Tag: #lawstudents

INTRODUCTION:

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into existence to govern the easy exit of businesses, it has been witnessed from time to time that India has been lacking the legal framework for the companies whose businesses have been hindered and they want to exit the market although it had also been a matter of concern to determine the order of distribution of assets at the time of liquidation of the company. Previously there were no specific provisions to govern the distribution of assets amongst the creditors. But in the present era section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 deals with the mechanism for the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The mechanism laid down under the code is termed as “waterfall mechanism”. In a general sense, the waterfall mechanism lay put the list of stakeholders in a sequential manner to indicate the priority in getting the payments from liquidation.

HISTORICAL PERSPETIVE:

At the time of Insolvency proceedings, the Inter-se ranking amongst creditors plays an important role as it dictates the arrangement and determines the priority in which the financial offerings by the resolution applicant shall be distributed to the secured creditors. The status of determining the priority was the different pre-IBC regimes and post IBC regimes.

Pre-IBC Regime:
The Supreme Court of India in the case of ICICI Bank v. Sidco Leathers Ltd. and Others¹ addressed the issue of priority under Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, which govern the ranking of creditors’ claims in a company in liquidation similar to what is given under section 53(1) (b) of the code. In this instance, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning and scope of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to rule that the first-charge holder’s claims would persuade over the second-charge holder’s. The Supreme Court also noted that there was a lack of legislative clarity on this issue and that if the legislature had intended to reduce a right as important as the right of priority, it would have done so explicitly in the legislation.

Post- IBC Regime:
Even after the IBC came into force, there has been no clarity on this subject. Explanation: Section 53 of the IBC provides that “Each of the debts will be paid in full, or in equal proportion within the same class of beneficiaries, if the proceeds are inadequate to meet the debts in full, at each step of the distribution of proceeds in respect of a class of recipients who rank similarly.”

As a result, the IBC envisions the distribution of liquidation proceeds on a pari passu basis, or on an equal level, among the same class of stakeholders. Any agreement that upsets the priority ranking established by Section 53 of the IBC must be rejected, according to Section 53(2) of the code. Moreover, the issue of priority of inter-se secured creditors who have relinquished their security interests has not been specifically cleared by the code.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Technology Development Board v Anil Goel² held that “the moment when a secured creditor relinquishes their security interest in the liquidation estate, the sale proceeds shall then be strictly distributed as per the waterfall mechanism given under section 53 of IBC remains unpaid following the enforcement of security interest thereby when compared to a secured creditor, it has a lower priority.”

THE WATERFALL MECHANISM UNDER IBC:

The waterfall mechanism lays down that at the time of the company’s liquidation and while distributing the assets of the company the secured financial creditors shall be given the priority and the amount belonging to them shall be paid fully according to their admitted claim before initiating any distribution to unsecured financial creditors.

The Appellate Authority in its recent landmark judgment in the case of Technology Development Board vs. Anil Goel, Liquidator of Gujarat Oleo Chem Limited (GOCL) & Ors³ made it specifically held that: “Whether the Secured Creditor holds a first charge or second charge is material only if the Secured Creditor elects to realize its security interest.” “However, once a Secured Creditor opts to relinquish its security interest, the distribution of assets would be governed by Section 53(1)(b)(ii), which states that – all Secured Creditors who have renounced security interests rank equally.”

Statutory provision:
The statutory provision which sets out the order of priority for the distribution of sale proceeds from the sale of liquidation assets is categorically mentioned under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

According to section 53 (1) (b):
“The following debts will be ranked equally between and among them:
(i) workmen’s dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date; and
(ii) debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security in the manner set out in section 52”

According to Section 53(2) of the code:
“The liquidator will overlook any contractual arrangements between receivers under sub-section (1) with equal ranking if they disturb the sequence of priority under that sub-section.”

WATERFALL MECHANISM AND MEANING OF SECURED CREDITOR:

A secured creditor is one in whose favor a “security interest” has been created by the corporate debtor.⁴ Section 52 of the code provides the secured creditors with two options:

• either to realize its security interest, or
• give away its security interest to the liquidation estate⁵

It is the duty of each secured creditor to communicate to the liquidator about his decision to either relinquish his security interest or to realize its security interest.
If the secured creditor fails to inform the liquidator of its intention within 30 days from the commencement of the liquidation process, the security interest held by such secured creditor is deemed to be relinquished.⁶
In case a secured creditor chooses to relinquish its security interest then it has to stake its claim to the liquidation estate.

CONCLUSION:

The prevailing approach towards the Secured creditors’ priority rights, established at the time of lending, supposedly provides them with a security net in the event that the firm defaults and insolvency procedures are initiated. Even after the IBC was enacted, there is nothing in the IBC that specifically addresses this issue. Furthermore, Section 53(2) of the IBC only prohibits agreements that disrupt the waterfall mechanism’s sequence of precedence. The problem of priority of inter-se secured creditors who have renounced their security interests is left unanswered. As a result, it is clear that there is still lacking legal certainty on this topic.

The intrinsic ambiguity in the topic, as well as the lack of a clear legal precedent, leaves no answer to the difficulty. It is conceivable, however, that any priority rights connected to a security interest stay tied to the security interest, and that when the security interest is abandoned, the priority rights associated with the security interest expire as well. Although it appears that lawmakers considered all issues when establishing the IBC’s liquidation waterfall, which favored secured creditors, legislators should give equal weight to the interests of other stakeholders in order to fulfill the IBC’s goals.

References:

1. (2006) 10 SCC 452.
2. Technology Development Board v Anil Goel, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.731 of 2020
3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.731 of 2020
4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 3 (30).
5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 52 (1).
6. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 21A.

This article is written by Shubhendra Joshi, a BBA.LL.B 4th-year student of Indore Institute of Law.

Equivalent Citation

[1992 SCR (1) 686, 1992 SCC Supl. (2) 651]

Bench

By Hon’ble Justice Sharma, L.M.,
By Hon’ble Justice Venkatachalliah, M.N.,
By Hon’ble Justice Verma, Jagdish Saran,
By Hon’ble Justice Reddy, K. Jayachandra and
By Hon’ble Justice Agrawal, S.C

Date of Judgment

February 18, 1992

Provisions Involved

Articles 102(2), Article 122(1), Article212(1), Article 368 of Constitution of India

Introduction

A constitution is a written document that contains rules, laws, and regulations for the government of a country. The Indian Constitution is regarded as the country’s supreme or “grundnorm” law. Its preamble speaks of people’s sovereignty, democratic polity, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood, all of which ensure the individual’s dignity as well as the nation’s unity and integrity. The Preamble is based on Nehru’s beliefs, which constituted the foundation for the constitution’s construction After the constitution was created, it didn’t take long for political insiders to convince Indian framers. Following Nehru’s death, India experienced a decline in political morals and an unpleasant increase in political corruption. The disorderly floor-crossing was a blow to the electoral system and weakened the government’s three organs. Parliament passed the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act in early 1985, making defections illegal.

Factual Observations

The constitutional legitimacy of the Tenth Schedule established by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, was challenged in the case of Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors. Writ Petitions, Transfer Petitions, Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions, and other proceedings presenting common questions were all heard jointly, bringing the petitioners together. The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act substituted the tenth schedule for four articles of the Constitution, namely 101(3)(a), 102(2), 190(3)(a), and 191(2). In a 3:2 judgment in the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional legitimacy of the Anti-Defection Law. Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, K.J. Reddy, and S.C. Agrawal made up the majority, while Justices L.M. Sharma and J.S. Verma made up the minority. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court ruled that the speaker’s directives under the law barring an MLA from serving because of defection are subject to judicial review.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the changes made by the 52nd amendment are legally acceptable?
2. Whether the additions made by the 52nd amendment have constitutional validity?

Applicability of Doctrine of Severability

As stated in the definition itself, the doctrine of severability can be applied to a composite amendment that contains amendments that do not require ratification by States as well as amendments that do require such ratification, and the amendment can be upheld in respect of the amendments that do not require ratification and are within the competence of Parliament alone by applying the doctrine of severability. Only the revisions to the proviso’s provisions that require approval must be struck down or declared illegal. The severability test asks the Court to determine whether the legislature would have adopted the legislation at all if the severed element was not a part of it, and if what remains after severance can stand alone and is functional.

The doctrine of severability applies when a piece of otherwise lawful legislation contains a provision that is invalid due to a lack of legislative competence, and the invalid section is severable, leaving the remaining valid provisions intact. This theory does not apply where legislation is invalidly enacted because of non-compliance with a mandatory legislative procedure, such as the mandatory special procedure for exercising constituent power. The theory does not apply to legislation that has not yet been enacted. Even if it may be feasible to keep a stillborn alive by surgical skillfully removing a congenitally faulty portion, it is not possible to infuse life into a stillborn referred in The Bribery Commissioner v. Pedrick Ranasinghe¹.

Laws/Provisions Involved

Schedule 10
The first paragraph begins with definitions, the second with disqualifications, the third with divisions within the party (now deleted by the 2003 amendment to the constitution), the fourth with a few disqualifications that do not apply just in mergers, and the fifth with some exemptions. The sixth and seventh paragraphs state who will resolve disputes and restrict courts from hearing concerns about a member’s disqualification, and finally, the last paragraph allows a speaker to make rules for a House to give effect to the provisions of the Schedule.

Most of these provisions are subject to adjudication and interpretation by the courts of the land. Paragraph 2, which outlines a member’s disqualifications, is perhaps the one provision that has been scrutinized by the courts.

Ratio Decidendi

People’s lifestyles shape the law’s profile, not the other way around. A finality clause is not a magical legislative incantation that prevents Judicial Review from proceeding. A decision’s statutory finality assumes and is dependent on its adherence to the law. The scope of judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution in relation to an order made by the Speaker/Chairman under would be limited to jurisdictional errors, such as infirmities based on constitutional mandate violations, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice rules, and perversity. The courts follow the notion that, notwithstanding a finality provision, it is open to the court to determine whether the action of the challenged authority is ultra vires the powers conferred on it. An action can be ultra vires if it is carried out in violation of a mandatory provision of the law granting the authority the ability to do so. If the authority’s powers are vitiated by mala fides or a colorable use of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, it will be supra vires.

Case Law Referred

Eight sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 were found illegal by the court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara² on the grounds that they were in violation of certain constitutional provisions and essential freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that the sections of the law that were declared unconstitutional were valid because they were not inextricably linked with the remainder of the Act, they were severable from the rest of it. It was one thing to say that the Legislature would not have enacted the Act, but it was another to say that the Legislature would not have enacted it. It would be impossible to pass the Act without adding the elements that were judged to be illegal.

Likewise, the Supreme Court stated in A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras³ that if a law is unconstitutional, just the part that is unconstitutional will be declared void, not the entire law, and every effort should be made to save as much of it as possible. If the invalid part’s omission has no effect on the character or structure of the document, it will be considered a severable legislative object.

Judgment

The minority judges held that the Constitution was violated because the Constitutional scheme for deciding on questions of disqualification of members after being duly elected contemplates adjudication of such disputes by an independent authority outside the House, namely the President or Governor, in accordance with the opinion of the committee, all of whom are high Constitutional functionaries.

The Election Commission came to the same conclusion as the minority judges in this instance. It issued suggestions in 1977, recommending that disqualification for defection be referred to the Election Commission for an opinion to be given to the President or Governor, because the matter might potentially be, and as with other disqualifications alluded to in Articles 102 and 191 of the constitution, the President or the Governor will act on the Election Commission’s recommendation.

As a result, it was determined that paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule did not create a non-justiciable territory. The Speaker/power Chairman’s to resolve disagreements could be considered judicial. The ‘finality clause,’ which prepared the way for the majority to prevail in the verdict, is an important construction.

Own Analysis/Opinion

The Anti-Defection Law was enacted to counteract the “evil of political defections.” However, the phrase “voluntarily giving up membership in a political party” must be defined more clearly. The President/Governor should make agreements under the Tenth Schedule based on the Election Commission’s binding advice. Disqualification should be limited to situations in which a member voluntarily resigns from his political party, abstains from voting, or votes against the party whip in a confidence/non-confidence vote.

The law that has prevented individual defections must now be used to prevent mass defections. It’s also necessary to challenge the speaker’s function. For his tenure, the speaker is reliant on the support of the legislature’s majority. As a result, he does not meet the criteria for an ‘individual adjudicatory body.’ It is not practical to repeal the Anti-defection law completely, but the long-term solution is to keep a check on political culture, and legislators who act in contempt or with mala fide intent should be voted out in subsequent elections, as the ultimate agency in the world’s largest democracy rests with the Indian people. That’s why the doctrine of severability has made it easy to combat with kind of issues and help in avoiding any kind of misuse of arbitrary powers.

The president of the parliament, and the governor of the state legislature, may report the subject to the Election Commission under Articles 102 and 192, respectively. This appears to be the only way to avoid the speakers’ political biases in their judgments. If the government wishes to keep the current arrangement, the Supreme Court will have to exercise far more judicial review power over the Speaker’s decision under the Anti-defection law than the Supreme Court is willing to do now under the Kihota Hollohon case.

Concluding Observations

After analyzing the situation in the instant case, it can be concluded that the concerns of construction and severability are distinct because, where more than one reasonable interpretation is available, one upholding the legitimacy of the legislation and the other invalidating it, the former would be accepted, and in the situation that both are possible, the former would be accepted.

If this isn’t practicable, the court has no choice but to decide whether the entire statute should be repealed, stricken down, or the excellent and bad elements can be separated. Also, the Separation of valid and invalid provisions of a statute is not determined by whether the law is enacted in the same section or in distinct parts; what matters is the substance of the matter, which must be determined through a thorough examination of the Act as a whole, as well as the enactment of the applicable provisions. Despite its relative obscurity, the philosophy has far-reaching implications. On the one hand, rejecting entire legislation for one erroneous provision is the most invasive remedy; on the other hand, the Supreme Court is hesitant about amending statutes by removing portions of them. Prior to the passage of the Tenth Schedule, there was no such thing as a “political party” under the Constitution, but their existence is now acknowledged under the Anti-defection Act.

Citations:

1. [1965] AC 172
2. AIR 1951 SC 318.
3. AIR 1950 SC 27.

Analysis by Hemant Bohra student at School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab.

Introduction

Over time, many changes occur in society; these changes have both beneficial and harmful consequences. As the nature of law evolves, new laws and amendments are introduced into society to regulate the violation of living beings’ rights, privacy, and security.

There’s a Bible proverb that goes something like this: “Either you can believe all of it or you can’t trust any of it,” and that’s how fake news spreads. If you can’t distinguish which news is real vs phony, which is truth vs lies, many people will quickly throw up their hands and declare that none of them can be trusted.

With the introduction of computers, the internet, social media, and networking websites, these developments, particularly on the technological front, became mass development with the introduction of computers, the internet, social media, and networking websites, which crept into and made their way into people’s lives.¹

The law of social changes as trends change. People are discovering new ways to conduct crimes in a high-tech manner as time progresses. However, by adopting new statutes and enactments, the law has broadened its jurisdiction and begun to remove these flaws from society. As a result, the Government of India has submitted a bill called the Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2019.

Fake News Prohibition Bill, 2019

The Fake News (Prohibition) Bill of 2019 was passed to make it illegal to create and distribute fake news in the media, as well as other related issues. In India, fake news refers to misinformation or disinformation conveyed by word of mouth and conventional media, as well as more recently through digital modes of communication such as altered videos, memes, unconfirmed adverts, and rumors circulated on social media. This statute applies to the entire country of India, it includes:

a) Misquotation of one’s remark is an example of fake news.
b) Altering audio and video files, causing facts and context to be distorted.
c) For the advantage of a person, agency, or entity.

Objectives of the Bill

Fake news has made it easier to spread false information in the era of the internet, where anybody can submit a report or a comment that appears to be a news item and declare it to be accurate and factual. Fake news or information must display or intend to exhibit propaganda to blacken or disgrace one’s reputation or create or plan to induce fear, division, turmoil, violence, or hate. Due to the propagation of fake news on social media platforms such as Whatsapp, Facebook, and Twitter, a huge number of mob lynching occurrences have been recorded around the country. Political parties were also discovered to be distributing misinformation on social media during the country’s elections, according to studies.

To control and the spread of fake news in any form, whether it is through circulation, sharing, misquotation of statements, editing of audio and video clips, fabricating content, undermining, sowing seeds of enmity, sedition, hatred, disseminate, edit, abet, etc., a debate took place in the House of Lok Sabha on the subject on February 8, 2019, and Shri. Tej Pratap Singh from Mainpuri proposed before the Hon’ble Chairperson to introduce The Indian media research organization CMS indicated in a report by The Guardian that the growth of false news was due to India’s “lack of (a) media strategy for verification.” Additionally, reporters and journalists have been imprisoned for “making false stories, “particularly when the pieces were contentious.

Fake News in India

In Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India², the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the problem of infodemics in India and issued an order for state governments to follow the Centre’s orders to combat the threat of fake news. The top court also highlighted the necessity for the government of India to provide a daily bulletin through all media outlets as a source of real-time verifiable information on Covid-19 to alleviate the fear and apprehension generated by the uncontrolled flow of fake news.

The recent mass evacuation of migrant workers was caused, according to this petition, by the anxiety induced in the minds of the laborers as a result of bogus news that inflated the duration of the lockdown to endure for more than three months. Poor migrant laborers were killed as a result of this evacuation, which was brought about by the distribution of illicit information.

Fake news spread over WhatsApp in Odisha, claiming that a person from outside the state had been sick. After an inquiry, the police discovered that the claim was untrue. At the time, India lacks a specialized law to control false news; yet the epidemic is demonstrating the necessity for one.

Provisions of different laws in India

Information Technology Act, 2008 (IT Act)
In India, social media platforms that are classified as ‘intermediaries’ under Section 79(2)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 are obligated to exercise due diligence when performing their tasks. Initially, under the Act and the April 2011 guidelines, intermediaries were not liable if they were not responsible for the origination, transmission, or reception of such content across their reach. As a result of this change, intermediaries gained protection, allowing them to be slackers in their efforts to combat bogus news.

When the government realized its error, it devised a remedy on the opposite extreme of the spectrum, instructing intermediaries to proactively block information. These restrictions have been compared to censorship in China. The government can use this as a political weapon to suppress stuff that does not benefit them. The free expression would be harmed by such a law.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)³
Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC deals with the dissemination of false and malicious material that causes fear or panic in the general public, or in any segment of the general public, with the intent of inducing an individual to commit an offense against the state or public peace. The offender under this section can be punished with imprisonment of a maximum of 6 years and a fine. Section 505(1)(b) combined with Section 54 of the DMA have been envisaged to include the expansion of fake news to a large extent.

The actual issue with fake news is fraudulent information that is disguised as real news in the form of unpaid pieces. The malice requirement might be avoided, and the spreader of misleading information could face severe responsibility and exemplary damages. The implementation of strict responsibility, on the other hand, would need tracking the disinformation back to its source, which has been recognized as a time-consuming and inefficient procedure.

Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DMA)⁴
Section 54 of the DMA professes to handle ‘false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic’ and this has been applied while recording arrests so far. It makes the offense punishable with imprisonment up to 1 year and the imposition of a fine. The same provision, on the other hand, has long been criticized for being too narrowly focused on catastrophes at a time when the breadth of false news is far broader.

While this one-of-a-kind characteristic of the Act restricts its use to disasters, it does have a good side effect. It ensures that the use of this clause does not extend beyond the extraordinary circumstances of a disaster, preventing the government from using it to further restrict free expression.

Curbing Fake News within Jurisprudence

Restriction of some rights can be permissible in the context of major public health hazards and public emergencies endangering the nation’s survival, according to international human rights law. The size and severity of the Covid-19 epidemic have elevated it to the status of public health danger, justifying limits on freedom of expression and speech. Such limits, however, must adhere to the standards of international human rights law. The same has been enshrined under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)⁵ which requires the limitations to have a legal basis, to be solely significant, to be subject to review, and to be proportionate to acquire the aim. While it is vital to take steps to prevent the spread of disinformation, there is an unintended consequence. Efforts to combat false news might result in the imposition of censorship laws or the suppression of critical thinking that is essential to make educated judgments. To combat the spread of disinformation, Thailand’s government recently enacted restrictions that included a blanket prohibition on communications that are either “false” or “misleading”. The Thai government used this method to detain an artist who challenged the government’s reaction to the current public health crisis.

Concluding Observations

During this situation, it is critical to combat bogus news. It should not, however, come at the price of free expression. Temporary measures that take away some liberties in the near term but do not turn out to be a political weapon for any ruling administration are the way ahead in suppressing free expression. Temporary measures will allow the government to make necessary modifications to the current system to safeguard us. We should allow the government to protect us in our weak state, but this should not result in the government abusing our frailty. To combat the rapid spread of fake news, the government must collaborate with the public and intermediaries. We must do so; else, fake news may prove to be as deadly as the epidemic. Without a question, the problem of fake news and fake is growing like wildfire around the globe, necessitating the passage of legislation to regulate and restrict the transmission of fake news on social media and other platforms. The bill was constructed and prepared with the goal of prohibiting the transmission and distribution of false news, and thus “The Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2019” was created and presented to the Lok Sabha.

References:

1. Critical analysis of the Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2019, by Yogesh V Nayyar, Advocate in Supreme court. https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-analysis-fake-news-prohibition-bill-2019/
2. ALAKH ALOK SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA, Supreme Court Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 Of 2018 | 01-05-2018 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129422211/
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ACT NO. 45 OF 1860 1* [6th October 1860.]
4. Disaster Management Act (DMA), Power to remove difficulties. [23rd December 2005.] https://www.ndmindia.nic.in/images/The%20Disaster%20Management%20Act,%202005.pdf
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html

Written by Hemant Bohra student at School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab.

About Government New Law College, Indore

The Government New Law College, Indore (M.P.), became an integral part of Holkar Science College in the year 1891. As per the directives of Bar Council of India, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh established a separate law college on 17.07.2003. Since then this college came into existence.
This institution has contributed immensely in the field of law and has groomed its students such that they don’t only achieve great heights in studies, but also prove them as successful lawyers, teachers and law service providers. In order to provide students with a quality academic environment, the college has developed all the necessary infrastructural facilities. Overall academically sound, this historical college is now developing in a new dimension.

About Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM)

IIAM is one of the pioneer institutions in India started in 2001, providing institutional ADR services, DPM services, Training programs and Accreditation of ADR professionals. IIAM is one of the founding members of Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration & Mediation (APCAM) and functions as the APCAM Centres in India. IIAM provides facilities for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which includes international and domestic commercial arbitration, mediation/ conciliation and negotiation. IIAM ADR Rules help parties to take maximum advantage of its innovative procedures for the resolution of disputes quickly and economically, outside the court.

Course Description

Certificate program in Dispute Resolution Management is an online certificate course provides a comprehensive knowledge of dispute resolution. Alternate Dispute Resolution is the process of settling disputes without litigation. The course will teach the students more about this dispute resolution process and embraces topics like common causes of conflict, how to overcome conflicts and the main components of Alternate Dispute Resolution practices. The course provides guidance to become an effective negotiator and a good mediator. As the course is online, it provides an option to the students to undergo the program at a place convenient to them.

Structure of the Course

Module 1:

• Basics on Negotiation & Mediation
• Study of conventional types of negotiation and the alternatives for principles negotiation and its stages and method.

Module 2:

• Dispute Management ADR Methods
• Comparative study of mediation and Conciliation and the methods of mediation. Analysis of systems of mediation and arbitration and various rules and laws.

Eligibility

The course is open to students

• enrolled on a regular basis in 3rd year or above of 3 year and 4th year; or
• above of 5 year undergraduate LL.B. Degree Course, LL.M; or
• its equivalent conducted by any recognized institute.

Mode of Delivery

The course will be delivered through an online platform i.e. Google Meet.

Registration Process

· Interested Students shall register by filling the registration form available at-

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfOf3IWToOgMGLYWo-FgHntRH8Nx2bhDKtuK3fullnvNz8s0A/viewform?usp=sf_link

• The registrants will be short-listed on a ‘First Come First Served Besis’ to a total number of 100 participants.
• Only those shortlisted students shall be informed via email by the organisers.

Certification

A certificate of completion shall be provided to all the participants subject to the performance in the assignment at the end of the course.

Instructor

Meet our Instructor

Ms. Iram Majid
She is director of Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM). She is Executive Director of Asia Pacific centre for Arbitration and Mediation. Iram had completed her LLM from KUK University. She has undergone training for Arbitration from Chartered Institute of Arbitration UK and Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation and regarding mediation many reputable institutions, including the Harvard Law School for Advance Mediation Programme on Negotiation in Harvard Law School widely considered the best legal education institution in the world, and Pepperdine University, California.
Experience of 16+ years in handling wide range of criminal, matrimonial, civil, commercial, banking and finance matters cases inside the court as Advocate and outside the court as Mediator.

Course Details

Duration: 45 Hours
Course fee: Rs. 3500

Payment Details

Account Holder: SthaniyaPrabandhSamiti Govt. New Law College
Account number: 35414540119
IFSC code: SBIN0030467
Bank Name: State Bank of India
Branch Name: Holkar Science College, Indore

Contact Details

If you have any questions, you can drop an email at certificatecoursesgnlc

This is a Featured Post Team Lexpeeps has tried to verify all the details, despite of our efforts if you face any issues feel free to get in touch with Organisors for support.

Write us to- lepeeps.in@gmail.com for collaborations

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Organizer:  S. Bhambri & Associates (Advocates), Delhi.

About the Firm: Our multidimensional law office, was a brainchild of our senior-most associate and partner, Mr N.K Bhambri, we believe in providing straight cut solutions to our client’s legal problems. We endevour to coordinate with our associates as well as with our paralegal staff and interns to assist our clients and provide them with maximum satisfaction out of our services. Our Managing Partner Ms Sofia Bhambri, has been a pillar to our firm and provides with empathetic viable solutions to our female clients, who are in extreme distress due to familial issues and who seek a legal way out. Our paralegal staff is equipped with qualifications to assist our lawyers and engage in legal research. Apart from our lawyers, paralegal staff we associate law interns, with us every month.  Our firm deals with legal cases pertaining to Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, District Courts as well as Debt Recovery Tribunal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Consumer Courts, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Details of the Online Internship Oppurtunity:

For the month of January, 2021

Eligibility:

Only Undergraduate Law Students pursuing Three Year LLB or five year Law Course are eligible to apply. Selected candidates will be intimated through email only.

Registration:

Interested Candidates may send their CV and cover letter at sofiabhambri@gmail.com

Perks:

1. Certificate of Internship upon successful completion of tasks.
2. Publication Oppurtunity at our website sbhambriadovcates.com
3. Future Referrals
4. Mentorship
5. Best Intern of the Month Award.

Location:

Briefing would be done on Google meet for the selected candidates

Deadline:

28^th December, 2020.

ABOUT LAWSCHOLE

From the beginning, Lawschole has been driven by the interests and involvement of our incredible and engaged law students. We are a great resource, offering opportunities for students to be active in a variety of topics and to engage with each other in an interesting and safe online environment. It is a forum where law students can share thoughts, seek opinions and advice, and learn something new from other members of the forum. We are a hub of various events including webinars, various competitions, capsule and certificate courses, moot court competition series, and blogs.

ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE COURSE ON OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY UNDER IPC

The Certificate course on Offences Against Human Body consists of three (3) Modules, which shall be made accessible to the enrolled students from the “My Courses” section from August 16 to September 15. The students must submit the “Assignment” which will be assigned on September 5 to be eligible for the issuance of the Certificate.

COURSE STRUCTURE:

WEEK 1

MODULE-I: Offences against the Human Body (PART I)

a. Culpable Homicide and Murder

b. Rash and Negligent Act

c. Dowry Death

d. Attempt to Murder

e. Attempt and Abetment to Suicide

​

WEEK 2

MODULE-II: Against Human Body(PART II)

a. Hurt and Grievous Hurt

b. Criminal Force and Assault

c. Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

d. Kidnapping and Abductions

​

WEEK 3

MODULE-III: Offences against Women

a. Outraging the Modesty of Women, Voyeurism, Stalking, Acid Attack

b. Rape and Unnatural Offences

c. Cruelty and Offences relating to Marriage

​

WEEK 4

Submit your Assignment- DUE DATE 15 SEPTEMBER (CERTIFICATE WILL ONLY BE ISSUED ONCE YOU SUBMIT THE ASSIGNMENT)

REGISTRATION FEES-

COURSE FEE- RS. 399/-

You can submit the Registration fee via PayTm UPI Money Transfer, Bhim UPI, or Gpay by using the following UPI ID OR SCANNING THE QR CODE GIVEN ON OUR WEBSITE https://www.lawschole.com/courses (PLEASE NOTE: We DO NOT accept payments in Paytm Wallet. Make sure the transfer is a UPI MONEY TRANSFER.)

UPI ID- aprajitabhardwaj18@okicici
or,
PAYTM UPI ID- 7461015926@paytm

ENROLL HERE-

FROM OUR WEBSITE- https://www.lawschole.com/courses

OR, FROM THE GOOGLE FORM- https://forms.gle/TfRrsRKUT4yRx4Ku5 

IMPORTANT DATES:

​LAST DATE OF REGISTRATION- AUGUST 15, 2020

BATCH STARTS- AUGUST 16, 2020

MODULES ACCESSIBLE FROM- AUGUST 16, 2020

ASSIGNMENT DUE DATE- SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE- SEPTEMBER 20, 2020

VISIT OUR WEBSITE

https://www.lawschole.com/

CONTACT US

Contact us at lawschole@gmail.com

About LicitElite 

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 the competition 

The Moot problem drafting competition, not only enables the Law aspirants to formulate their own proposition but also upgrade their intellectual skills. The theme shall either be Family Law or Criminal Law. This Moot problem drafting competition is open to Law Students, Academicians, Research Scholars, Lawyers and all others who belong to Legal fraternity. 

Important Dates 

Registration ends on 5th August, 2020
Last date to submit the draft: 10th August 2020

Guidelines for competition 

Word Limit- within 1000 words.Font Style- Times New RomanFont Size- 12Line Spacing- 1.5Page Borders (1 inch)There must be at least 3 Legal Issues in your MOOT Problem.
File Name of the draft shall be Person’s Name & Affiliation
Do not specify any of your details on your MOOT Proposition
 Submissions should be mailed at editor@licitelite.com

Awards 

1) Winner- Rs. 500 cash prize + Merit Certificate + 2 months free Publication in our Blog + Publication Certificates.

2) Next 2 Contestants- Merit Certificate + 1month free Publication in our Blog + Publication Certificates.

3) Next 2 Contestants- Appreciation Certificate + 15 days free Publication in our Blog + Publication Certificates.

4) All other Registered Participants will receive a Participation Certificate.

Registration fee: Rs 100/- for Single AuthorRs 150/- for Co-authorship 

Registration Link: https://forms.gle/mH9jf3Pj1WRwiZuc6
or 
https://www.licitelite.com/event-details/1st-national-moot-proposition-drafting-competition

Participants are required to pay through Paytm + 91 99710 87756
Uploading the screenshot of payment receipt is mandatory to submit the registration forms.

A confirmation message will be sent from LicitElite Business Whatsapp Number (+919810793800) after checking your details.
For any Queries or Information Write to us: admin@licitelite.com or licitelite@gmail.com

You can Reach out on :
Whatsapp us at: +91 9810793800

Instagram @LicitElite www.licitelite.com

Connect with us for future updates & events: https://chat.whatsapp.com/Bgve0TWD7XE19ne2idsGLU

About the Organisation

From the beginning, Lawschole has been driven by the interests and involvement of our incredible and engaged law students. We are a great resource, offering opportunities for students to be active in a variety of topics and to engage with each other in an interesting and safe online environment. It is a forum where law students can share thoughts, seek opinions and advice, and learn something new from other members of the forum. We are a hub of various events including webinars, various competitions, courses, moot court competition, and blogs.

About the Competition

In an effort of improving the creation and dissemination of internship experiences of the law students, Lawschole is organising 1^st Lawschole Internship Experience writing competition to bring into light the views of students on their internship experiences. While pursuing our goals, we commit to engaging with law students so as to ensure the involvement of law students.

Guidelines to Authors

§  The word limit is 300- 1000 words

§  The internship experience writing competition is open to students enrolled in 3 years LL.B or an integrated BA.LLB/BBA.LLB course.

§  The submission must be made in .doc or .docx format only.

§  Judgment shall be based on the quality of the uniqueness and descriptive writing.

§  No extension in deadline shall be allowed.

§  The submission must include-

• Your name, college, course, year of study. 
•  Name of the organisation where you interned (name of the place)/ (remote internship)
• Duration of the internship
• First day
• Area of work
• What exposure did you get by interning there
• Stipend
• Your overall experience during the internship

The formatting guidelines to be followed are:

§  Font size: 12

§  Font: Times New Roman

§  Alignment: Justified

§  Line spacing: 1.15

Registration

Registration amount is Rs. 50/-

Participants can submit the Registration fee via PayTm UPI Money Transfer, Bhim UPI, or Gpay by using the following

UPI ID-                   aprajitabhardwaj18@okicici

or,

PAYTM UPI ID-       7461015926@paytm

PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept payments in Paytm Wallet. Make sure the transfer is a UPI MONEY TRANSFER.

After the payment, all the participant(s) must FILL IN THE FOLLOWING FORM https://forms.gle/sP3RuPYdEmuEnowx7 and attach a screenshot of the payment receipt.

Submission Details

Submission can be made at editor.lawschole@gmail.com with the subject “SUBMISSION FOR INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE WRITING COMPETITION”

The last date for submission of essay is 19th July 2020.

Awards and Merit

§  1st Prize: Voucher worth Rs. 300 + e-Certificate of Achievement +submission will be published in the Lawschole’s E- Magazine.

§  2nd Prize: Voucher worth Rs. 150+ e-Certificate of Achievement + submission will be published in the Lawschole’s E- Magazine.

§  Top 5 submissions will be provided with the e-Merit Certificate and will be published in the Lawschole’s E- Magazine for free.

§  All participants are entitled to receive e-participation certificates.

Important Dates

§  Deadline for registration: 17th July 2020

§  Deadline for submission: 19th July 2020

§  Declaration of the result: 25th July 2020

§  Issuance of e-certificate: 29th July 2020

Contact Information

Visit our website- http://www.lawschole.com/

For any further queries please feel free to reach us at lawschole@gmail.com

About the Organizer

Established in 2018, NMIMS School of Law offers an outstanding legal education so as to inculcate a wide range of legal skills useful for the legal profession including the corporate level.

 Law School with global focus and international outreach dedicated to advance human dignity, social and economic welfare, and justice through knowledge of law.

About the Event

Nations across the world are bearing up their preparation to face the challenges thrown by the Coronavirus. India is also following the impeccable measure of social distancing. But at the same time, we are not standing apart; rather technology has enabled us to maintain our life in both social as well as professional spaces. With the help of this technological advancement

The Moot Court Society of NMIMS School of Law Bangalore feels honoured and proud to organize 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition 2020 in collaboration with M Mulla Associates.

Date of the Event

11th – 13th September 2020.

Venue

Online Meetings Application

The links and the schedule of the meeting rooms shall be provided via mail after the submission of memorials.

Eligibility

1. All students enrolled bonafide in an undergraduate i.e., 3 years/5 years and postgraduate law program conducted by any college or university shall be eligible for participation in the competition.
2. The cross-Institutional team are eligible to participate

Registration Form and Procedure

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSezzDY_1wIN3EBrhjdTjcizb0wjEdFwd8p64pgm4oesYbwJEg/viewform

The Registration Fee is to be transferred in favour of SVKM’S NMIMS via NEFT/RTGS in the account details provided below:

1. Account Holder Name: SVKM’S NMIMS
2. Account Number: 435301010060080
3. Bank Name: Union Bank of India, Post Kalkere Bannerghatta Road, Dist. Bangalore- 560083
4. IFSC Code: UBIN0543535
5. Details: Student’s name and Institution/University’s

Fee Details

Early Bird: 20th July 2020 11:59 pm.

The Registration Fee for early bird registrations is Rs. 500.00. Post early bird registration the Fee is Rs. 600/-.

Deadlines

1. Release of Notification: 9th July 2020
2. Registration Starts: 9th July 2020
3. Last Date to Register: 7th August 2020 by 11:59 pm
4. Moot problem release: 9th July 2020
5. The last date to submit moot memorial: 3rd September by 11:59 pm.

Contact Information

Official E-mail ID: mcs.sol@nmims.edu.in

Mr. Pritam Ghosh: Faculty Coordinator, School of Law, NMIMS Bangalore

E-mail ID: pritam.ghosh@nmims.edu

Mobile Number: 6363759532

Ms. Priyanshi Bainwala: Convener, Moot Court Society, School of Law, NMIMS Bangalore

E-mail ID: priyanshi.bainwala04[at]nmims.edu.in/mcs.sol[at]nmims.edu.in

Mobile Number: 9073107293

Mr. Ashish Kumar: Deputy Convener, Moot Court Society, School of Law, NMIMS Bangalore

E-mail ID: ashish.kumar11[at]nmims.edu.in/mcs.sol[at]nmims.edu.in

Mobile Number: 8709898284

CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD BUTTON BELOW FOR BROCHURE AND MOOT PREPOSITION.

About Lawschole

From the beginning, Lawschole has been driven by the interests and involvement of our incredible and engaged law students. We are a growing law-student forum focused on learning, and enhancing the forum experience. We are a great resource, offering opportunities for students to be active in a variety of topics and to engage with each other in an interesting and safe online environment on Lawschole’s Blog. You can check out our free capsule courses in the ‘Courses’ section.  We will be introducing Lawschole’s certificate courses soon, stay updated! Lawschole is a forum where law students can share thoughts, seek opinions and advice, and learn something new from other members of the forum. 

We are currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to:

§  Generate awareness about the Lawschole’s initiatives and it’s various events.

§  Help us to find potential learners to engage and enhance the forum experience.

The Campus Ambassador program is a volunteer position with Lawschole.

Your main objective as a Campus Ambassador is two-fold:

§  To create awareness about Lawschole from your institution.

§  To help us in identifying potential learners who can engage in student interaction.

That essentially means:

§  Helping us facilitate interactive sessions with students in your institution.

§  Ensuring high levels of participation from your college/workplaces.

§  Creating innovative means to have maximum applicants from your institution.

What do you get?

§  Certificate of appreciation from Lawschole.

§  Mentoring and career counselling during the period of engagement.

§  Chance to attend guest lectures and webinars conducted by Lawschole.

Registration 

Interested students are suggested to send their CV along with the following information at campus.lawschole@gmail.com

Name:
Phone Number:
E-mail ID:
College / University:
Batch / Year of Study:

Selected students shall be contacted via email for a telephonic interview. Final Results of the selection will be sent on their respective email id.

Deadline: 15th July 2020

Contact Details

E-mail ID: campus.lawschole@gmail.com

Website link- https://lawschole.wixsite.com/lawschole
Attachments area