v. Sundaram and another. The application has been filed to dismiss these writ petitions.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The applicant, Girish Mittal had looked for excusal of the writ petitions while battling that the current writ petitions, in actuality, are testing the last judgment and Request passed by the Court on account of Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and consequently were not viable and is responsible to be excused.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, showing up for the benefit of the applicant­-Girish Mittal depended on the judgment of a Nine-Judge Seat of the High Court on account of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others versus Territory of Maharashtra and Anr. on the side of his recommendation that a legal choice can’t be rectified by the Court in the exercise of its purview under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

Senior Supporters Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, Dushyant Dave, Jaideep Gupta, and K.V. Viswanathan and Supporter Divyanshu Sahay, showing up for the writ solicitors Banks presented that the right to protection has been supposed to be as understood essential right by a Five­-Judge Constitution Seat of the Court on account of High Court Promoters on­Record Affiliation and another versus Association of India.

It was additionally presented that Section 45NB of the Reserve Bank of India Act accentuates on the classification of specific data with respect to non-banking organizations. It was expressed that sub­section (4) of Section 45NB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, which is a non­obstante condition, gives that, despite anything contained in any regulation for the time being in force, no court or council or other authority will constrain the Bank to deliver or to give examination of any assertion or other material got by the Bank under any arrangements of this Section.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court observed

“This Court has seen that however Judges of the greatest court put forth a valiant effort, yet circumstances might emerge, in the most extraordinary of the uncommon cases, which would require reexamination of a last judgment to fix unnatural birth cycle of equity grumbled of. It has been held that in such a case it wouldn’t just be legitimate yet additionally compulsory both lawfully and ethically to correct the mistake. This Court additionally held that to forestall maltreatment of its cycle and to fix a ridiculous unsuccessful labor of equity, the Court might reevaluate its decisions in exercise of its intrinsic power.”

The Court additionally noticed that in the current case, as a matter of fact, the writ solicitors Banks were not parties in that frame of mind of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). The Court saw that however the Different Applications documented by HDFC Bank and others for review of the judgment and request on account of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) were dismissed by the Court, the Court didn’t dispossess the right of the applicants’ Banks to seek after different cures accessible to them in regulation.

“Without offering any last viewpoint, by all appearances, we track down that the judgment of this Court on account of
Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) didn’t think about the part of adjusting the right to data and the right to protection.”, the Court held.

The Court additionally saw that the main cure accessible to the candidates is to approach the Court via writ request under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for assurance of the principal privileges of their clients, who are residents of India. In this manner, the Court dismissed the fundamental complaints.

ABOUT THE FIRM

J&G Associates focuses on advisory, regulations and dispute resolution in Healthcare, Banking, Real Estate, Maritime, White Collar Crimes and E-Commerce Sectors. The firm is headquartered in Jaipur, Rajasthan and is headed by its founding partners Aditya Jain (Advocate on Record, SC) and Neha Gyamlani, Advocate. The partners and the entire team of associates bring with them a vibrant, flexible and an easy to adopt the approach in the above sectors. At the same time, the content (online and offline) being published by the team, is based on comprehensive and detailed research of the market. We measure our success by the service that we provide to our clients, irrespective of their size. We further believe in making the legal market and sphere, open for all, wherein young individuals with sharp skills can enter, perform and sustain.

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

1. Internship mode: Hybrid
2. Number of Vacancies: 4 (four )
3. Duration: 1 month initially
4. Eligibility: 3rd to 5th-year students of law schools. Final year in case of a 3-year law course
5. Last date for CVs: 10th October 2022, 12 PM.
6. The stipend is completely performance based.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Interested students may send their applications along with relevant cover letters to jandgadvocates@gmail.com with the subject line ” Application for Internship for the month of October and November 2022.

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

ABOUT THE FIRM

Thukral Law Associates partners with more than 140 law firms around the globe and have been extensively providing legal services and advisory directly to international clients from more than 22 countries. Thukral Law Associates enjoys the distinction of being one of those firms which have a full legal service presence in almost all major cities of India through its associate offices, which include New Delhi, Gurgaon, Punjab, Mumbai, Chandigarh, Jammu, Allahabad, Nainital, Bangalore, Pune. The Firm extensively deals with the litigation aspect of the work and has built up a renowned reputation in the legal fraternity.

JOB DESCRIPTION

1. Job Designation: Junior Associate
2. No. of Openings: 6
3. Job Location: A-1/22, LGF, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63
   

QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE

• Should be an Advocate enrolled with a State Bar Council / Bar Council of India
• Should have excellent command of English
• Should be able to take up drafting work independently
• Willing to join on immediate basis
• Freshers may also apply if they are confident that they can showcase the above skills

APPLICATION PROCESS

Interested candidates are required to appear for a Walk-In-Interview along with two copies of their CV and a passport-size photograph on any of the days stipulated below:
-07-10-2022, Friday : 12pm to 6pm
-10-10-2022, Monday : 12m to 3:30pm
-11-10-2022, Tuesday : 12pm to 6pm
-13-10-2022, Thursday : 12pm to 6pm
-14-10-2022, Friday : 12pm to 6pm

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

ABOUT THE FIRM

K K Associates is a full-fledged law firm committed to providing quality and effective legal services with a client-centred and result-oriented approach. They are committed to providing value and the best legal solutions to their clients and ensuring that each of our clients receives quality and timely services. They believe their client’s success is ultimately their success. Their endeavour is to maintain the highest standards of legal excellence, professional ethics and responsibility towards our clients in all engagements. They combine a personal approach with high professional standards and aim to provide a comprehensive legal service to their corporate, financial, commercial and individual clients. They are well-networked with various law firms in several cities in India and are associated with law firms outside India.

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

1. Need an intern preferably 4th-5th year students who are interested in litigation. The intern has to visit various courts and tribunals.
2. Location: Delhi
3. Mode of Internship: Physical
4. Duration: One Month (can be extended depending on the work).

APPLICATION PROCESS

Interested candidates can send their applications to associateskklaw@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Organization

Vyapi handles the client’s contract management, compliance, and risk management requirements while assisting businesses in streamlining and optimising their legal operations. Our approach is futuristic, and we also provide legal technology consultation.

About the Responsibilities  

We’re looking for recent grads who are enthusiastic about joining the innovative legal services and technology community.

As an intern you are required to: –

• assisting our internal team in the daily implementation of a range of projects relating to the business’s operations and strategy
• collaborating on several initiatives with our top executive team
• conducting research for different clientele
• help with standardised, high-volume work for a variety of clients, including law firms and MNCs
• assist with agency correspondence and questions

Location

Bangalore

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – career@Vyapi.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, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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