ADR Competition AnnouncementsLaw School News

   

The Centre for Research, Development and Training in Cyber Laws and Cyber Security (CRDT-CLCS) is organising the National Level Essay Writing competition on the theme of, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Laws in India’ conducted as part of celebrating Cyber Jagrukta (Security) Awareness Diwas, January 2023.

Important Dates:

  • Last date for Registration: December 20, 2022

  • Submission Deadline: January 4, 2023

Registration Details:

  • You can pay the registration fees and register now.

  • The Bank Account Details:

    Name of the Account Holder: The Registrar, ICLE 2021

    Name of the Branch: TNNLS Branch

    Account Number: 30030110033821

    IFSC Code: UCBA0003003.

  • Registration Link : https://forms.gle/QetWgrJqwbTUF5919

  • Registration Fees: INR 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only).

Awards:

  • 1st Prize: INR 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only).

  • 2nd Prize: INR 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).

  • Participation Certificates for All Participants.

Eligibility:

Undergraduate students across various streams from all universities.

To Know More Click on BROCHURE Essay Writing Comp.

Call For PapersLaw School News

CALL FOR PAPERS

Last date for Volume 11, Issue II: 12th December 2022

About Journal of Global Research and Analysis (JGRA)

JGRA is a peer-reviewed bi-annual journal that aims to promote most original and scholarly research. It is published by Geeta Institute of Law (GIL) under the aegis of K. R. Education Society, Panipat.

Theme

There are no specific themes for writing a paper for JGRA. JGRA invites well- researched, quality contributions on the Contemporary issues in legal field. Moreover, as the journal encourages the multi-disciplinary approach, such submissions will be preferred.

Types of Submissions

JGRA is accepting submissions from the academicians, legal professionals, research scholars and students in the following categories:

  • Long Articles (4000-7000, inclusive of footnotes)

Contributors in this category are intended to extensively engage with a particular legal issue of contemporary relevance while recognizing the lacunae and providing possible suggestions.

  • Essays/Short Articles (3000-5000, inclusive of footnotes)

This category targets at the precise analysis of a legal problem which poses serious reconsideration in present social scenario.

  • Case and Legislative Comments (2500-3000, inclusive of footnotes)

Authors are intended to present a critical approach to the contemporary legal pronouncements and legislative actions.

General Guidelines for Submission

  • Long and short articles must be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 200 words.
  • There can be a maximum of two authors in one submission.
  • All manuscripts must be submitted in English language only.
  • The research paper must be original and unpublished work of the author(s).
  • The manuscript must be drafted in Times New Roman, font size 12, line spacing 1.5, justified alignment (except the title and ‘abstract’ caption which should be centrally aligned).
  • Citation format: Journal will strictly follow the ILI Rules of Footnoting (available on the website of ILI, New Delhi). The footnotes must be type written in the font Times New Roman, font size 10, line spacing 1.0 and justified alignment.
  • All entries should be submitted in .doc or .docx format.
  • Any plagiarism shall attract immediate disqualification.

Note: Manuscripts having more than 10% of plagiarism will be out rightly rejected and therefore will not be reviewed.

Format of the Manuscript

1.     LEVEL 1 HEADING:         All Capitals & Bold
1.1.     LEVEL 2 SUB-HEADING:         First Letter CAPITAL & BOLD

1.1.1.   Level 3 Sub-Sub-Heading:         First Letter CAPITAL & BOLD & ITALIC

1.1.1.1.   Level 4 Sub-Sub-Sub-Heading:         Normal

Procedure of submission

  • All the submissions must be sent in .doc format through electronic mode only by sending an email to editorjgra@geeta.edu.in with the subject of mail as “Submission for Volume 11 (II) of JGRA”.
  • All the contributors are also required to submit a cover letter containing the following information:
    1. Name of the author (s)
    2. Designation of author (s)
    3. Affiliation of the author (s)
    4. Contact number
    5. Title of the paper
  • The authors are also required to submit a declaration of originality and previously unpublished work. The declaration can be found attached as Annexure I.

Deadline of submission

For Volume 11 Issue II: The contributors have to submit their research work on or before 12th December 2022.

Publication Fees

No publication fee is charged by the Journal.

Contact us

In case of any queries regarding JGRA, email us at:

Email address: editorjgra@geeta.edu.in

Annexure I

Declaration of Originality

To,

The Editor-In-Chief,

Journal of Global Research and Analysis,

Geeta Institute of Law, Panipat, Haryana, India

I/We___________________________________hereby declare that the article titled__________________________________________________________submitted by us is our original work and the same has not been submitted to any university/college for any publication or other academic or professional purpose.

I/We shall be responsible for any query & Inquiry regarding the originality of my work.

Date:                                                                                         Yours sincerely,

 

Name of Author I:                                                           Signature of Author I

  

Name of Author II:                                                        Signature of Author II

Postal address of Author I:

 

Postal address of Author I:

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022 | Organised by GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam

GITAM’s Moot & Advocacy Committee (GMAC) is proud to announce that GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam, is organising  Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition for the year 2022.

As Mooting forms an essential part of any legal education, we at GITAM School of Law recognise the need for training students in it and honing their argumentative skills. GMAC was created in 2019, to provide students with an opportunity to improve their interpersonal and advocacy skills.

GITAM School of Law had successfully organised the National Moot Court Competition on Space Law in 2020 and 2nd National Virtual Moot Court Competition in 2021,  both of which been huge accomplishments. This year, GMAC is back with the 3rd edition of Dr M.V.V.S. Murthi National Virtual Moot Court Competition, from 1st – 4th of September 2022.

The team of GMAC is delighted to welcome you and keep you updated through out the event!

Itinerary of the Competition:

1st September, 2022 (Day 1) – Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test

2nd September, 2022 (Day 2) – Preliminary Rounds – Session 1 & 2

3rd September, 2022 (Day 3) – Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals

4th September, 2022 (Day 4) – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

The following teams have registered and shall be competing in the competition:

  1. NLIU Bhopal
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  3. Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
  5. Law college Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
  6. Government Law College, Ernakulam
  7. University of Mumbai Law Academy
  8. United world School of Law, Karnavati University
  9. Department Of Law, University Of North Bengal
  10. Kristu Jayanti College of Law
  11. School of Law, Christ(Deemed to be)University
  12. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University
  13. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  14. CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
  15. Vels school of law, VISTAS
  16. Manipal University, Jaipur
  17. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
  18. Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida.
  19. School of Excellence in Law
  20. NALSAR, Hyderabad

DAY 1

1st September, 2022

 

Inaugural Ceremony

 

 

As the first day of our event begins, we are overjoyed with gratitude in our hearts and excitement in our minds!

 

Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test: 4:00 PM

 

4:05 PM – The session has been initiated by Ms. Nishitha Kirty (Student Coordinator, GMAC)

4:08 PM – The welcome note is given by the Director of GITAM School of Law Prof. Dr. Anita Rao. Ma’am has given a brief about the necessity of moot court competitions for law students and the importance of artificial intelligence and intellectual property, upon which the moot proposition is based. She has also encouraged the participants and law students to take part in moot courts to develop problem solving abilities to excel as future advocates.

4:10 PM – The link for the Researchers’ test has been sent to the participants and the test has begun.

 

 

4:20 PM – Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor of GITAM Deemed to be University, Prof. Dayananda Siddavattam has addressed the importance of patent law. Sir has emphasized the necessity of training the students in patent laws as future legal professionals. He has noted the increasing scope of hiring legal experts in pharma companies. Finally, Sir gave his word of appreciation to the participants, sponsors and the organising committee.

4:32 PM-  GITAM Deemed to be University’s President M. Sri Bharat has addressed the gathering by giving his valuable insights with relevance to the law and justice system in India. Sir has shared his life experiences with the local judicial system. He advised students choosing different streams in the field of law to maintain the importance of law to uplift social justice. He further talked about the importance of future lawyers and how helpful they can be for the well being of the society.

4:40 PM-  The Researchers’ Test ended. We hope the all the Researchers have done well!

4:44 PM-  The Director, School of Law has convened her gratitude to the President and Vice-Chancellor, GITAM University.

 

4:45 PM-  Dr. D. Gunasekaran, Registrar, GITAM Deemed to be University, has emphasized that even as legal system is complex, rendering justice is important. Sir has encouraged the students to participate in moot courts to augment their argumentative and research skills as future advocates. He has expressed his note of thanks to GITAM School of Law for organising the moot and Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association for conceding to be the Guest of Honor.

4:47 PM – Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association, the Guest of Honor, has conveyed his regards to the organisers, sponsors and participants of the Moot Court Competition. Sir has noted that the rise of virtual moot courts has been necessitated due to the pandemic scenario. However, he expressed his hope for the organising of a physical moot court competition in the future.

4:53 PM – Asst. Prof. GITAM School of Law, Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar (Faculty Coordinator, GMAC) has addressed the gathering by briefing about the schedule for the following 3 days (2nd – 4th September, 2022). He explained as to how the prelims, quarters, semis and the finals are to take place.

5:00 PM The Vote of thanks has been extended by Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal to all the honorable dignitaries present, and the participants across eminent law schools of the country. Further, she thanked the Director of GITAM School of Law for her support at every moment. Ma’am has also expressed gratitude towards the management of the GITAM University, faculty of GITAM School of Law and the team of GMAC for their diligence in organising the event.

5:05 PM – National Anthem

5:15 PM – Asst. Prof. Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar has virtually drawn the lots to match up the teams for the preliminary rounds.

~ End of DAY 1, eager to head into DAY 2 ~ 

 

 

DAY 2

2nd September, 2022

Preliminary Rounds – Session 1

 

10:00 AM – The preliminary rounds are about to begin, it’s surely going to be a brainstorming discourse on IPR Law.

10:02 AM – The teams are all prepped up and are enthusiastic for the day’s proceedings.

10:03 AM  – With an unfettering zeal, the proceedings in the courtrooms have duly begun!

10:05 AM – All the Courtrooms are officially in session.

10:07 AM – Team VMC 22 (petitioners) started presenting the factual matrix to the judges.

10:08 AM Team VMC 11 (Petitioners) presented the facts and moved further to argue by presenting the issues to the Hon’ble judges.

10:09 AM – In Courtroom 1, Team VMC 21 has respectively stated the division of time for their arguments.

10:10 AM – The Hon’ble judge in courtroom 5 has questioned the petitioners about jurisdiction of the case.

10:20 AM – In Courtroom 9 , Team VMC 16 stated that the suit is maintainable under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the powers conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

 

 

10:22 AM – In Courtroom 4, both the teams are battling it out (VMC 10 v. VMC 03). Speaker 1 of VMC 10 duly informs the bench that he shall be dealing with the issues 1 and 2 while their co-counsel would be dealing with issue 3 and 4.

10:25 AM – Time division has been allotted to the teams (VMC15 and VMC 08) in Courtroom 7.

10:27 AM – The Judge in Courtroom 2 question Team VMC 12 (petitioners) how can the High Court overlook the Arbitration clause.

10:32 AM – The Judge in Courtroom 4 questions the counsel regarding the proper acronym of a writ petition on their memorial and asks the researcher of their team to find it out.

10:36 AM – The petitioners in Courtroom 3 argued that both the petitioners and the respondent had a contract for service and the software in question is an independent project of the petitioner and was not a part of his work as an employee.

10:41 AM – Courtroom 2 is heated up with the judge asking about different ways of filing a patent to the speaker of VMC 12. The speaker answers took the citation of an English jurisdiction. The arguments by the counsel representing the petitioners took support of the employer and employee rights.

10:45 AM – The Judge of Courtroom 4 reprimands the counsel for beating around the bush, as the counsel struggles to justify the substantial issue of law and the memorials make use of cases suggesting alternate form of remedy.

 

 

10:49 AM – The Counsel 2 in Courtroom 5 started to argue about the validity of the patent with the law of the land and with concern to the company’s terms and conditions. The counsel has proven the case’s jurisdiction with the present court of law.

10:54 AM – The speakers of Courtroom 1 (Team VMC 21) submitted that when there is an agreement, whether it is a contract for service or contract of service, the contract is not conclusive with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

11:00 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 15 presented their arguments, asks for the prayer and concludes the issues.

11:04 AM – Team VMC 16 of Courtroom 9 duly appeals to the court that the invention made by the petitioner is done during his free time and hence the employer has no right of claim on it.

11:06 AM – The Judges in Courtroom 10 are dissatisfied with the arguments presented by the speakers and asked to proceed with clearer arguments.

11:08 AM –  Judge Ashish Kumar has sought further clarification pertaining to the agreement between the employer and employee, and the nature of Ediostech Ltd. The judge further questioned whether the petitioner can be considered as a consultant or not.

11:10 AM – Speaker 2 of Team VMC 19 is dealing with their issue 2 in Courtroom 8  and successfully justified their arguments backed with the Constitution.

11:12 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 8 stated about the employer – employee agreement and cites s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

11:15 AM – The respondents (VMC 06) in Courtroom 9 started presenting their arguments. The counsel states that there has been a violation of patent and files a writ petition under Art. 226 for the violation of fundamental and legal rights.

11:18AM – The Judge in Courtroom 2 asked the speaker of VMC 09 to interpret the term “course of employment” literally.

 

 

11:21 AM – The respondent counsel started presenting their arguments in Courtroom 10.

11:24 AM – Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 (VMC 19) submitted their prayer to the Judge.

11:25 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 09 in Courtroom 2 cites s. 39 of the United Kingdom Patent Act and pleads defense of “duty to invent”

11:26 AM – The respondents in Courtroom 3 began arguing the maintainability of the writ mandamus filed by the petitioners. Further, they put forth the argument that the software was developed within the consultation period.

11:29 AM – The respondents (VMC 05) in Courtroom 1 have been asked to give clarification with regard to the nature of the contract, i.e.,  whether it is contract “for” service or “of” service and the counsel sought permission to venture a guess and responded that it would be contract of service.

11:30 AM – Team VMC 08 start the rebuttal stating that Ediostech Ltd. did not clarify as to what kind of company they are and made statement regarding the jurisdiction.

11:31 AM – Counsels for petitioners in Courtroom 8 are barraged with a wide array of questions by the opposing counsel.

11:32 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 09 was asked about the difference between a holding company and subsidiary company.

11:33 AM – Counsel 2 of VMC 01 submits the prayer before the Judge. The counsel of VMC 11 presents the rebuttals before the honorable judges and VMC 01 submits their sub-rebuttals. Thereafter, the opposing counsel submits their sub-rebuttal 2.

11:34 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 21 commenced with their rebuttals stating that Ediostech Pvt. Ltd. is not a rightful owner since the employee is not under the employer’s payroll. He further states that the petitioner is only a consultant for six months and not an employee.

11:35 AM – The respondents in Courtroom 03 bring up the concept of fiduciary relationship between the company and the employee.

 

 

11:36AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 12 rebutted saying that the English laws have a persuasive value.

11:37 AM – Both the counsels of Courtroom 1 started  presenting their rebuttals and sub-rebuttals.

11:38 AM – The proceedings in Courtroom 09 have concluded.

11:39 AM – The Judges of Courtroom 10 has allowed both counsels for the rebuttals, but they refrained.

11:40 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 07 requested for a 2 minute extension to conclude their submission. The Judge duly agreed to their request and granted an extension.

11:43 PM – The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully come to an end.

 

After an intriguing set of arguments by all the teams, we have arrived to the end of first session of the preliminary rounds! 

 

Preliminary Rounds – Session 2 

 

 

2:00 PM – All the participants are now ready to battle each other in the 2nd session of the preliminary rounds.

2:03 PM – The proceedings in all the courtrooms have now officially begun!

2:05 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 04 in Courtroom 9 started with stating the facts and issues of the case.

2:08 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 07 has been solicited by the Judges to substantiate their arguments with case laws.

2:12 PM –  The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 2 successfully put forth issue 1.

2:15 PM – Team VMC 9 (Petitioners) has enthusiastically put forwards the facts and issues of the case.

 

 

2:18 PM – The Judge in Courtroom 4 sought for clarification regarding the difference between a consultant and an independent contractor from the speaker.

2:21 PM – Speakers of VMC 02 in Courtroom 2 have started addressing their issue 2.

2:23 PM – Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 and 10 have successfully put forth their facts and issues.

2:26 PM – The Judges of Courtroom 4 have questioned the counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the case.

2:29 PM – The team VMC 08 in Courtroom 7 started explaining about the arbitration clause of the privity.

2:31 PM – In Courtroom 1, the Judge asks the counsel representing petitioners about “reasonable restrictions”.

2:34 PM – The Judges in Courtroom 6 seek clarification from the respondents asking how far is Art. 12 of the Constitution is applicable in the present case.

 

 

2:36 PM – Team VMC 09 fails to answer a few question posed by the Judges.

2:38 PM – In Courtroom 7, the counsel was asked to interpret the word “any” in their issue.

2:41 PM – The Judge in Courtroom 6 asks the counsel of VMC 09 whether the employer has granted the equipment for the patent. the Judge seeks further clarification on patent law.

2:44 PM – In Courtroom 9, the counsel of the respondents argued that the petitioner has received benefits from the respondent and shall therefore be made the owner of the patent.

2:47 PM – In Courtroom 4, the counsel started to state the reasons for justifying the revocation of the patent grant to Ediostech Ltd.

2:50 PM – In Courtroom 1, the respondent started presenting their arguments and concentrated on IP time duration limitation. The Counsel talked about how previous judgements hold much value in current case scenarios.

 

 

2:53 PM – The Judge questioned the speakers about the employer contract, to which the petitioner responds referring to a case, in Courtroom 7.

2:55 PM – The rebuttals have begun in Courtroom 2.

2:57 PM – The respondents in Courtroom 5 began arguing about the contract and put forwards their rebuttals about the consultation period.

3:00 PM – In Courtroom 4, the counsel was asked how the Appellant court is the alternative remedy for the petition.

3:03 PM – The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 9 rebutted that the petitioner developed the patent not during the course of employment. To this, the opposite counsel responded with substantial case laws and legal provisions in order to prove their argument.

3:06 PM – In Courtroom 6, the Judge asked the counsel regarding the relationship between an employer and employee with respect to Supreme Court Judgements.

3:08 PM – The counsel representing respondents in Courtroom 10 submit their prayer before the bench and proceed to the rebuttals. The opposing counsel counter with their sub-rebuttals.

3:10 PM – In Courtroom 8, Speaker 1 of VMC 21 retorts the rebuttal by the opposing counsel with profound assertion.

3:12 PM – The Judge seeks clarification on different factual and legal points from the counsel representing the respondents, in Courtroom 6.

3:14 PM – The proceedings in all the Courtrooms have adjourned for the day.

We now arrive at the end of session 2 of the preliminary rounds 

 

After an intense day of the preliminary rounds, here are the teams that have made it to the Quarter-Finals: 

 

CONGRATUALTIONS TO THE TEAMS!  (in no particular order)

  1. VMC01
  2. VMC02
  3. VMC05
  4. VMC08
  5. VMC11
  6. VMC12
  7. VMC15
  8. VMC21

~End of DAY 2~

 

DAY 3

3rd September, 2022

 

Quarter-Finals 

 

 

Today as we commence the Day 3 of the event, we await to witness the engrossing Quarter-Finals!

In Courtroom 1, we will see Team VMC 11 v. VMC 08.

In Courtroom 2, Team VMC 15 will take on Team VMC 05.

In Courtroom 3, Team VMC 21 facing Team VMC 01.

In courtroom 4, Its Team VMC 12 v VMC 02. 

 

9:59 AM – The Courtrooms are all set for the commencement of Quarter-Finals. All the best to the Qualifying teams!

10:03 AM – All the four Courtrooms are officially in session.

10:05 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 15 (petitioners) in Courtroom 2 is establishing the maintainability of the suit before the High Court.

10:08 AM – The team representing the petitioners in Courtroom 4 is being asked several interesting questions regarding their grievances.

10: 12 AM – Team VMC 11 representing the petitioners in Courtroom 1 is addressing the Bench regarding the jurisdiction of the case referring to Art. 226 and 12 of the Constitution.

10:15 AM – In Courtroom 3, the petitioners have successfully established the facts of the case before the Judges.

 

 

10:18 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 11 referred to s. 17 of the Indian Contract Act and contended against the alternate remedy clause used as a defense by the respondents.

10:20 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 15 in Courtroom 2 contends that the petitioner was not consulted by the company before filing for the patent.

10:22 AM – The Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 3 are explaining the issues before the Bench.

10:25 AM – Team VMC 11 in Courtroom 1 was questioned by the Judge as to why the case was filed as a Writ and not an Appeal.

10:27 AM – In Courtroom 4, Team VMC 12 was asked a question about their memorial by the Judge as to why they have involved the UK Patent Act and not the Kalosia Act. The Counsel’s justification was found to be satisfactory to the Judge.

10:30 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 11 has started presenting the arguments of issues 3 and 4.

 

 

10:32 AM- In courtroom 3, the counsel representing the petitioner are questioned by the judge about the writ Jurisdiction and the remedy they seek for their client.

10:35 AM – The speaker 2 of VMC 11 contended that the petitioner was not an employer, rather he was a consultant. he further discussed the importance of privity of contract and gave insights regarding the morality of patent laws.

10:37 AM – In Courtroom 2,  the respondents argued on the grounds of alternative remedy and questioned the maintainability of the petition before the High Court.

10:40 AM – The Respondents in Courtroom 4 have started their arguments on the Jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable. One such argument is deemed irrelevant by the Judge.

10:43 AM – In Courtroom 3, the speaker 2 of VMC 21 addressed the bench stating that the petitioner developed the software not in the course of employment but during his free time. They answered the questions of the judges about the nature of employment of the petitioner.

 

 

10:47 AM – The speaker 1 0f VMC 08 presented the arguments basing on issue 1 and contended that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction.

10:50 AM – In Courtroom 02, the judges pointed out that the company’s laptop was simply being used because the petitioners laptop could not be used and questioned if this comes under use of company’s resources.

10:52 AM – The counsel on behalf of respondents in Courtroom 01 began presenting the arguments based on Issue 2.

10:56 AM – The counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 3 address the bench by submitting the compendium.

11:00 AM – In courtroom 2, the Counsel for respondents highlight the essentials of a contract and make reference to s.10, 11 of the Indian Contract Act. They further attempt to establish that the petitioner was competent to contract act and should therefore abide by the consultancy agreement.

 

 

11:03 AM – In courtroom 04, a fierce round of rebuttals stared between Teams VMC12 and VMC 02. And with the end of that round the proceedings in Courtroom 04 comes to an end.

11:07 AM – The speaker 1(petitioners) in Courtroom 01, rebutted the points raised by the respondents referring to the Labour courts. To this the opposing counsel sub-rebutted saying that the subject matter of the contract makes the petitioner a party to the contract.

11:11 AM – In Courtroom 03, the counsel for respondent answered the questions put forth by the judges regarding the timeline and registration of the patents.

11:13 AM – In the rebuttals happening in courtroom 02, a reference is made to the doctrine of waiver by the respondents to justify the alleged waiver of the petitioners rights over the software

11:16 AM – The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully concluded!

We now arrive at the end of Quarter-Finals!

 

After a fierce session of the Quarter-Finals, here are the teams that have made it to the Semi-Finals: 

 

 

CONGRATUALTIONS TO THE TEAMS!  (in no particular order)

  1. VMC01
  2. VMC11
  3. VMC12
  4. VMC15

 

Semi-Finals 

 

 

The stage is now about to be set with the commencement of the exciting semi-finals, with the teams pitted against one another for a thrilling show of events. All the best!

 

In Courtroom 1, we will see Team VMC 11 v. VMC 15.

In Courtroom 2, Team VMC 01 will take on Team VMC 12

.

2:02 PM – Courtrooms 1 and 2 are officially in session!

2:05 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 01 started to present their arguments before the Judges in Courtroom 2.

2:10 PM – The petitioners in Courtroom 1 have presented the factual matrix to the Judges.

2:12 PM –  Speaker 1 of VMC 01 discusses the cases involved in the substantial question of law. The counsel claims that the case does not include proper evidence and requires no proper documentation.

2:16 PM – In Courtroom 1, the petitioners argue stating that the rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the actions of the respondent.

2:20 PM – Team VMC 01 was questioned by the Judge in Courtroom 2 regarding the alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

2:23 PM – The counsel for petitioner in Courtroom 1 states the relevant remedies available to them and explains as to why they have rightfully approached the High Court.

2:27 PM – The questions asked by the Bench in Courtroom 2 were diligently addressed by the counsel for petitioners. Further, the counsel proceeded with their submissions.

2:30 PM – In Courtroom 1, the counsel argues that the petitioner is not an employee of the company but only a consultant, as per the consultancy agreement. They stuck to the argument that a company cannot exercise any control in their capacity to deploy the petitioner.

 

 

2:34 PM – The Speaker 2 of VMC 01 in Courtroom 2 has clearly made two broad contentions, i.e., that the company shall become the owner by default and the employer cannot become the owner of the IP at all. The team was further asked about the usage of company resources and it was satisfactorily answered through their submissions.

2:39 PM – In Courtroom 1, the argument stating that a use of single computer cannot be used to constitute as usage of the company’s resources to the extent that the company can gain authority over the IP, was put forth by the petitioners. The counsel was questioned by the Judges regarding the rise of the concept of vicarious liability. The speaker 2 also sheds light upon the question as to why ownership is granted in case of patents.

2:43 PM – In Courtroom 2,  Team VMC 01 moved on to their final submissions regarding the duties and responsibilities clauses the Contract. Further, it was claimed that the petitioner was not duty-bound. The Counsel thereafter requests for a 2 minute extension to conclude their submissions, which was duly granted.

2:46 PM – In Courtroom 2, VMC 12, the counsel for respondents have begun to address the issues.

 

 

2:50 PM – The counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 1 argued that the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the patent office has diligently followed the process of providing a patent.

2:53 PM – VMC 12 in Courtroom 2 cited the case Union of India v. T R Varma to prove that there has not been a cause of action.

2:55 PM – The Judges in Courtroom 1 asked the necessity for the registration of a patent.

2:58 PM –  In Courtroom 2 the counsel for the respondents explained the meaning and importance of exclusive rights.

3:02 PM – The Counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 2 was asked whether a software can be patentable. And the counsel diligently answered the question with a satisfactory explanation.

3:06 PM – VMC 01 in Courtroom 2 have begun their rebuttals stating that the remedy is time-barred and the Writ of Mandamus is the only way. The counsel for petitioner rebutted the contentions made by the opposing counsel.

3:10 PM – In Courtroom 1, the respondents in their prayer ask for the Writ of Mandamus to be quashed.

3:12 PM – The petitioners in Courtroom 1 rebut by stating that the confidentiality clause has not been violated by the petitioner as the software was developed outside the course of employment. To this, the opposing counsel put forth sub-rebuttals.

3:15 PM – The proceedings in both the Courtrooms have come to an end.

With this, the Semi-Finals have concluded!  

 

 

DAY 3

4th September, 2022

FINALS 

 

 

As we finally commence the last day of the event, we are eager to witness the enthralling final rounds and the joyous valedictory session with our honorary dignitaries!

After a fierce session of Semi-Finals, here are the teams that have made it to the final rounds:

 

 

We congratulate and wish the teams VMC 01 and VMC 11 all the best, hoping the best team wins!

 

2:05 PM – Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal has addressed the gathering and welcomed the honourable Judges.

2:08 PM – The proceedings in the Courtroom have now officially begun!

2:10 PM – It was announced that the team VMC 11 shall be the counsel for petitioners and VMC 01 shall be representing the respondents.

2:15 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 11 started presenting the factual matrix before the Hon’ble Judges.

2:18 PM – The counsel argued regarding the maintainability of the petition citing Art. 300 A of the Constitution.

2:21 PM – The team VMC 11 was asked to present the oral evidence and the speakers replied that there were none.

2:25 PM – The petitioners humbly submits that the jurisdiction cannot be satisfied as a part of privity of contract.

2:29 PM – The Speaker 1 of VMC 11 was asked about granting a decree under the Writ of Mandamus, and the counsel answered with utmost diligence.

2:33 PM – The Counsel further argued that the petitioner had a contract for service and cannot be considered an employee.

2:37 PM – Speaker 2 of VMC 11 took over and started presenting their arguments.

2:43 PM Speaker 2 argued that the petitioner was in the capacity of a consultant. The Judge questioned whether working between the hours of the contract between the parties amounted to working under the company, to which the Counsel replied satisfactorily.

2:48 PM – The Counsel cites Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and was questioned by the Judge to question the essential ingredients of the Order.

2:52 PM –  Speaker 2 of VMC 11 was asked to justify their arguments by citing a case where Writ of Mandamus was to give out the rights regarding software production.

2:56 PM – The Counsel for petitioners humbly submits their prayer to the court requestion to pass an interim injunction over the usage of the patent in question.

 

 

3:00 PM –  Team VMC 01 began presenting their arguments before the Judges.

3:10 PM – Counsel for respondents are almost done presenting the issue 1.

3:14 PM – The Team representing the Respondents was asked about the algorithm to grant a patent.

3:18 PM – The Counsel argued that the petition of Mandamus shall not be maintainable as there are alternative remedies.

3:22 PM – The Speaker 2 of VMC 01 began their submissions with respect to issue 2.

3:26 PM – The Counsel for respondents stated that the patent office has rightfully granted the patent. They further talked about the creation of software during the course of employment.

3:30 PM – The Speaker 2 was questioned about the petitioner being a consultant and not an employee by the Judge, to which the Counsel answers diligently stating that employee or consultant maybe immaterial, but the rightful assignment is to identify the rightful owner of the software.

3:36 PM – The Counsel put forth an argument that the petitioner has used the resources of the company.

3:40 PM – The Respondent Team began summing up their arguments.

3:43 PM – The Counsel prays before the Court that the Writ petition shall be quashed as it is not maintainable.

3:45 PM –  Both teams have now started their rebuttals.

3:48 PM – The petitioners rebutted the points raised by the respondent counsel saying that a written assignment is required.

3:50 PM – The Counsel sticks to the point that the petitioner is a mere consultant but not an employee during the course of employment.

3:55 PM – In the sub-rebuttals the counsel for respondents highlighted that a patent is a territorial right, even if it is registered intentionally it can be filed again in another country.

4:00 PM –  After an engrossing round of rebuttals, the proceedings in the Courtroom have come to an end.

 

The Final Round has now come to an end and we eagerly await the results!

 

Valedictory Ceremony 

 

 

This is the moment we’ve all been waiting for, the Valedictory ceremony for the Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition has officially begun!

5:00 PM – We are pleased to have with us for the Valedictory Ceremony:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy – Judge, Madras High Court

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha – Judge, Calcutta High Court

Shri M Sri Bharat – President, GITAM Deemed to be University 

 

 

5:04 PM – The Ceremony Began with Prof. Dr. Anita Rao ma’am addressing the gathering followed by Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal welcoming the honourable guests and dignitaries.

5:12 PM –  Asst. Prof. Mr. Astle Singh introduced himself and spoke about the various courses offered by GITAM School of Law.

5:15 PM – Mr. Astle Singh introduced the Guest of Honour Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, Judge, Madras High Court to address the gathering.

5:17 PM – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy conveyed his message about the importance of participating in Moot Court Competitions. He applauded the finalists and encouraged law students to participate in more such moots to hone their skills. He emphasized the importance that moot court holds in developing critical skills for advocacy for law students as future legal professionals.

 

 

5:25 PM – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Judge, Calcutta High Court began to address the gathering. He particularly underlined the necessity of moot court and the importance of making friends and network with exchanging of ideas that shall help them brainstorm ideas and solutions. Both the judges have reminisced the time they took part in a Moot Court Competition together back in their Law School days and came together to judge today’s Competition.

 

 

5:32 PM –  Prof. Dr. Anita Rao ma’am congratulated all the participants, the committee members and faculty advisors. She then proceeded to announce the results of the Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition.

The most awaited results:

Best Researcher: Apurva Pandey (VMC 04, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur) 

Best Speaker: Divyansh Morolia (VMC 01, NLIU, Bhopal)

Best Memorial: VMC 01, NLIU Bhopal

Runner-up of the Competition:  VMC 11, Christ Deemed to be University

Winner of the Competition: VMC 01, NLIU Bhopal

 

 

5:40 PM – Moot Court Convener and Asst. Prof. Mr. Vardhman S Panwar talked about the inspiration behind the Moot Court Proposition, which was the exploitation of the employees by Companies in stealing their ideas as they were developed in the course of the company’s employment. He extended his vote of thanks to the honourable Judges, participants, teaching and non-teaching staff. He also congratulated the winners and runner-ups of the competition.

 

~ End of the Final Day ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

   

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Suvir Sehgal, J. while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, granted permission to the accused travel to Australia for a period of six months to take up employment on the ground that the accused has the right to travel abroad on conditions.

Facts:

The wife filed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner to which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court which was made absolute vide order dated 03-03-2020. Although the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia, he returned to India before expiry of the period granted by the Court. The petitioner is maintaining the respondent despite being unemployed. Now, he has a job offer in hand for which he has to go back to Australia and pleaded the same in the Trial Court, but the application got rejected to which he filed this instant petition.

Arguments:

The counsel for the petitioner argued that despite being jobless, the petitioner is making payment of arrears of maintenance in 10 monthly installments. The counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has an offer for an employment from an Australian company and also, that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia but returned to India when he was called upon by the Court.

The counsel for the respondent asserted that the job offer with the petitioner is not genuine. He also argued that if the Court once grants permission, then he might not return back.

Issue:

Whether the order passed by the Magistrate is an ‘Interlocutory order' or not?

Analysis and Observation:

The Court observed that under Section 397(2) read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is a bar to the exercise of revisional power against interlocutory order.

The Court cited Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401 and K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, where it was of the view that “an ‘interlocutory order’ denotes order of a purely interim or temporary nature, which does not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. In other words, an interlocutory order is one which does not finally culminate the criminal proceedings. When tested on this anvil, the impugned order whereby application for permission to travel abroad has been declined, would qualify as an interlocutory order and fall within the ambit of Section 397(2) of the Code. As revision against such an order is barred, an aggrieved person has no other remedy, but to invoke the inherent powers of this Court.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner has a valid job offer in hand and there is no doubt about his bonafide.

The Court reiterated that ‘personal liberty, in Article 21 of the Constitution which includes the right to go abroad and the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.

The Court observed that in a matter arising out of matrimonial dispute, the accused has a right to travel abroad on conditions being imposed upon him to ensure his presence before the Trial Court and in case any condition imposed by the Court is violated, appropriate coercive action can be taken.

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is an interlocutory order and deserves to be set aside.

[Gaurav Raheja v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-19373-2022 (O&M), decided on 05-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate

Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate

Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab for State

Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate

Mr. Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

On 22-08-2022, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Regulations, 2022 to facilitate business between Indian and foreign entities.

Key Points:

  1. Indian entity can lend or invest in any debt instrument issued by the foreign entity or extend non- fund-based commitment after fulfilling the conditions-

    • Eligible to make Overseas Direct Investment (‘ODI’)

    • ODI should be in the foreign entity

    • The Indian entity has acquired control in foreign entity at the time of making commitments

  2. While lending or investing in debt instruments, the Indian entity should check whether the loan is duly backed by a loan agreement or not and if the rate of interest is charged on an “arm’s length”.

    Note: “Arm’s length” means a transaction between 2 related parties that is conducted as if they were unrelated to avoid any conflict of interest.

  3. In the case of financial commitment by way of a guarantee, it can be issued to or on behalf of the foreign entity:

    • Corporate or performance guarantee by Indian entity

    • Corporate or performance guarantee by a group of Indian entity in India, being a holding company (holding 51% stake in Indian entity), or subsidiary company (51% held by Indian entity), or a promoter group company which should be a corporate body.

    • Personal guarantee by the resident individual promoter

    • Bank guarantee backed by a counter- guarantee or by collateral by the Indian entity and issued by a bank in India.

  4. In case where a guarantee is extended jointly by 2 or more Indian entities, 100% of the amount has to be reckoned towards the individual limits of both the Indian entities.

  5. In case there is a performance guarantee, 50% of the amount has to be reckoned towards the financial commitment limit.

  6. In case of financial commitment by way of pledge, the Indian entity can pledge the equity capital of the foreign entity, held directly by the Indian entity in a foreign entity, in favour of Authorized Dealer (‘AD’) Bank or a public financial institution in India or an overseas lender, for availing fund based or non- fund-based facilities for itself or for any foreign entity in which it has made ODI.

  7. In case of financial commitment by creating charge by way of mortgage, pledge, hypothecation on

    • The assets in India in favour of an AD bank or a public financial institution in India or an overseas lender as security for availing of the fund based or non-fund-based facility or both, for any foreign entity in which it has made ODI or for its step-down subsidiary outside India

    • The assets outside India of the foreign entity y in which it has made ODI or of its step-down subsidiary outside India in favour of an AD bank in India or a public financial institution in India as security for availing of the fund based or non-fund-based facility or both, for itself or any foreign entity in which it has made ODI or for its step-down subsidiary outside India or in favour of a debenture trustee registered with SEBI in India for availing fund-based facilities for itself

  8. In case of acquisition or transfer by way of deferred payment, the payment of amount of consideration for the equity capital ca deferred for a definite period from the date of the agreement as is contained in the agreement in accordance with the conditions:

    • The foreign securities equivalent to the amount of total consideration should be transferred or issued, upfront by the seller to the buyer

    • The full and final consideration should be in compliance with the applicable pricing guidelines

  9. The resident of India acquiring equity capital has to submit the share certificates to the AD bank within 6 months from the date of effecting remittance/ the date on which the dues to such person are capitalized/ the date on which the amount due was allowed to be capitalized.

  10. An Indian resident having ODI in a foreign entity should realize and repatriate to India all the dues receivable from the foreign entity, within 90 days from the date when such receivables fall due/ the date of transfer or disinvestment/ the date of actual distribution of assets made by the official liquidator.

  11. A person resident in India who has made ODI or making financial commitment or undertaking disinvestment in a foreign entity have to report the financial commitment, disinvestment within 30 days of receipt of such proceeds and restructuring within 30 days from the date of such restructuring.

  12. In the case of Overseas Portfolio Investment or its transferring, a report of the same has to be made within 60 days from the end of the half- year in which such investment or transfer is made as of September or March end.

  13. An Annual Performance Report needs to be submitted with respect to each foreign entity every year by 31st December.

  14. In case of delay in reporting, Late submission fee has to be submitted. This facility can be availed within a maximum period of 3 years from the date of submission or filing.

Experts CornerTariq Khan

An average lawyer writes more in their lifetime than an author. A literary bent of mind inevitably helps lawyers draft and argue better. Literature is often used by judges to explain the law to common man. The best example is that of late Justice VR Krishna Iyer, whose inimitable style of writing judgments reflected literary merit. Legal writing and research, in varying degrees, are the alpha and omega of the legal profession. They are an indispensable skill for a lawyer or a legal scholar to cultivate, compete, survive, and flourish in this profession. However, legal writing is an art which always allows scope for improvement. The challenge in legal writing is for the written piece to respect the fundamentals of high-quality writing, i.e., plain , clear[1], concise and precise text[2]. Further, vetting the text for spelling, grammar and syntax is a must for any form of legal writing. Incidentally, reading can have an exceptional influence on improving one’s writing. While there can never be enough guidance on ameliorating one’s legal prose, one may consider the following key principles to master the art of legal writing[3]:

1. Know your Audience

Before finalizing the tone of the written piece, ask yourself, “who is the audience to these words?” A jurist? A student? A policy drafter? If nobody is in sight, create the person in your head that could be the prospective reader of the article. Now, tether your article to the benefit of this person. For instance, a brief submitted to the court must advocate and persuade. A memorandum to a client must analyse the issues solicited, report the state of the law on a subject matter, and recommend the most appropriate course of action. Thinking from the reader’s perspective makes it easier to use the language which is reader friendly and decide the length of the article keeping in mind the reader’s time.

2. Eliminate Distractions

It is a possibly flawed understanding that multitasking gets more work done. Legal writing is the writer’s brainchild. The scholar must devote abiding attention to the research and writing at hand to reproduce his thoughts in the most articulate and cohesive manner. The best written pieces necessitate complete attention of the writer. Thus, put distractive elements such as technology, disturbances from other deadlines and emergencies aside. Devote the mind space purely to the task at hand to produce clear and comprehensive thoughts.

3. Ideas become Scholarly Articles

It is often said that the reason why an idea occurs to us, is that we have it within us to execute the idea. Ideas represent the lacunae in the existing understanding of the common readers. Thus, the moment an idea occurs, jot it down where you are most likely to revisit it. It could be a scratchpad or your phone; note it where you can safely compile and revisit it. Ideas are points where a legal writing piece can commence to take shape from. Ensure that the ideas which occur to you at random find a secure place to be clearly expressed and refined for future use. Inspiration comes when you least expect it. One trick is to always note down one’s thoughts in the moment they occur to you, lest they disappear from your memory.

4. Legal Research is the Cornerstone

Legal writing is an outcome of extensive legal research. While legal research merits a discussion at length on its own, for now it is sufficed to state that the foundations of legal writing are adept legal research skills. While the legal scholar is free to assimilate facts and to produce his/her rational opinion, they must back it up by literary sources which expound, support, refute or shape their thought and opinion. The writer must be clear on whether the source holds value as precedent or is merely persuasive in nature. Present a balanced point of view. Do not feel obliged to present just one side of the coin instead acknowledge the legal research available in a wholesome manner and present conflicting or unfavourable views which could challenge the ideas of the written piece. However, in citing judgements, as a rule of thumb, more recent rulings are always more preferred compared to much older cases. It would help to develop a habit to refer to physical compendiums of judgements. These tend to be significantly more detailed and will help you understand the subject matter more thoroughly.

5. Structure the writing

Any written work should have an introduction, an exposition, analysis, and a conclusion. Punctuating the writing through headings adds greater clarity[4]. Limit each expository paragraph to one idea or closely related ideas. Link those ideas of one paragraph to the next one. Pay attention to font size and para length[5]. Moreover, since it is better to be strictly adherent to the guidelines of respectful academia, a scholar must cite all their resources. It is unlawful in various jurisdictions to borrow words written or spoken, without giving due credit to their author. In brief, it makes for a poor scholarly attitude. Thus, when in doubt, always cite the sources.

6. A Heading Speaks a Thousand Words

Choose the most deserving title to your written piece. It should be impactful enough to make the reader want to read the entire article. It should be promising enough to speak for the contents of the article. The title of the written work must be directional, clear, and crisp, instead of vague, lazy and winding. For instance, someone is unlikely to click on an article titled, ‘Arbitration update’ or ‘Insolvency Laws’ unless by mistake a reader clicks on it or if it comes from a renowned source or authority in the subject.

7. Illustrate, Question, Engage

While the introduction of the written piece could captivate or bore the prospective reader, the writer must know that most audiences do not bother to read the article to the very end. What could possibly make the exigent reader find the article worthy of their time and attention? Not merely a catchy introduction, but perhaps an appropriate image that goes with the gist of the scholarly piece. Illustrating the article helps the reader visualize the information they are attempting to navigate. Moreover, when they come across rhetorical questions through the article they read, they are compelled to wonder more, engage more and contemplate more[6].

8. Brevity is the soul of wit

Mark Twain was so right when he said: “I apologize for such a long letter – I did not have time to write a short one.” At all cost, repetition should be avoided. Every word written in the article, or an opinion must only further the motive of the legal scholar. Legal writing must remain free from blind adaptation of worn-out writing habits. These habits could be using complex sentences, redundant vocabulary, and verbosity. Pompous language could dissuade the reader from ever engaging with the writer’s future works on a bad day. Additionally, well intended legalese[7] could leave the reader completely befuddled as to what the author is trying to convey. Write and expand bullet points, exercise brevity[8] through the entire written piece, omit the unnecessary words to keep the written piece more effective.

9. Use action words

It is a weak construction to state that ‘the claimant was not honest’, if the author could have stated that ‘the claimant lied’. Both sentences convey the same meaning, only the latter does it more directly. Endeavour to utilize words which help visualize the act being spoken of. For instance, replace ‘very angry’ with ‘enraged’, ‘silly’ with ‘preposterous’ while keeping in mind the magnitude of the action the writer wants to refer to.

10. Avoid passive voice

The usage of passive voice[9] leads to the sentences becoming winding and long, testing the attention span of the reader. Instead of saying, ‘a crime was committed by the defendant’, the same could be rephrased as ‘the defendant committed a crime’. The usage of passive voice is an announcement of the sloth of thinking process and must be weeded out.

11. Edit, rinse, repeat

Amongst the grave errors committed by writers, instances of misplaced punctuations threaten the credibility of the writer. Performing at least two cycles of editing the written piece, vetting it for errors, for quality of language and for appropriateness of citations add value to the author’s work. It is preferable also to edit the written piece only after the body of the text is ready, to optimize time and ideation of the author. One can never edit a piece enough, but a few cycles of editing are quintessential to do justice to the written piece. Nevertheless, always encourage editorial input by a third-party. Remember, that here is always scope for improvement. Over time, the caricature of the thought process and ideation of the author become evident to their avid readers.

 


Conclusion


Legal writing is a mirror that is held back at the author who thence learns of their own thoughts and ideas. In doing so, ameliorating legal writing skills help the author identify the evolution of their thought. Legal writing could possibly be done not for an audience, but rather for personal consumption. It is a measure of the author’s patience to express in written words, with adeptness and precision. Legal writing could be a possible representation of the author’s philosophy and remains one of the most important skills within the legal profession today.


† Advocate and Registrar at the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Former Partner Advani & Co., e-mail: <advocate.tariqkhan@gmail.com>.

†† First year Law Student, Campus Law Centre (CLC), University of Delhi.

[1] Cardozo, B.N. (1986). Law and literature and other essays and addresses. Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothman

[2] Antonin Scalia and Garner, B.A. (2008). Making your case : the art of persuading judges. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomas/West.

[3] Khan, A. (2011). A Compendium of Legal Writing Sources. [online] papers.ssrn.com. Available HERE [Accessed 11 Mar. 2022]

[4]. Hardwick, L.B. (2008). Classical Persuasion Through Grammar and Punctuation. [online] papers.ssrn.com. Available HERE  [Accessed 11 Mar. 2022]

[5] Shapo, H.S., Walter, M.R. and Fajans, E. (2013). Writing and analysis in the law. St. Paul, Mn Foundation Press.

[6] White, J.B. (1985). Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(3), p.684.

[7] Lifting the Fog of Legalese. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://cap-press.com/pdf/1549.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar. 2022].

[8] Charrow, V., Erhardt, M.K. and Charrow, R. (2007). Clear and effective legal writing. Austin, Tex.: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Aspen Publishers.

[9] Fischer, J. (n.d.). Montana Law Review Why George Orwell’s Ideas about Language Still Matter for Why George Orwell’s Ideas about Language Still Matter for Lawyers WHY GEORGE ORWELL’S IDEAS ABOUT LANGUAGE STILL MATTER FOR LAWYERS. [online] Available at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2041&context=mlr [Accessed 12 Mar. 2022].

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi, CJ and Rekha Borana, J. dismissed the petition and kept it open for the petitioners to file a fresh public interest petition.

A PIL was filed by the petitioners sustaining serious allegations with respect to mismanagement of respondent 2 Arth Credit Cooperative Society.

The Court observed that in this public interest petition as it stands today, there are no supporting documents or informative evidence, even prima facie sustaining serious allegations made by the petitioners with respect to mismanagement of the respondent 2 Arth Credit Cooperative Society.

The Court further observed that a citizen approaching the Court in a public interest jurisdiction holds a greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the Court to cause further investigation.

The Court thus held “we are not inclined to entertain this petition.”[Gajendra Purbia v. Union of India, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3069/2022, decided on 02-03-2022]


Appearances:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sumit Singhal


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: While addressing the question of law with regard to lifespan of relinquishment of claim for consideration for promotion in educational institutions, the Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., expressed,

“…the paramount consideration not to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises and if he has shown unwillingness, his seniority has to be given its predominance and opportunity be available to him to serve when the next rotation becomes due…”

The instant appeal had been preferred to assail the judgment of the Kerala High Court whereby it had set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and directed the Cochin University of Science and Technology to nominate respondent 1 as Head of the Department (HOD) of School of Management Studies of Cochin University.

Background

Notably, both the appellant and respondent 1 were members of the teaching faculty and the appellant was senior to respondent 1. In terms of Section 39(1) of the University Act, the Government of Kerala framed its Statute 18 envisaging the appointment of a Director/HOD. The crux of the issue was that the appellant being the next senior most Professor in queue was eligible to be nominated by rotation as HOD in the year 2017, however, because of his preoccupation in teaching and research he had expressed his unwillingness to be considered for the post. Accordingly, the next eligible Professor Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated as Director/HOD for a period of three years.

It was the case of the appellant that before the term of Dr. Mavoothu D was going to expire; he had showed his willingness at that stage for appointment as Director/HOD. At the same time, respondent 1 who was next to the appellant in seniority equally protested the claim of the appellant.

Statute 18

The Syndicate of the University observed that the relinquishment made by the appellant was specific to the nomination in the year 2017 and that was the reason Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated. Taking note of Statute 18; that the rotation begins according to seniority and not at the point at which earlier nomination was made, the University held that the appellant had to be considered first.  The reasoning given by the University was that it gives paramount importance to academic and research work and doesn’t want to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises but intend to nominate the teacher after those activities are over and accordingly recommended the name of the appellant to be appointed as HOD.

Relinquishment of promotion; whether transitory or perpetual?

Challenging the order of the University, the respondent 1 had approached the High Court, the Single Judge had observed that the senior most person had to be considered for appointment as HOD/Director of the Department on rotational basis for a period of three years and the appellant who had relinquished his claim on rotation of three years in the year 2017 had expressed his unwillingness only for the period when his name came for consideration in 2017 but the time when a fresh consideration had taken place, the appellant could not be denied his right of fair consideration as the relinquishment could not be for an infinite period.

However, by the impugned judgment, the findings of the Single Judge was overturned by the Division Bench on the premise that Statute 18 conspicuously takes note of seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years and once the relinquishment was made by the appellant in terms of the Statute 18, the appellant had foregone his right of consideration for all times to come and respondent 1, who was the next in queue, was to be considered for nomination.

Analysis and Findings

Noticeably, what is being envisaged from Statute 18 is that teachers who are eligible for being considered for HOD according to seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years, if shows unwillingness or makes a request to be relieved from such a responsibility for academic reason, can certainly be relieved for that rotation but there is no prohibition which deprives the teacher from being considered for appointment as HOD when the second rotational term becomes due. However, it was not in dispute that earlier on two different occasions, the Professors who had shown their unwillingness at one point of time were considered by the University when the second rotational term became due because of his/her seniority and eligibility to be nominated for the post of Director/HOD.

Relying on in N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584., wherein it had been held that “past practice which is being followed for long time if not contrary to law, be given its true precedence and ordinarily not to be interfered by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench opined, although there was no prohibition under Statute 18, still if two views are possible and the University had interpreted in the way which serves the purpose keeping in view the paramount consideration to the academic and research work and the seniority of the teachers while considering for appointment as HOD, the same could not be called inappropriate and unjust.

Since, the appellant had relinquished his claim in the year 2017 because of undergoing research work at that time, the Bench opined that keeping in view the paramount consideration not to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises and if he has shown unwillingness, his seniority has to be given its predominance and opportunity be available to him to serve when the next rotation becomes due and that was the reason the appellant was also considered and recommended by the Syndicate to be nominated as HOD/Director School of Management Studies keeping in view the mandate of the Statute.

Conclusion

In the light of above, the Bench concluded that the interference made by the Division Bench in interpreting Statute 18 of the University wa not sustainable in law and deserved to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside.

Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Rajitha Kumar S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 152, decided on 07-02-2022]


*Judgment by: Justice Ajay Rastogi


Appearance by:

For the Appellant: P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate

For Respondent 1: Bina Madhavan, Advocate


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 


 

Legislation UpdatesStatutes/Bills/Ordinances

Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda Bill, 2020 received Presidential Assent on 21-09-2020.

The Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda Act, 2020

Key Features:

AYURVEDA INSTITUTES

It is proposed to conglomerate certain Ayurveda institutes in the campus of Gujarat Ayurved University at Jamnagar, namely,

(i) the Institute for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda;

(ii) Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurved Mahavidyalaya; and

(iii) the Indian Institute of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Sciences (including pharmacy Unit) by establishing them as one institution in the name of the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar and to confer the status of Institution of National Importance on it.

It is also proposed to subsume the Maharshi Patanjali Institute for Yoga and Naturopathy Education and Research into the proposed Institute and establish it as a Department of Swasthvritta.

The Institute will be elevated to the status of Institution of National Importance which will provide autonomy to it to upgrade standards of Ayurveda education, to frame various courses in Ayurveda as per national and international demand and to adopt advanced evaluation methodology.

NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Conferring the status of Institute of National Importance to the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar will also facilitate :

(a) to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in Ayurveda and Pharmacy so as to demonstrate a high standard of such medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions of Ayurveda in India;

(b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of Ayurveda, including Pharmacy;

(c) to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate education to meet the country’s needs for specialists and medical teachers in Ayurveda; and (d) to make an in-depth study and research in the field of Ayurveda

FUNCTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE

(a) provide for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in Ayurveda, including Pharmacy;

(b) provide facilities for research in the various branches of Ayurveda including Pharmacy;

(c) prescribe courses and curricula for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Ayurveda including Pharmacy;

(d) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, establish and maintain—

(i) one or more Ayurveda medical colleges with different Departments including Department of Swasthvritta and such other departments as may deemed to be necessary for scientific validation of Ayurveda, implementing Ayurveda principles and theories in public health and further expansion of Ashtanga Ayurveda with the help of modern scientific advances sufficiently staffed and equipped to undertake undergraduate and postgraduate Ayurveda education including Pharmacy;

(ii) one or more well-equipped hospitals;

(iii) colleges for Ayurveda supporting staffs such as nurses, Pharmacists, Panchakarma technicians or therapists and such other allied disciplines of Ayurveda sufficiently staffed and equipped for training such students;

(iv) rural and urban health organisations which will form centres for the field training in Ayurveda and for research into community health problems; and

(v) other institutions for the training of different types of health workers, such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and Ayurvedic medical technicians of various kinds;

(e) train teachers for the different Ayurveda colleges in India;

(f) hold examinations (including for admissions) and grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles in undergraduate and postgraduate education in Ayurveda and Pharmacy as may be laid down in the regulations;

(g) institute, and appoint persons to professorships, readerships, lectureships and posts of any description in accordance with regulations;

(h) receive grants from the Government and gifts, donations, benefactions, bequests and transfers of properties, both movable and immovable, from donors, benefactors, testators or transferors, as the case may be;

(i) deal with any property belonging to, or vested in, the Institute in any manner which is considered necessary for promoting the objects specified in section 12;

(j) demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be specified by regulations;

(k) construct quarters for its staff and allot such quarters to the staff in accordance with such regulations as may be made in this behalf;

(l) establish, maintain and manage halls and hostels for the residence of students;

(m) supervise and control the residence and regulate the discipline of students of the Institute and to make arrangements for promoting their health, general welfare and cultural and corporate life;

(n) institute and award fellowships, scholarships, exhibitions, prizes and medals; (o) borrow money, with the prior approval of the Central Government, on the

security of the property of the Institute;

(p) to perform all such things as may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the Institute.

Read the Act here: ACT


Ministry of Law and Justice