About Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (RHDFC) is a Housing Finance Company registered with the National Housing Bank. It offers home-purchase, home construction and home improvement loans to the low-income segment, primarily persons engaged in the informal sector, across urban and semi-urban India. through a service strongly differentiated on ‘trust’ and ‘convenience’ supported by a distinct and robust underwriting framework.

About Job

Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited is hiring Senior Manager (Corporate Legal)

Essential Qualifications

* LLB from reputed law school/university

* Excellent communication and drafting skill with good legal bent of mind

* PQE 3-5 years in BFSI in corporate legal role

Job Description

* Contract drafting related to treasury functions, vendors & retail mortgage lending business.

* Business advisory, title search & due diligence

* Good knowledge of corporate & commercial laws of India

Link to Apply:

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2659101619/

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About CRIF India

CRIF India is one of India’s leading provider of Credit Information, Business Information, Analytics, Scoring, Credit Management and Decisions Solutions. CRIF India offers banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, telecom players and businesses services in every phase of the customer relationship: from customer assessment, onboarding onto servicing and management. CRIF is a global fintech with a presence in over 50 countries across 4 continents. In India, CRIF has two companies –

• CRIF High Mark, India’s leading credit bureau supporting millions of lending decisions every month.

• CRIF Solutions, offering Analytics & Scoring services, Credit Management solutions, Decision solutions, and Business Information Reports from its center of excellence based in Pune.

CRIF India brings together best of both worlds – comprehensive data and sophisticated dedupe technology for India along with global best practices, expertise in scoring and top-rated credit management software solutions – to add the most value to our clients. CRIF in India has over 350 employees working primarily from offices in Mumbai and Pune.

Job Description

  • Managing Legal, Secretarial and Compliance functions of the company;
  • Providing strategic and regulatory advice to Senior Management, business and various other functions;
  • Drafting / vetting of commercial agreements including Leases, Procurement, IT , Service Agreements, NDAs, etc.
  • Managing litigations matters;
  • Labour law compliances and related advisory;
  • Support to HR in employees related matters;
  • Support to Operations on customer complaints;
  • Ensuring implementation and monitoring of compliances related to corporate laws, CICRA regulations, RBI circulars and guidelines;
  • Designing and implementing the compliance framework and monitoring;
  • Dealings with RBI and other regulatory bodies
  • Drafting / reviewing the terms and conditions of the Products;
  • Managing Board and Shareholders matters including board and general meetings;
  • Drafting / Reviewing of all compliance related policies etc;
  • Assisting in convening Board and Shareholder’s Meeting;
  • Preparation of meeting documents, minutes;
  • File regular returns with appropriate authorities;
  • Liaison with other departments;
  • Providing opinion on legal aspects pertaining to data privacy;
  • Interacting with external Lawyer officers for court Matters;
  • Maintenance of Statutory & Compliance Records;
  • Maintenance of all Legal documents and commercial agreements;

REQUIREMENT:

  • Required relevant years of experience should be 15-20 years;
  • Should have worked in the Banking, Fintech & Insurance sectors;
  • Experience in a Commercial Bank/Small Finance Bank/ NBFC would be an added advantage
  • A decent balanced exposure and experience in Compliance and Legal both and should have experience in leading the Compliance & Legal Teams;
  • Should have interacted with regulators and managed relations with regulatory bodies;
  • Should have worked at a decision making level wrt function;
  • Been a Team Leader for a minimum of 9 years;
  • Should have implemented a compliance framework for the complete organisation;
  • Extremely good in written and spoken English communication;
  • Maturity to understand client expectations;
  • Ability to interact with senior level (CEO / CXO) executives from client organization;
  • Attention to details;
  • Good working experience in Excel, Word and Power point presentations;
  • Ability to handle matters independently and collaborate in teams

Qualification:

           LLM & Company Secretary

Link to Apply

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2628278885

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About Job

Applications are invited for the 94 posts of Law Clerks (Trainee) in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The engagement shall be purely contractual based for a fixed term of one year. However, the term may be terminated at any time, without any notice.

No. of Vacancies

94

Last Date to Apply

28.08.2021

Essential Qualifications: 

1. Three Years Professional/Five Years Integrated Degree in Law from any Law College or recognized University throughout the country. Applications shall be accepted from such ‘Law Graduates’ who have not started practice as an advocate or engaged in any other profession or vocation/service. Those who have appeared in LL.B. (Final Year) in 2020-21 Examination and are awaiting results may also apply. Law graduates having scored not less than 55% marks in their LL.B. examination are only eligible to apply for the post of Law Clerks (Trainee). They will be required to submit their final mark sheet of LL.B. Examination at the time of interview, which may be held in the month of September, 2021.

2. Computer knowledge, i.e., Data Entry, Word Processing and Computer Operations.

Age Limit

The Candidates must have attained the minimum age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 26 years as on 01.07.2021.

Selection Procedure :

For making selection, competence would be judged on the basis of interview only, which will be held only at Allahabad. The candidates for interview will be called only after screening. No T.A. will be payable for attending the interview.

Period of Engagement

The engagement shall be for a fixed term of one year only from the first date fixed for joining, which may be terminated without notice at any time.

Marital Status

A candidate having more than one spouse or married to such a person who already had a living legally wedded wife/husband, will not be eligible.

Other Conditions of Engagement

The Law Clerks (Trainee) shall be governed by such rules of attendance, leave and other related matters as might be prescribed from time to time by Hon’ble Committee/Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Disqualification

  1. A candidate involved in any kind of criminal case whether convicted or charge-sheeted shall be barred from applying for the above post.
  2. Those who have already worked as Law Clerk (Trainee) will not be eligible to apply again.

Salary

A fixed honorarium of Rs. 15000/- per month with no Dearness Allowance and/or any other allowances and also without any other perquisite such as residential accommodation etc.

How to Apply

1. The application forms can be purchased from the counter in the High Court Judicature at Allahabad and at it’s Lucknow Bench on payment of Rs. 300/- in cash. The applications forms are also available on the official web site of Allahabad High Court (www.allahabadhighcourt.in) and may be downloaded and used subject to payment of application form of Rs. 300/- to be paid through bank draft drawn in favour of Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. The application form along with one duly attested copy of High School Mark Sheet, High School Certificate in proof of age/date of birth, Intermediate Mark Sheet, Intermediate Pass Certificate, Graduation/Post Graduation Mark Sheets and Certificates and testimonials regarding Extra Curricular Activities and Computer Knowledge along with two self addressed envelope (size 5”x10”) each bearing postage stamps worth Rs. 40/- should be sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad either by Speed Post, Registered Post with AD or through Courier.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Trivedi & Parashar (Advocates and Solicitors) is looking for law interns (4th/5th year law students only) for an internship program.

The intern will be required to conduct legal research, draft legal documents, and occasionally accompany the associates to attend Court proceedings and client conferences.

Due to the current COVID scenario, interns will be required to work from home mostly.

No. of interns required

2

Eligibility

  • Having experience or wanting to gain experience in the field of Corporate, Commercial and Litigation work.
  • Availability for a minimum of two months of internship.

Application Process

Send in your CV along with Cover Letter with the Subject
Title: Internship Application & Name.

Once CV is received, two rounds of interview will be conducted remotely through online mode.

Emails to be sent to:
office@trivedi-parashar.com

CC to HR Head:
Charu@trivedi-parashar.com

For further details about the Firm, visit:

www.trivedi-parashar.com

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About LicitElite

Team LicitElite, focuses on providing assistance to Law students in self grooming while acquiring better knowledge, by generating an exclusive learning platform through activities like law classes, blog writing, competitions etc. It also aims to connect with legal experts to design better learning opportunities.

About Editor(s)

Dr. Ashu Dhiman is a Professor at Centre for Legal studies, Gitarattan international business school, Delhi. She is also the Editor in chief, LicitElite. She has authored and published “Hindu Law on Divorce” having ISBN 9781638732167. She has Edited First Edition of published book on “Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law” having ISBN No. 9788195211609. She has Co-Edited MediateGuru’s published book on “A pathway to the future of ADR” having ISBN 9781639747894. She has edited many journals and annual magazines. Her areas of expertise are Family Law and Criminal Law.

Mr. Param Bhamra is Founding Partner at MediateGuru, which is an International Forum having its reach in over 120 countries and connecting Experienced personnel with young inspiring lawyers and practitioners. Mr. Bhamra has his expertise in International Mediation as well as Arbitration.  Mr. Bhamra has Co-Edited First Edition of Published book on “Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law” with ISBN no. 9788195211609, Patron of MediateGuru’s Book on “A Pathway to the Future of ADR” having ISBN 9781639747894. He also has a published book in Fiction Category titled “Gods Among us” which is available on Amazon worldwide having ISBN No. 9781639579013.

About the Book

Crime is an unlawful act committed by a person against another person or society. Crime is considered as an act against the state. In today’s ever changing world we are evolving out of our historic laws which no longer serves our purpose, for ex – striking down adultery laws and homosexual laws. Further we need efficient laws to deal with rising problems such as of Rape, murder etc, as current laws are not deterrent to the commission of such crimes as we can observe from ever increasing cases of crime. These problems and issues are there for a long time and require special attention to deal with.

With the start of the New Era, we announce our call for chapters for Second Edition in order to create new opportunities for the authors in Criminal law to showcase their caliber in Legal research.

Theme

Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law

Guidelines of Submission

1. The authors should use the ILI (Indian Law Institute) format of Footnoting and Times New Roman Font 12 with bold headings and space lining 1.5.

2. Co-Authorship is allowed. However, there can be maximum two co-author in one research paper.

3. The work submitted shall be ORIGINAL and UNPUBLISHED

Perks

·      Each Author with selected paper will be provided with an E-certificate and soft copy of the book.

·      Availability of Book to be purchased over Amazon, Kindle (worldwide) & Flipkart.

·      Acknowledgement and appreciation of Author in the Description of Book.

The body of the paper shall be:

Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 12 Line Spacing: 1.5

Citations Shall be: Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 10 Line Spacing: 1

Word Limit:

The word limit for research paper (inclusive of abstract) is between 3000 words (minimum) to 6000 words (maximum) This word limit is inclusive of footnotes.

Submission

♣ All the manuscripts being contributed for the Edited book are to be sent at: licitelite@gmail.com

♣ The manuscript must be accompanied with an abstract of paper in not more than 300 words.

♣ The entries should reach the given email ID by 1st November 2021.

♣ Entry should be in either ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ format.

♣ The subject of the mail should be: “Submission for an Edited Book by LicitElite”.

Publication Fees

There are no publication fees, whatsoever for the selected articles. However, if the author(s) wish to have a hard copy, they can acquire the same from the store.

Publication

The selected best quality papers will be sent for publication in ISBN numbered book.

For more query, mail us at licitelite@gmail.com

Organizers

LicitElite

+91 98107 93800

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Case Number

1952 M. No. 2170

Case Citation

[1953] 1 All ER 779

Bench

Harman J.

Decided On

23rd February 1953 

Section

Partnership- Dissolution

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and the defendants were partners in a partnership at will and conducted the business of fashion and commercial photographers.

 The defendant wanted to start and conduct a business of commercial and fashion photography. For this purpose, he took on a lease of certain premises for a period of 7 years at £400 per year in Shepherd’s Market, which became the premises for conducting the business. The furniture and studio equipment also belonged to the defendant. The defendant started the business. As he was not skilled himself, he hired others to work for him. In January 1950, the defendant invited the plaintiff to work as a  business partner. The plaintiff worked as a freelance photographer at this time and was a well known commercial photographer. First, he occasionally worked at the defendant’s studio but started working there full time in April 1950. He brought in a considerable amount of goodwill and connexions to the business. Both brought in some negatives. There were only two agreed on terms of the partnership, these being:

  1.  The profits were to be shared equally.
  2. The plaintiff shall receive £125 monthly on his account of share of profits.

Both parties wanted to legalize the partnership and in accordance with this, the plaintiff talked to his solicitors, who on his behalf wrote to the defendant. The parties contemplated carrying on the business as a limited company, but nothing further had been decided. Subsequently, the parties quarrelled and the partnership was dissolved in May 1952. 

During the dissolution, it was held that no terms were to be implied, except those which were essential to the efficacy of the business. Also, although the lease was the defendant’s property, the rent and other expenses were to be debited to the partnership. 

On February 19, an order was made. This order declared that there was a partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant from April 1, 1950, to May 30, 1952. 

Issues before the Court

  1. Whether there was a partnership.
  2. If there was a partnership, what were the assets of the partnership?

Ratio of the Case

The judge observed that a partnership did exist between the two parties and the only term which had been agreed upon was the equal sharing of profits. The question before the court was with respect to what were the assets of the partnership. As assumed, the stock-in-trade such as films and negatives were brought in as assets to the partnership and thus were assets of the same. The judge stated that no more agreements shall be implied between the parties than ones that are essential to the efficacy of the business.

The judge observed that nothing except the negatives brought by both parties had gone into the partnership as assets and if they wish to, both the parties can take away their own negatives. The judge on the topic of the negatives stated that the negatives of photographs that had been used up in the course of the partnership are an asset belonging to the partnership. 

The judge stated that the goodwill brought in by both parties shall not be counted as an asset of the partnership. The reason given by him was that although the parties contemplated on attributing some value to the goodwill, nothing was ever finalized and thus goodwill cannot be said to be a partnership asset. Therefore, now that the partners have separated, they both shall keep their own respective connexions.

Decision of the Court

The court held that the lease, equipment and furniture were brought in by the defendant, and was thus his personal property. Also, the negatives brought in were the property of the respective bringers. The goodwill of both parties shall not form any part of the partnership assets. The only assets of the partnership were the stock-in-trade and consumable chattels.

The court also held that no depreciation shall be charged to the partnership. The court lastly, held that the partnership shall be debited for the expenses of rent, rates and insurance for the time that it had occupied the premises.

The author is Om Gupta, a first-year law student pursuing BBA-LLB from the University School of Law and Legal Studies.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

What is a Copyright?

Copyright is one of the intellectual property rights automatically provided to the author or creator of original work, giving them the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted work.

The creator might apply for a copyright for original and unpublished works, including literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic, or artistic works. Copyright also protects sound recordings. Briefly speaking, copyrights protect a creator’s economic and moral rights. It helps preserve the owners’ liberty to take legal actions to defend their work and sometimes act as a source of income in the form of royalties. Generally, copyright is granted for sixty additional years to the life of the creator or author of the work. Copyright also encourages other people in the society to come forward with their creativity upon seeing the benefits and protection of their work.

Copyright Infringement

You go to a shop, buy a book, turn a leaf, and there comes the warning “All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical…..” And you don’t read it because, of course, you are more interested in the story. But then, if you proceed to photocopy the book and give it to your friend in exchange for monetary consideration, without the permission of the publisher, you are infringing their copyright and can even be held liable.

This might seem surprising that such a simple act may amount to copyright infringement, but it is. Any form of reproduction of works (literary, musical, art, or dramatics) that has been copyrighted will amount to copyright infringement. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to either sell or license his work to any outside party who can then use it for reproduction. Often movies are based on previously written books. The author, in that case, either sells his right or gives the director a license allowing him to use the plot for celluloid.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, however, limits copyright infringement in the following cases:

  1. If it is being used for personal use, such as for research or educational purposes.
  2. In instances of reporting current events, this may at times include any lecture delivered in public. 
  3. If any work is being used for review or criticism.

Types of Copyright Infringement

Broadly copyright infringement can be classified into two kinds:

  1. Primary infringement
  2. Secondary infringement

PRIMARY INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

Primary infringement of copyright can be best explained with the example I already mentioned above. Photocopying a storybook and selling it to your friend is a classic example of primary infringement. It refers to the act of copying the work of the copyright holder and then distributing it for commercial purposes. However, to prove copyright infringement, the copyright holder must show that there is a substantial amount of work being copied. If certain casual similarities arise because both of them referred to the same sources, it will not amount to a copyright issue. 

For example, if you use a verse from any Taylor Swift’s song and incorporate it in a song you claim to be written by you and then sell it to a recording company, you have infringed on the copyright of the copyright holder. But if your song includes some similar phrases akin to hers, everyday daily use will not amount to copyright infringement.

SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT

Secondary infringement includes aiding in the circulation of copyright infringed works. For example, if person A has a photocopy machine in his stationery shop and knowingly allows another person B to photocopy a book and then B goes on to sell the photocopied book, then A and B can be made liable for infringement of copyright. But if A was not aware of B’s intention of selling the photocopied book, he cannot be made accountable. Importing, marketing, and distributing of infringed copies fall under the category of secondary infringement.

Remedies for Infringement of Copyright

Civil, as well as criminal remedies, are available to people whose copyright has been infringed.

Civil Remedy

Section 55 of The Copyright Act, 1957 states that any person whose copyright has been infringed has the right to obtain damages in keeping with the harm suffered.

Criminal Remedy

Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that criminal charges can also be brought on the infringer for infringement of copyright. If the copyright holder gets criminal charges, then punishment may extend from six months to three years imprisonment with a fine of fifty thousand rupees, extendable up to two lakh.

Case Laws Involving Copyright Infringement

Rogers V Koons

Copyright issues are never black and white. There is always a different opinion on a given judgment. Rogers V Koons was a case built upon one fundamental question ‘is basing your artwork on someone else’s allowed, and will it be qualified as derivative artwork.’ The Judge, in this case, found Mr. Koons guilty of copying Mr. Rogers photograph and basing his statues on it. The similarity was evident, and any person could tell that the work has been copied.

UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

This case made a noteworthy contribution by developing a mechanism called the ‘dynamic injunction.’ While adjudicating this case, Disney V M1 was referred. The Judge finally concluded that a plaintiff was allowed to file an additional affidavit explaining to the court why a new website should be considered under a previously granted injunction order. This helped to solve alphanumeric or mirroring sites, which would multiply and reappear as a redirected website after being blocked. Previous to this order, copyright holders to protect their work would need to go through the long and tedious process of litigation over and over again. This case set a precedent by introducing this new mechanism.

Tips Industries V Wynk Music

Tips Industries V Wynk Music cleared a long looming confusion if Section 31D of the Copyright Act included internet broadcasting and if the download or purchase of copyrighted work was allowed under the same section. Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 mentions the statutory licensing scheme which could be used by any organization willing to broadcast(communicate) to the public any sound recordings against the payment of a fixed amount of royalty as set by the Intellectual Property law Board. The Bombay High Court found Wynk Music Company guilty of violating the copyright of Tips industries. Wynk music allowed customers to download the music file in question and store it for unlimited future use. This was not mere broadcasting but qualified as a sale of copyrighted work without the copyright holder’s permission.

Conclusion

Copyright infringement is a crime, legally as well as morally. One puts all their efforts and creativity into producing a piece of art, and then another person blatantly copies it. Thus one should avoid infringing on the copyright of others at all costs. The goal of copyright is to preserve the rights of original work owners while also rewarding them financially for their innovation and hard work. Although it is not required to register one’s work, it is strongly advised to do so as soon as one’s idea begins to take shape in writings, as this will provide strong evidence to show to a court in the event of an infringement.

This article is written by Debasmita Nandi, a first year law student of CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), LAVASA.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Case Number

(1906) AC 494 (PC)

Bench

The Earl of Halsbury, Lord Macnaghten, Sir Arthur Wilson, Sir Alfred Wills

Author of the Judgement

Lord Macnaghten

Decided On

16 July 1906

Brief Facts and Procedural History

There was a partnership between Goldberg- a land speculator, Trimble- an auctioneer and Bennet- a merchant, object being purchase and re-sale of certain properties belonging to Hollard (including 5500 shares of a company Sigma Building Syndicate Limited engaged in the business of selling stands of land). All transactions were to be made through Trimble, to whom the other two were to give their power of attorneys. The transaction went smoothly. Later, Trimble along with Bennet bought stands of land from the company secretly at a bargain. The reason for such secrecy given was that Goldberg was an undesirable partner and was not financially stable. A suit was instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

Contentions of the Plaintiff/Respondent

  • Contended that the partnership had given Trimble a mandate to buy the stands on a joint account.
  • It was a general principle of a partnership that he was entitled to the profits made from the purchase.

Trial Court and High Courtin favour of the Appellant/Defendant

Supreme Court– founding on account of equity decided in the favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent declaring him entitled to share in the profits made by the other party purchased in secrecy. 

Issue Before the Privy Council

Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent is entitled to share in the profits made by the Appellants.

Ratio of the Case

  1. Neither the purchase in question was a part of the partnership nor it was an undertaking in the rivalry with the partnership or indeed connected with it in any sense.
  1. The decision by the Court of Appeal was criticised. Such a purchase was not expressly prohibited under the agreement but was held by the Court of appeal as a violation of trust, the basic foundation of a partnership. It was analysed by the House of Lords that even if it was expressly prohibited, then also the remedies available would have been an immediate dissolution of the partnership or claim for damages. Nonetheless, a share in the profits made from such a purchase would still have been held out of scope.
  1. Lord Blackburn in one of the earlier cases observed that it is advisable in a partnership as a matter of prudence and on other grounds that all matters be above board. But in the present case, there was no legal duty on Trimble or Bennet to disclose the purchase to Goldberg unless he had a right to take part in speculation.
  1. Also, the partnership eventually gained from such a purchase as the company got to sell at a higher price than what it would have gotten from the Government and the partnership as a shareholder of the company was proportionately the gainer.

Decision of the Court

It was held by the Privy Council that the decision of the Court of Appeal could not be supported either on authority or any recognized doctrine of equity and hence cannot be maintained. The purchase was held “not within the scope of the partnership” despite the fact that the Appellant got to know about it while doing partnership business or that it was a similar transaction as that of the partnership.

Hence, the Appeal was allowed and the Respondent was directed to pay the cost of the Appeal.

This case analysis is done by Munmun Kaur, a Law student from Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

INTRODUCTION

Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet, which means no one should be made judge in his or her own cause. It is the principle of Natural Justice. This maxim further says that the persons who are provided with the authority of giving decisions must be impartial and should act fairly without bias and prejudice. According to the dictionary, the term “bias” refers to anything that influences a person to decide a case other than on the basis of evidence. The rule against bias is against those factors that improperly influence a judge against arriving at a decision in a particular case. This rule is based on the assumption that it is against human psychology to decide a case against his own interest.

Meaning

 The doctrine of necessity is considered as an exception to the rule of bias under the rule of natural justice. It allows authorities to perform two things i.e. to do certain things which are essential to be done at a particular moment, and those acts which in a normal situation do not come within the scope of the law. When there is the absence of definite authority to decide on a matter, then in such a situation the doctrine will be invoked. Although it has been established by the Supreme Court that the Doctrine of Necessity is not to be invoked every now and then for even small matters, since it might lead to the absence of rule of law. If a choice is given whether to let a biased person act on a matter and whether to stop the matter itself, then in such situation, the preference will be given to the former part over the latter one, although which may be afflicted by the bias of that particular person or authority, however, the decision of that biased authority is mandatory to come to a conclusion under a said matter.

Evolution

The term “Doctrine of Necessity” is defined as a term that is used to describe the base on which administrative actions take place via administrative authority, which is designed to restore order, are found to be constitutional. The maxim on which this doctrine is based, is originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this kind of administrative action have been lead by more recent legal authorities, including William Blackstone.

In the contemporary world, the term was first used in the year 1954, in a controversial judgment in which Chief Justice of Pakistan Muhammad Munir legalized the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers by Governor-General, Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, the Chief Justice cited Bracton’s maxim, ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’, and thereby providing the label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was implementing

Since then, the Doctrine of Necessity has been applied in a number of Commonwealth countries, and in 2010 was invoked to justify administrative actions in Nepal.

What is objectionable is not that the decision is actually rotten with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable mistrust in the minds of others that there is a probability of bias affecting the decision. The underlying rule to this principle is that ‘Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done’.

Hence, Doctrine of Necessity is an exception to Nemo judex in causa sua.

Judicial Decisions

  1. J. Mahopatra and Co. v State of Orrisa,

In this case, Supreme Court rejected the contention of the doctrine of necessity, on the ground that though members of the subcommittee were appointed by the righteousness of their official positions, they were holding positions in the secretary education department of the government of Orrisa and the director higher education etc. 

  1. Tata Cellular v Union of India,

In this case, the Government of India distributed invitations to all the mobile operators to create networks in the four metro cities. The Director-General of Telecommunication was present in the Evaluation Committee which was supposed to evaluate the tenders under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). At the end of the evaluation process, his son’s tender was selected. To this, Supreme Court refused and said that there is no violation of ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ as the Director-General of Communication is required for the selection and evaluation of the tender. There was no choice of substitution, thus, the decision was not liable to be struck down. In this case, Doctrine of Necessity was applied liberally by the Supreme Court.

  1. In Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy

In this case it was observed that in a multi-member commission participation of Chief Election Commission is not mandatory and the doctrine of necessity will not apply if he is found to have likelihood of bias. The proper process for him was that he could call for a meeting and withdrew from the meeting leaving it to the other members to resolve. If in any situation there was any difference between them, then doctrine of necessity would apply. In this case, Supreme Court replaced the “Doctrine of Necessity” with the “Doctrine of absolute Necessity” which means that this doctrine can be invoked only in cases of ‘absolute’ necessity.

CONCLUSION

One of the Fundamental principle of Jurisprudence means that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable probability of bias it is “in accordance with natural justice and commonsense that the Judge likely to biased should be incapacitated from sitting”. Here, the main point is not whether the judge is biased or not, but whether there is any real probability of bias or not. What is abhorrent is not whether the decision is actually corrupted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of others that there is a probability of bias affecting the decision. The underlying rule to this principle is that ‘Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done’. This principle has received a wide recognition from various decisions of the Supreme Court.

This Doctrine acts as an exception to ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’. It says that bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is proficient to act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine which it would otherwise not demeanor on the touchstone of judicial propriety. The doctrine makes it immediate for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It also states that it can be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. If the doctrine is not allowed full play in certain obligatory situations, it would cut off the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would be in a situation which will benefit him. If there is a choice of whether to allow a biased person to act or to suppress the action altogether, the former must be preferred as it is the only way to promote decision-making. But Supreme Court has made it very clear that Doctrine of Necessity cannot be invoked every now and then, as it might lead to absence of Rule of Law in the Society. Hence, Doctrine of Necessity should be taken as ‘Doctrine of Absolute Necessity’.

This article is written by Muskan Bakliwal student of BBA LL.B. from Mody University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WKtP

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Remfry & Sagar, India’s premier Intellectual Property law firm, with over 275 personnel, is expanding its operations and looking to recruit a candidate for its patent prosecution practice. Strong technical knowledge, with the ability to quickly grasp and understand inventions, as well as strong command over written English are prerequisites.
 
The Firm offers a structured training and mentorship programme, excellent work-life balance and pay scales that are higher than industry benchmarks.


 
DETAILS


Location: Gurugram 
Profile: Patent Prosecution with a focus on Life Sciences, Pharma, Chemistry and allied fields
Qualifications: Patent Agent registration preferred
Work Experience: 1-4 years of work experience in Patents


 
HOW TO APPLY


Send your resumes to careers@remfry.com. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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