Tag: #law

-Report by Arunima Jain

The Delhi High Court on Friday carefully examined Order XIV Rule 5 & Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 while adjudicating the present case. Herein, it has been made amply clear by the court that when filing additional documents in a commercial lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot claim that these are in response to the arguments made by the defendant in the written statement. Order XI of the CPC as it relates to commercial lawsuits would be completely disregarded if it allowed a party to file supplementary papers at any point.

FACTS

In the matter at hand, the plaintiff had pre-existent issues already filed in front of the Hon’bleCourt in the current matter. The present application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff toinclude an additional issue faced by the plaintiff. It was submitted before the court that anissue regarding the rendition of accounts by the defendant had not been framed while preparing for the evidence, in the issues provided. A Local Commissioner was appointed on December 16th, 2022, to record the testimony in the case. The plaintiff has submittedaffidavit-based evidence, but the testimony has not yet been entered into the record.

CONTENTIONS

Petitioner

The petitioner’s learned counsel has submitted before the High Court that while preparing forthe evidence in the case, the plaintiff accidentally became aware that the problem surroundingthe defendant’s rendition of accounts had not been framed. The averments contained in

paragraph 15 of the plaint about the defendant’s rendition of accounts was drawn attention.The defendant has refuted the information in this very paragraph in a written statement. Moreover, the plaintiff asserts that the Licence Agreement between the parties was terminatedon December 30, 2016, that there is no longer an active contract between the parties, and that the defendant is only making payments to the plaintiff in accordance with temporary ordersissued by this Court.

Respondent

Contrary to the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent’s learned counsel submits that onNovember 28, 2019, when the problems in the lawsuit were being framed, the Court did notframe any such issue regarding the rendering of accounts. This was due to the fact that theLicence Agreement that governed the plaintiff and defendant’s relationship required thedefendant to pay the plaintiff an annual licence fee. As a result, it was unnecessary to framethe problem of the defendant producing a statement of finances. In addition to that, theplaintiff should have provided the aforementioned documents with the plaint because it washis responsibility to prove his ownership of the works that are the subject of the current lawsuit when he filed it. Furthermore, it is claimed that the current application was submitted more than three years after the issues were first framed. The plaintiff has been unable toprovide any justification for failing to include the papers with the replication.

JUDGEMENT

Upon giving due regard to the facts and law in the above-mentioned case, it is contended bythe Hon’ble Court that it is clear from the contentions by both the parties and the precedentsthat the plaintiff has clearly argued that the documents are being presented to refute theposition put up by the defendant and, as a result, could not have been filed at the time the complaint was filed. However, the plaintiff has not explained why the aforementioned documents were not filed with the replication. Moreover, the plaintiff has also missed from providing just cause as to failing to provide reasonable cause for untimely filing. If a party isallowed to file additional documents at any point throughout the suit, the entire purpose of the CPC regulations relevant to commercial lawsuits would be negated. Accordingly, the present application in the High Court of Delhi has been dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LCJzb1

-Report by Sakshi Tanwar

The current petition for Letters of Administration has been filed by the mother [petitioner no.1], father [petitioner no.2], and brother [petitioner no.3] of the late Dr. Shruti Maitri,who died in Delhi on March 8, 2019. The LoA has been claimed in relation to properties.

FACTS

The second respondent is admittedly the deceased’s spouse, while respondents 3 and 4 arebodies formed to administer superannuation money in the Australian state of New SouthWales. According to the petitioners’ acknowledged case, the deceased married the secondrespondent in Delhi on December 3, 2017, in accordance with Hindu norms. According totheir claim, the deceased was injured on 02/03 February 2019 and travelled to India on 01March 2019 for necessary medical procedures and treatment. The petitioners also state thatthe deceased was admitted to a hospital on March 4, 2019, and underwent surgery onMarch 5, 2019. According to reports, the deceased developed a pulmonary embolism as aresult of post-operative complications on March 7, 2019, and died on March 8, 2019. The petition was based on an assumption that the first petitioner had been nominated as the beneficiary of the superannuation funds. In terms of an intimation dated 19 August 2019,the first petitioner was informed by respondent no. 3 of the proposed release of all monies standing to the credit of the superannuation fund of the deceased in favour of the secondrespondent.

APPEALANT’S CONTENTION

The petitioners maintained that because the deceased was an Indian citizen working inAustralia on a work permit, her inheritance would be administered under Indian law. Thepetitioners claimed in paragraph 35 of the current petition that the deceased had identifieda flat in Australia and, since she had not been given Permanent Resident status in thatcountry, the flat was purchased in the name of the second respondent. It is conceded thatthe flat was mortgaged and the instalments in respect thereof were paid out of the jointaccount maintained by the deceased and the second respondent. The petition for the grant of LoA was essentially based on the petitioners’ assertion that because the deceased and the second respondent purchased the properties in Australia together, with the formermaking substantial investments therein, the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of LoA by virtue of being the parents. Their claimed case was that the second respondent, thehusband,

is barred from pre-marriage and paternal assets. On 19 December 2019, the Court granted an injunction restraining the second respondent from either alienating or creating third-party interests in the immovable property in Australia or receiving superannuation funds standing to the credit of the investments made by the deceased. The Court also restrainedRespondent No. 3 from releasing any payments to either the second respondent or any third party.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The second respondent has filed objections to this petition, citing records kept by the FirstState Super Trustee Corporation, a body corporate established under the SuperannuationAdministration Act, 19965, as well as records kept by the State Super Financial ServicesAustralia Limited, to argue that the second respondent was the sole beneficiary of thesuperannuation funds. Reliance was also placed on the adjudicatory orders passed by theAustralian Financial Complaints Authority8 which too had recognized the right of thesecond respondent to be the sole beneficiary of all funds of the deceased held withrespondent no.3.

JUDGEMENT

The law, as it presently stands, does not envisage a parent who may have incurredexpenditure in the upbringing of a child being viewed as a creditor. Accordingly, and forall the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and shall stand dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40QREgG

-Report by Sejal Jethva

In Suraj VS the State of Maharashtra Home Department (Special), the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that a total of seven violations were committed between the years of 2013 and 2022, with just two of those offences occurring in the latter year.

FACTS

The petitioner is challenging the legality or lack thereof of the impugned order dated 20/10/2022 made by respondent No.2 / District Magistrate, Amravati in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act)

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

Senior Counsel testifying on behalf of the petitioner fiercely argued that both of the impugned orders are defective in law, lacking in rational thought and reflecting subjective pleasure with the claimed detainee’s actions. He would contend that the detention order essentially violates the tenets on four different levels. First, he claimed that neither the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) nor the Detaining Authority interacted with Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ to record their subjective satisfaction or the accuracy of the statements made by the witnesses. Second, he asserted that the Detaining Authority disregarded the bail decisions made in various cases.

The Detaining Authority was not given or given copies of these bail orders, and this fact was not taken into consideration before the detention order was granted. Thirdly, he asserted that the detenue’s alleged actions are primarily directed against individuals and would most likely result in a law and order issue rather than a threat to the general public order. Finally, he asserted that there was an unexplained delay in serving the confirmation order on the detinue, which led to the petitioner’s filing of an effective response.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Contrarily, the Public Prosecutor testifying on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 State argued that the detention’s grounds contain all pertinent information, demonstrating unequivocally that the detaining authority carefully considered all of the information presented to it before reaching a conclusion that, in his view, is grounded in legal principles. While taking such drastic action, the detaining authority is not breaking any laws. He would contend that the SDPO spoke with both witnesses, went to the location they had described, and only then filed his report, which the Detaining Authority had looked over as material.

Then he would contend that the grounds for detention reflect the Detaining Authority’s consideration of the bail orders. He further argued that the detinue’s activities have a negative impact on public order and that residents in the area are afraid to approach law enforcement agencies or the court to freely testify against the detinue because of this fear. He continued by saying that the situations that the detaining authority was considering were directly related to the custody order.

JUDGMENT

1. The third paragraph of the reasons for imprisonment states that a total of seven violations were reported between 2013 and 2022. Similar preventative measures were taken against the detained in Chapter Case No. 38/2017, and a bond was executed for three years of good conduct. Only two of the seven offences, those registered in 2022 at the Paratwada Police Station, along with the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B, were taken into consideration by the detaining authority for the current order of detention, as stated in Paragraph No. 4.

2. In the present case, the issue was brought before the Advisory Board, which determined that there was adequate justification to maintain custody. Only then, the State Government affirmed the detention in its decision dated 24 November 2022, which was effective immediately and would last for 12 months. The confirmation order was issued by the government on 24 November 2022, but the detention order was issued on 20 October 2022. It demonstrates that the order was upheld within five weeks of the date of the detention order. As a result, there is no delay in confirming the government’s custody order.

3. As a result, we believe the petitioner’s argument in the current writ petition lacks merit.  The petition is consequently without merit and subject to dismissal for the grounds listed above. Therefore, the petition is denied. The rule is still in effect.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3AFsZB0

-Report by Mehul Jain

It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Private Limited & Ors Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Private Limited & Ors. that on April 27, the learned Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with the counsel for the parties. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall give his disclosure in terms of section 12 of the Act of 1996. It is the conclusion of the Delhi High Court.

FACTS

The judgment is made by the learned Single Judge bench “Hon’ble Mr Justice V. Kameswar Rao” On 27 April 2023. 

It is a case where the petitioner’s Nos. 1 to 3 („Petitioner Group‟) are companies duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 („Act of 1956‟), have filed the instant petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whereas respondent No. 1 herein, is also a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Act of 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.12, Sector-4, Faridabad, Haryana-121004. It is stated that respondent No. 2 is also a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and was earlier a part of the Petitioner Group. However, currently the same is under liquidation and is thus being sued through its Liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal. 

Facts leading to the filing of the instant petition (as it relates to the Petitioner Group) are: that the Petitioner Group together with respondent No.2, each of whom owned a piece of land, handed over the possession of a parcel of their lands to the respondent No.3 (which is also a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act of 1956, [„Original Developer‟ herein]) and permitted the latter to develop, construct and complete the building on such lands, i.e., built-up area at projects titled as „Royal Heritage‟ & „Faridabad Eye‟ under License No. 78 of 2009 & 33 of 2010, granted by Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, („DTCP‟), Haryana, [„project land‟]. While the Petitioner Group and Respondent No.2 provided their piece of land for the development and construction of buildings, respondent No.3, in exchange for the same, undertook the obligation to provide a 10% share in the built-up area of the project land to the Petitioner Group.

It is stated, the Petitioner Group and the Respondent No. 2 companies transferred the development rights over the said project land to Respondent No.3 through Collaboration Agreements dated June 04, 2007, while retaining the rights, title and interest to the land underneath amongst themselves. So, in light of forgoing facts and circumstances, the Petitioner Group has filed the present petition seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes which have arisen between the Petitioner Group and respondent No.1.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

Whereas it has been extensively submitted by Mr Rajiv Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Group that the obligation of giving 10% of the built-up area back to the Petitioner Group became legally ascertainable only on the issuance of the Occupation Certificates (i.e., on November 30, 2017, June 25, 2018, and August 17, 2020) by the DTCP, Haryana and as on date Occupation Certificates in respect of Towers no. l and no. 2, are yet to be received by respondent no. l. Reliance in this regard has been placed on section 264 of the Haryana Municipality Act, 1994.

They submitted that the claim of 10% built-up area has never been sought before any Court or Tribunal as the same became legally ascertainable only when the Flats built on the project land received necessary approvals in the form of Occupation Certificates. 

They submitted that the claims sought by the Petitioner Group are well within the period of limitation as the project is yet to be completed, and even otherwise, before the grant of the Occupation Certificate, the units could not have been identified and allocated to the Petitioner Group. So, they contended that the present petition is well within the period of limitation and thus, the same should be allowed and disputes be referred to arbitration. 

So, it is the case of the Petitioner Group and so contended by Mr Rajiv Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Group that if the afore-said reliefs, as sought, are not granted then they shall be left with no remedy, as the respondent No.1 shall, alienate the 10% built-up area falling under the share of the Petitioner Group under the Collaboration Agreements, Deed of Assignment and all other documentations, to unaware homebuyers.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Mr Harish Malhotra learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2, that the obligation of giving 10% built-up area back to the Petitioner Group became legally ascertainable only on the issuance of the Occupation Certificates (i.e., on November 30, 2017, June 25, 2018, and August 17, 2020) by the DTCP, Haryana and as on date Occupation Certificates in respect of Towers no. l and no. 2, are yet to be received by respondent no. l. Reliance in this regard has been placed on section 264 of the Haryana Municipality Act, 1994.

It is also their submission that the present dispute arises out of respondent No.1 undertaking the obligations of respondent No.3 (Original Developer) under the Collaboration Agreements by way of the Deed of Assignment.

It is also their submission that the present petition is not barred by the contours of res judicata (constructive as well) or Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

On the other hand, in essence, it is Mr Singh’s primary submission that claims sought to be referred to arbitration by the Petitioner Group: (i) are not arbitrable; (ii) are barred by limitation; and (iii) have already been adjudicated between the parties in previous civil and arbitral proceedings. So, he submitted that when the petition under section 11 of the Act of 1996 is itself not maintainable then on this ground alone, the instant petition should also be dismissed.

So, on the afore-said grounds, Mr Singh has argued for the dismissal of the instant petition.

COURT’S DECISION

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, at the outset, it may be stated, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner Group. A prayer has also been made on behalf of respondent No.2 for allowing it to participate in the arbitral proceedings as the claimant for its share in the built-up area, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Notice invoking the Arbitration Clause was sent by respondent No.2 only on October 19, 2022, i.e., during the pendency of these proceedings. It is not known whether any reply has been sent by respondent No.1 to the said Notice. In any case, in the absence of a substantive petition by respondent No.2, the aforesaid prayer in these proceedings cannot be accepted. Nonetheless, nothing precludes respondent No.2 to seek reference following the law. 

The reliance placed by Mr Malhotra on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raghuvir Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ircon International Limited, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 2491, in support of his contention that the claim of 10% share in the developed area by the Land Owners has not been settled by former the arbitration proceedings. Because of my above discussion, the petition under section 11 of the Act of 1996 needs to be allowed. 

I accordingly appoint Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, former Judge of this Court as the learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute(s) which have arisen between the Petitioner Group and respondent No.1, in respect of 10% of the built-up land. 

The learned Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with the counsel for the parties. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall give his disclosure in terms of section 12 of the Act of 1996.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ACLnu9

-Report by Moksh Kapoor

The appellant’s contention was set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERS VERSUS BCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHER. Decided on 27-04-2023.

FACTS

BCI was deemed a sick company, and assets of BCI were disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. (BIFR) commenced the procedure of inviting sealed cover proposals for the sale of assets of the captioned unit under Section 20(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1985”) through IDBI – the Operating Agency. In a public notice dated May 24, 2004, offers were invited for various blocks, with the interested parties being asked to deposit earnest money of Rs.6 lakhs for Block IV and submit their tenders in a sealed cover within 30 days of the date of the 3 advertisements, and for further information, the interested parties may contact Mr. P.M. Nair, DGM, IDBI, Mumbai, the office of the BIFR’s Assets Sale Committee, and the agency reserved the right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason. In accordance with Section 21(c) of the Act, 1985, the Operating Agency was required to evaluate the realisable value of the property from the approved valuer and then notify the reserve price in the auction notice, which was not done, and the solitary bid submitted by the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2011 of Rs.2,84,00,000/- on 22nd June 2004 was accepted by the authority. The appellants were directed to provide a bank guarantee for a bid value of Rs.2,84,00,000/- for a term of one year by August 27, 2004, and to deposit payment in instalments. The appellants were hesitant to provide the bank guarantee of Rs.2,84,00,000/ from the start, but they allegedly showed their willingness to pay the value of the assets in accordance with the bid within six months. However, the appellants did not submit a bank guarantee of Rs.2,84,00,000/- or deposit a penny after the ASC approved the proposal by communication dated August 12, 2004. Because the appellants (in this case) are unwilling to follow the ASC rules, the Bench declined to accept the proposal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION 

The advertisement was published by the IDBI (Operating Agency), but the ASC guidelines were not attached, and the parties were not informed. They are required to furnish a bank guarantee as security for the bid amount, and requiring the appellants to act on the guidelines and furnish a bank guarantee at the stage of bid acceptance was not justified, as determined by the AAIFR in its order dated 1st April 2005, and which has not been properly appreciated by the High Court. Appellants paid the entire sale consideration on June 3rd and 7th, 2005, in accordance with the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding. The High Court made a manifest error in failing to consider that once the auction sale is confirmed, objections to the said auction can only be entertained if there are material irregularities and fraud appellants had scrupulously adhered to the conditions of the ASC and were ready to pay the entire saleconsideration, and until September 2004, the appellants were never informed that a bank guarantee equal to the bid sum would be required. The appellants herein made over the bid sum of Rs.2,84,00,000/- on 3rd and 7th June 2005, immediately after their appeal was approved by the AAIFR, and hence there was no breach of any terms and circumstances of the sale of assets.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The appellants submitted an offer of Rs.3 crores, which was more than their bid in Civil Appeal No.10128 of 2011, and they were successfully residing for a sufficiently long time over the property in question put up for auction, at the very least they seek the Court’s indulgence that their offer 2 (2018) 8 SCC 243 10 be accepted and the authorities be directed to execute the sale certificate in their favour the employees of the company in liquidation have not participated in the proceedings but their dues are still outstanding and could not have been made over in the absence of funds available. Upholding the Division Bench of the High Court’s decision, the BIFR or the Official Liquidator may be summoned to launch a new bidding procedure to maximise the value of the property that may provide some comfort to the staff whose dues have been outstanding for a long time and they have a superior claim over the company’s financial creditors in a liquidation.

JUDGEMENT

Undisputedly, the appellants (auction bidder) have not paid the selling consideration in accordance with clause (h) of the rules, nor have they provided the bank guarantee within 15 days of the acceptance of the offer bid in accordance with the guidelines’ clause (i). When the case was heard by the BIFR, the Bench noted that the appellants, M/s Rajiv Kumar Jindal and others, were the lone bidder for Block IV of the Rajpura Unit and had not followed the ASC criteria. Taking both facts into account; (i) the appellant being the lone bidder; and (ii) ASC guidelines not being followed, the appellants’ bid was not confirmed, However, when the appellants filed an appeal, the AAIFR ignored the fact that the ASC’s standards were not followed and the appellant was wrongfully convicted, The single bidder, because there was no competition bidding, which is usually important to ensure that the property’s worth is maximised. The Tripartite MOU was executed with no substance because the procedure initiated by the Operating Agency in the first instance was defective from the start, and prior to the initiation of the 20 auction proceedings, neither the value of the property was assessed through the approved valuer nor the reserve price was notified in the auction notice dated May 24, 2004, The appellants’ money paid in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2011 shall be refunded in accordance with the impugned High Court ruling dated February 5th, 2010. Simultaneously, the official liquidator may use all reasonable means to obtain the highest possible value for the property in order to achieve the purpose of public auction.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/42aWVRn

About Firm

Founded in 1985 by Mr V Lakshmikumaran and Mr V Sridharan with humble beginnings, the firm started with a Tax Practice but has gradually expanded to other areas. We are now a full-service law firm offering litigation, consulting and advisory services in Tax, International Trade, Corporate, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property Rights and Food Safety Law through the support of our 700+ professionals.

Job Title

Associate – Customs Litigation

Requirements

• Qualification: LLB from a known Law School with a strong academic track record.
• Prior experience in Indirect Tax would be preferred i. e. Customs, Foreign Trade Policy, Special Economic Zone, etc.
• Excellent communication skills (written and verbal in English) and a well-rounded personality.
• Experience: 0-2 years of experience

Responsibilities

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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

The chambers of Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya is inviting applications for the post of Associate.

Experience Required

0-3 years

Areas of practice

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Criminal Law and Litigation, White Collar crimes, Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Property, Arbitration, Consumer Protection, and General Civil Laws.

Forums

Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, District Courts of Delhi NCR, National Company Law Tribunal, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Location

C-465, LGF, Defence Colony, New Delhi

Position

Associate

Mode

In-office

Job Type

Full-time

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may send their CV at anirban@ablawchambers.in , with the email subject *“Application for the Position of Associate.”

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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

Qualifications

Any final-year law student or a second-year student of three years law course and a fourth or fifth-year student of five years law course.

Responsibilities

1) Legal Research
2) Maintaining Case Files and updating Case Status
3) Drafting legal Documents including but not limited to Legal Notice, Agreements
4) Attending Court Hearings.

Skills

1) Strong Research and Analytical Skills.
2) Excellent Communication and interpersonal skits.
3) Ability to work as part of a team.
4) Ability to manage multiple tasks and prioritize work.

Work Area

Delhi High Court and District Courts in Delhi NCR and tribunals.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may send their 2-page CV to Deepakjoshiclc@gmail.com with the subject title CV for internship.

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.

Lexpeeps Pvt. ltd. is an organization that works to assist and help law schools in organizing and managing their events. We’re seeking to provide young and dynamic law students with a platform to experience the legal world in their academic capacities. We organize different events where budding lawyers can experience the legal world. With a self-directed educational strategy and the guidance of industry experts, Lexpeeps also provide you with the recent happening in the legal world in the form of news, opportunities where you can find what suits you the best, articles to explore your interests, and many more.

Lexpeeps Placement Cell established in 2021 operates with a vision to ensure maximum placement of students studying in different law schools across the country. The sole purpose of Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. is to provide law students and law schools quality and to create value for the legal fraternity.

Lexpeeps Xcell is an Initiative of Lexpeeps Pvt Ltd to bring the practical aspects of law subjects to the desk of law students via personalized and curated courses.

Lexpeeps provides you with internships, where legal experts and budding lawyers come in touch with each other and grow by associating with the company. Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. has taken an oath to ensure the right of the student and to help them in every possible way so that they reach immense heights of success.

“Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. thrives on commitment and creativity”.

Responsibilities and Duties:

• Reviewing two legal news and preparing an analysis of the same on a daily basis
• Drafting an analysis of one legal judgment per day passed by the apex court or high court
• Analyzing weekly important judgments and key happenings

Eligibility:

• The students currently pursuing their bachelor’s degree in law i.e., a 3-Year LL.B. course or 5-Year LL.B. course from any recognized university/college in India.
• A student pursuing their Post Graduation.

Mode of Internship:

Online

Perks:

• Internship Certificate on completion of the internship.
• Best Research intern of the month award.
• Discount on paid events organized by Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.
• Publication on Lexpeeps blogs
• Live session every Saturday/ Sunday for our interns to boost their legal researching skills. (Optional)

Stipend:

None

For Applying, send your updated CV and a sample write-up to newsstories.lexpeeps@gmail.com.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.

Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. is an organization that works to assist and help law schools in organizing and managing their events. We’re seeking to provide young and dynamic law students with a platform to experience the legal world in their academic capacities. We organize different events where budding lawyers can experience the legal world. With a self-directed educational strategy and the guidance of industry experts, Lexpeeps also provide you with the recent happening in the legal world in the form of news, opportunities where you can find what suits you the best, articles to explore your interests and many more.

Lexpeeps Placement Cell established in 2021 operates with a vision to ensure maximum placement of students studying in different law schools across the country. The sole purpose of Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. is to provide law students and law schools quality and to create value for the legal fraternity

Lexpeeps Xcell is an Initiative of Lexpeeps Pvt Ltd to bring the practical aspects of law subjects to the desk of law students via personalized and curated courses.

Lexpeeps provides you with internships, where legal experts and budding lawyers come in touch with each other and grow by associating with the company. Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. has taken an oath to ensure the right of the student and to help them in every possible way so that they reach immense heights of success.

“Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. thrives on commitment and creativity”.

Responsibilities and Duties:

• To research legal articles and draft an article.
• To analyze different cases allotted.

Required Skills:

• The Student should have good research and article drafting skills.
• Must have relevant information about the allotted work

Eligibility:

• The students currently pursuing their bachelor’s degree in law i.e., a 3-Year LL.B. course or 5-Year LL.B. course from any recognized university/college in India.
• A student pursuing their Post Graduation.

Mode of Internship:

Online

Perks:

• Internship Certificate on completion of the internship.
• Best Research intern of the month award.
• Discount on paid events organized by Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.
• Publication on Lexpeeps blogs
• Work Opportunity at Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.

Stipend:

None

For Applying, send your updated CV and a sample write-up to editorlexpeeps@gmail.com or fill out the form given in the link: https://forms.gle/qtCJytgtcMjEo5zj6

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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