TOGETHER- We Can. We Will !! post

Internship opportunity for law firm, Jaipur, Apply Now!!

2026-09-28T14:13:06.233+05:30

Post:

Intern

Eligibity:

Looking for trustworthy

Hard working fresher Lawyer or

final year law student

Location:

Lawyer's office.

Paid opportunity.

Interested please DM

Location -

Jaipur

+91 99823 56792

Job Post of Legal Head, Mumbai. APply Now!!

2026-09-28T13:34:36.273+05:30

Hiring a Head -

Legal for a manufacturing company in Mumbai.

Looking for 12-18 years of experience in following

1. Managing the board and partnering with senior leadership

2. Driving a culture of compliance

3. High value commercial contracts

4. Litigation Strategy (not just management)

In case you fit the bill and are interested,

pls reach out to me via email (email only) at:

ritambaravasudeva@michaelpage.co.in

Due to high volumes -

will only be able to respond to relevant applications. my team will be in touch for other opportunities as and when they arise.

This is an opportunity to lead a mid sized MNC's legal function and strategic leadership exposure.

Budget:

INR 80 lakhs

Job Post of Junior Advocate and Law student, Apply Now!!

2026-09-28T13:28:57.006+05:30

Law Bridge Legal

Location:

At Branch

1. Ahemdabad, Gujarat

Salary or stipend will be provide by the Law firm

Please DM if anyone interested in this requirements

Contact:

Adv. Rajput Pavankumar

(Partner)

Mo. 9157021766

Internship Opportunities for October 2026

2026-09-28T13:08:51.762+05:30

Applications are invited for offline internship in the Chambers of Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Advocate-on-Record and former Additional Advocate General for the States of Punjab and Chhattisgarh, practicing before the Supreme Court of India, various courts, and tribunals in Delhi.

Location:

* Chamber - Supreme Court of India

* Office - Defence Colony, New Delhi Mode of Internship: Offline

Joining Dates:

01.10.2026 (October 2026 Batch)

Duration:

Minimum 4 weeks

Interested law students may apply by sending their updated CV to

**sagintern@gmail.com with the subject line:

"Internship Application for [Month]".

Internship Opportunity at National Centre for Law and Administration and LBSNAA: Apply Now!

2026-09-28T11:13:30.506+05:30

About National Centre for Law and Administration and LBSNAA

The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie is a premier training institution for the civil services in India.

The National Centre for Law & Administration (NCLA) will work towards sharpening the legal acumen of the civil servants, help raise competencies amongst officers, and facilitate focussed legal education about various statutes, constitutional provisions and judicial pronouncements through regular training programmes & research.

About the Internship

The National Centre for Law and Administration (NCLA), a part of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie, is inviting applications for a 4-week academic internship for law students.

Eligibility

Only meritorious final-year law students should apply

Duration

4 weeks

Working Hours: 9:30 AM – 5:30 PM

Stipend

None (But the experience is invaluable!)

Accommodation & Meals: Fully covered by NCLA

Location

Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie, Uttarakhand – 248179

Application Procedure

Click Here to Apply

Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship Application Procedure – 2026 [Updated]

2026-09-20T10:39:14.539+05:30

About Talwar Thakore & Associates

Talwar Thakore & Associates (TT&A) is a leading Indian law firm with offices in Mumbai and Delhi. Established in 2007, the firm has advised on several significant and complex transactions in India.

TT&A has established a strong presence across practice areas such as banking and finance, capital markets, competition law, corporate law and projects. Its lawyers have also been recognised and recommended by prominent legal publications and rankings, including Chambers & Partners, The Legal 500, Asialaw, IFLR1000 and Mergermarket.

The firm is known for combining experienced legal professionals with a strong team of lawyers to provide commercially focused legal advice to clients.

About Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship

The Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship provides law students with an opportunity to gain practical exposure to the functioning of a leading corporate law firm.

Internship applications are accepted throughout the year, making it possible for eligible students to apply based on their preferred internship period and availability.

Eligibility

Students looking to gain practical experience through an internship at Talwar Thakore & Associates should be at least in their penultimate year of study at the time of the internship.

Accordingly, eligible applicants would generally include:

4th and 5th-year students of a five-year integrated law course; and
2nd and 3rd-year students of a three-year LL.B. course.

Students should ensure that they meet this eligibility requirement for the period during which they intend to undertake the internship.

Work Areas

Interns at Talwar Thakore & Associates may get exposure to matters relating to the firm’s major practice areas, including:

Mergers and Acquisitions
Private Equity
Banking and Finance
Capital Markets
Competition Law
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Corporate and Commercial Law
Restructuring
Intellectual Property
Projects
Tax

The internship can be particularly useful for students interested in building a career in corporate and transactional law.

Location

Talwar Thakore & Associates currently has offices in Mumbai and New Delhi.

Application Process

Interested students can apply for the Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship by filling the form.

Click Here to Apply

International Seminar 2026 by Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus: Submit by Sep 19

2026-09-20T10:35:35.903+05:30

About Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus

Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus (AULC) is a constituent campus of Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida. Established in 2004, the 40-acre campus focuses on research- and innovation-driven education and integrates global education, professional training, research, and innovation.

The campus houses 18 institutions offering 87 programmes to more than 6,000 students across multiple disciplines.

About Amity Law School, Lucknow Campus

Amity Law School (ALS), Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, was established in 2007 with the objective of providing research- and innovation-driven legal education in a dynamic and globally oriented academic environment. The Law School offers UGC-recognised undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and promotes excellence in legal education, research, professional training, interdisciplinary scholarship, internationalisation, and global academic collaboration.

About the Seminar/Conference

The International Seminar 2026 seeks to provide a distinguished academic platform for legal scholars, practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and students to critically examine whether existing definitions and legal frameworks governing war crimes remain adequate to address contemporary warfare.

The nature and character of armed conflict are undergoing profound transformation due to emerging technologies, asymmetric strategies, cyber operations, artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, environmental degradation, and evolving geopolitical dynamics.

The Seminar will examine the evolving relationship between:

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
International Criminal Law (ICL)
International Human Rights Law
State sovereignty
International accountability

The Seminar will comprise four technical sessions, with two parallel sessions on each day, and will be conducted in Hybrid Mode, enabling both physical and online participation.

About Call for Papers

Participants are invited to submit original and unpublished abstracts addressing the Seminar’s principal theme or any of its sub-themes.

Abstracts should demonstrate:

Analytical clarity
Academic originality
Contemporary relevance
Engagement with legal and policy issues
Research quality and academic rigour

Participants may adopt interdisciplinary and comparative approaches, which are particularly encouraged.

Authors whose abstracts are accepted may subsequently be invited to submit full papers for presentation and possible publication.

Eligibility

The brochure invites participation from:

Legal scholars
Practitioners
Policymakers
Researchers
Students

Co-authorship is permitted, with a maximum of two authors per submission. In the case of co-authored full papers, both authors are required to register separately.

Theme

Main Theme

“Expanding the Definition of War Crimes to Reflect Modern Conflict: Balancing State Sovereignty with International Accountability”

Technical Sessions

Technical Session I – Invisible Battlefields: Cyber Warfare, Artificial Intelligence, and Autonomous Weapons Systems in Contemporary Armed Conflict
Technical Session II – Collateral Damage in the 21st Century: Environmental Warfare, Ecocide, and the Protection of Ecological Systems During Armed Conflict
Technical Session III – Psychological Violence, Asymmetric Conflict, and the Changing Nature of Modern Combatants
Technical Session IV – The Sovereignty Dilemma: Universal Jurisdiction, State Responsibility, and International Accountability

Interdisciplinary and comparative research addressing the principal theme or any of these sub-themes is encouraged.

Submission Categories

Abstract Submission

Language: English
Word limit: 300–500 words
Format: MS Word (.doc/.docx)
Font: Times New Roman, 12-point
Line spacing: 1.5
Alignment: Justified
Maximum authors: Two
Citation style: Preferably Bluebook or ILI

The abstract should include:

Title of the Paper
Name(s) of Author(s)
Institutional Affiliation
Email Address
Contact Number
Research Problem and Objectives
Scope and Methodology
Key Arguments/Findings
Concluding Observations and/or Recommendations

Full Paper Submission

Full papers may be submitted by authors whose abstracts are accepted/invited.

Word limit: 4,000–8,000 words, inclusive of footnotes
Language: English
Format: MS Word (.doc/.docx)
Maximum authors: Two
Footnotes: Required instead of endnotes
Citation style: Preferably Bluebook 20th or 21st Edition

Originality and academic integrity are mandatory.

Formatting Guidelines

Abstract

Times New Roman
12-point font
1.5 line spacing
Justified alignment
300–500 words
MS Word format (.doc/.docx)

Full Paper

Times New Roman
Main text: 12-point
Footnotes: 10-point
1.5 line spacing
Justified alignment
1-inch margins on all sides
4,000–8,000 words inclusive of footnotes
Footnotes rather than endnotes
Uniform citation style, preferably Bluebook 20th/21st Edition
MS Word format (.doc/.docx)

Suggested Structure of Full Paper

Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Research Objectives
Research Methodology
Literature Review, where appropriate
Main Discussion and Analysis
Findings
Suggestions/Recommendations
Conclusion
References/Bibliography

Submission Guidelines

The submission must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere.
Abstracts must not have been previously published or presented elsewhere.
Authors must ensure compliance with academic integrity and publication ethics.
Submissions must be free from plagiarism.
Manuscripts exceeding the permissible plagiarism threshold of 10–15%, as determined by the Organising/Editorial Committee, may be rejected.
Authors are responsible for the originality of their work, accuracy of citations, and authenticity of information.
Submission of an abstract does not guarantee acceptance of the full paper or publication.
Selected papers may be considered for publication in an edited book, conference proceedings, or a reputed journal, subject to applicable editorial and peer-review requirements.

Registration Fees

Category	Fee	Details
Amity Students & Scholars	₹500/-	Inclusive of GST
Amity Faculty	₹750/-	Inclusive of GST
National Delegates	₹1,000/-	Exclusive of GST
Foreign Delegates	₹1,500/-	Exclusive of GST

Registration: Through the designated registration process/QR code provided by the Organising Committee.

Registration Process

Participants are required to:

Submit their abstract within the prescribed deadline.
Await notification regarding acceptance.
Complete registration within the stipulated registration period.
Authors of accepted abstracts who are invited to submit full papers should submit the full paper within the prescribed deadline.
Co-authors must register separately.

Registration and Submission Deadline — Important Dates

Particulars	Date
Last Date for Abstract Submission	19 September 2026
Notification of Acceptance	23 September 2026
Last Date for Registration	26 September 2026
Full Paper Submission Deadline	28 September 2026
International Seminar 2026	6–7 October 2026

Submission Procedure

Abstract Submission

Abstracts are to be submitted in MS Word (.doc/.docx) format.

The email subject line should read: “Abstract Submission – [Name of Author]”

Full Paper Submission

Full papers must be submitted through the designated email address intseminaralsl@gmail.com

The email subject line should read: “Full Paper Submission – [Name of Author]”

The file name should contain: Author’s Name + Short Title of Paper

The brochure specifies that full papers must be submitted on or before the prescribed deadline.

Review and Selection

All abstracts will undergo academic review by the Editorial/Review Committee. Selection will be based on:

Originality
Relevance to the Seminar theme
Research quality
Analytical rigour
Academic merit

Selected participants will be notified by email.

Contact Information

Faculty Conveners

Dr. Arvind K. Singh, Associate Professor +91 9140197074
Dr. Reshma Umair, Associate Professor +91 8318851168
Dr. Jyotsna Singh, Assistant Professor +91 8874462278

Faculty Co-Conveners

Dr. Shivangi Singh, Assistant Professor +91 8707889286
Mr. Srijan Singh, Assistant Professor +91 8299738129

Student Conveners

Shagun Tiwari — +91 9696115565
Antavya Singh — +91 8081191608

Student Co-Conveners

Gauri Singh — +91 95558 85944
Mohammad Kaif — +91 98018 30786

Organising Secretaries

Sakshi Kumari — +91 8809331800
Swapnil Singh — +91 96161 80019

Email: intseminaralsl@gmail.com

The brochure is here.

3rd National Level Moot Court Competition by Birla School of Law [Cash Prizes Rs 55K]: Register by Sep 30

2026-09-20T09:25:36.063+05:30

About Birla School of Law

The Birla School of Law (BSOL) under Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar was established in 2018 with the goal of being the best destination for aspiring new-generation lawyers.

Event Details

The 3rd Edition of the national level Moot Court Competition by Birla School of Law, Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar is conducted in honor of our founders Late B K Birla and Late Sarala Birla on 9, 10 & 24 October 2026.

Eligibility

Students of three-year and five-year integrated law degree courses from any University/Law School/College/Department are eligible to participate in the competition.
Multiple teams shall be allowed to participate from any one University/Law School/College/Department.

Location and Format

Hybrid

Preliminary & Quarter Final round – Online on 09th & 10th October 2026
Semi Final & Final round – Offline on 24th October 2026 at Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar

Registration or Submission Procedure

Teams interested in participating must confirm by emailing a scanned copy of Annexure-A (Registration Form) and a screenshot of the payment receipt to bsolmcc@bgu.ac.in by 30 September 2026.

The non-refundable registration fee is Rs. 2000/-, payable via QR code and Account Transfer at the end of this document. Annexure-A is attached to this brochure.

Important Dates

Last Date of Registration (via e-mail) along with a scanned copy of Annexure-A & Payment Receipt – 30 September, 2026
Confirmation of Provisional Registration & Team Code Allotment – 02 October, 2026
Last Date for Seeking Clarifications – 03 October, 2026
Release of Clarifications – 04 October, 2026
Soft-copy Memorial Submissions – 05 October, 2026
Inaugural Ceremony – 09 October, 2026 at 10:30 AM
Preliminary Round (Online) – 09 October, 2026 (11:00 AM onwards)
Quarter Final Round (Online) – 10 October 2026
Researcher’s Test (Online) – 10 October, 2026
Semi-Final Rounds (Offline) – 24 October, 2026 (11:00 AM onwards)
Final Round (Offline) – 24 October, 2026 (2:30 PM onwards)
Result Declaration and Trophy Distribution – 25 October, 2026 (4:30 PM onwards)

Fee Details

The non-refundable registration fee is Rs. 2000/-, payable via QR code mentioned in the brochure. Annexure-A, the registration form is also attached to this brochure.

Prizes

Winning Team Award – The winning team will receive a trophy and a prize worth Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).
Runner’s Up – The runners up team will receive a trophy and a prize worth Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only).
Best Memorial – The team submitting the best Memorial will receive a trophy and a prize worth Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
Best Researcher – The Best Student Researcher will receive a trophy and a prize worth Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
Best Speaker – The Best Student Speaker will receive a trophy and a prize worth Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).

Deadline

Last Date of Registration (via e-mail) along with a scanned copy of Annexure-A & Payment Receipt of Rs – 30 September, 2026

Contact Information

+91 9778992522 (Ms. Ashna Siddiqui)
+91 7053130042 (Mr. Swagat Dash)

The brochure is here.

Call for Papers: Nyayadeep Shiksha Law Journal, Vol. I, Issue 2 [2026]: Submit by Nov 1

2026-09-20T09:18:20.776+05:30

Nyayadeep Shiksha Law Journal has invited submissions for Volume I, Issue 2 (2026) on the theme “Reimagining Justice: Continuity, Crisis and Consensus.” The last date for submission is 1 November 2026.

About Nyayadeep Shiksha Law Journal

Nyayadeep Shiksha Law Journal is an online law journal bearing ISSN: 3139-6348 (Online).

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process and publishes accepted works on an open-access basis under a CC BY-NC licence.

About the Call for Papers

Nyayadeep Shiksha Law Journal is accepting submissions for Volume I, Issue 2 (2026).

The theme for the issue is:

“Reimagining Justice: Continuity, Crisis and Consensus”

The issue seeks to examine the manner in which legal systems are responding to changing social and technological developments.

Submissions may explore perspectives relating to traditional jurisprudence, emerging systemic challenges, collaborative models of legal reform and interdisciplinary approaches to justice.

Submission Categories

Authors may submit their work under the following categories:

Long Articles: 4,000–6,000 words
Short Articles/Essays: 2,000–4,000 words
Case Comments/Legislative Notes: 1,500–2,500 words

The prescribed word limits include footnotes.

Review and Publication

All submissions will undergo a double-blind peer review process.

Accepted manuscripts will be published on an open-access basis under a CC BY-NC licence.

A Certificate of Publication will also be provided to all published authors.

Publication Fee

The publication fee applicable to accepted submissions is:

Single Author: ₹500
Two Authors: ₹1,000
Three Authors: ₹1,200

How to Submit?

Interested authors may submit their manuscripts via email at: publicationsnyayadeep@gmail.com

The subject line of the email should be:

“Submission for Vol I Issue 2 2026”

Authors are advised to carefully review the complete submission and formatting guidelines before sending their manuscripts.

Important Dates

Submission Deadline: 1 November 2026
Tentative Publication Date: 15 December 2026

Important Links

Call for Papers is

here.

Submission Guidelines is

here.

Contact Information

For submissions and related queries, authors may write to:

Email:

publicationsnyayadeep@gmail.com

Bank of India Law Officer Recruitment 2026 (Scale II): Apply by 25 September

2026-09-20T09:05:44.506+05:30

Bank of India (BOI) has announced its specialist officer recruitment drive (Project No. 2026-27/02), inviting online applications for the post of Law Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II).

Eligible law graduates and practicing advocates can apply through the official BOI portal between September 10 and September 25, 2026.

Vacancy Overview

Post Name: Law Officer (Scale II)
Total Vacancies: 10 Posts
Category Distribution:General: 3 | OBC: 3 | SC: 2 | ST: 1 | EWS: 1 (1 post reserved for PwBD)
Pay Scale:₹64,820 – 2,340 (1) – ₹67,160 – 2,680 (10) – ₹93,960 (Gross estimated monthly salary: ₹78,000 to ₹90,000)

Eligibility Criteria (As on August 1, 2026)

1. Educational Qualification:

A Bachelor’s Degree in Law (LL.B.) from a recognized University/Institute.
Minimum Marks:60% aggregate for General/EWS candidates, and 55% for SC/ST/OBC/PwBD candidates.

2. Professional Experience:

Minimum 3 years of post-qualification experience as a practicing Advocate at the Bar or as a Law Officer in a Bank, Financial Institution, PSU, or Government entity.
Experience is calculated from the date of enrolment with the Bar Council.

3. Age Limit:

Minimum Age:25 years
Maximum Age:30 years
Upper age relaxation applies: 5 years for SC/ST, 3 years for OBC (Non-creamy layer), and 10 years for PwBD candidates.

Selection Process

The selection methodology will comprise an online test and/or personal interview, depending on the volume of eligible applications.

Online Examination (If conducted): Will consist of two sections:
- Professional Knowledge (Law): 100 marks (100 minutes)
- English Language:25 marks (100 minutes – Qualifying in nature)
Negative Marking: One-fourth (0.25) of the marks assigned to a question will be deducted for wrong answers.
Personal Interview: Candidates who qualify the online exam will be called for an interview carrying 100 marks.

Important Dates

Event	Date
Notification Released On	August 1, 2026
Relevant Date for Age & Eligibility	August 1, 2026
Start Date for Online Application & Fee	September 10, 2026
Last Date to Apply Online & Pay Fee	September 25, 2026
Last Date for Printing Application	October 10, 2026

Important Links

Bank of India Officer Detailed Notification PDF	Click Here
BOI Officer Eligibility Criteria (Annexure-I)	Click Here
Bank of India Officer Apply Online Link	Click Here
Whatsapp Group	Click Here

Application Fee

SC/ST/PwBD Candidates: Rs. 175/- (Intimation charges only, inclusive of GST)
General/EWS/OBC Candidates:Rs. 1,180/- (Application fee + Intimation charges, inclusive of GST)

How to Apply

Visit the official Bank of India website: http://www.bankofindia.bank.in
Navigate to the CAREER section and click on “Recruitment of Officers in various streams upto Scale IV – Project No. 2026-27/02”.
Click on APPLY ONLINE → New Registration to generate your provisional registration number and password.
Fill out the application, upload your photograph, signature, left thumb impression, and the handwritten declaration.
Pay the application fee online before the deadline of September 25, 2026

Internship Opportunity at Aditya Birla Group: Apply Now!

2026-09-13T19:03:50.982+05:30

About Aditya Birla Group

Aditya Birla Group’s Pulp & Fibre Business has a legal team supporting a global business spanning fibres, pulp, sustainability and manufacturing operations across India, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Sweden and Canada, along with legal matters relating to global sales, marketing, media, projects and procurement.

About the Internship

The legal team is hiring a Legal Intern for its Cellulosic Fibre Business. The internship will provide exposure to legal matters across Indian and international jurisdictions.

Eligibility

Students pursuing an LL.B. through a 3-year or 5-year course from a recognised institution.
Strong legal research, drafting and analytical skills.
Interest in corporate, commercial and regulatory legal work.
Good communication and stakeholder management skills.

Responsibilities

Assist in reviewing and drafting commercial contracts and agreements.
Support compliance, regulatory and corporate governance matters.
Contribute to strategic projects, corporate transactions and legal research.
Support litigation management and documentation processes.
Work on legal matters across Indian and international jurisdictions.

Stipend

As per company policy.

Mode

On-site.

Location

Worli, Mumbai.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may share their profile at musliha.r-ne@adityabirla.com

Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship Application Procedure – 2026

2026-09-13T18:59:30.619+05:30

About Talwar Thakore & Associates

Talwar Thakore & Associates (TT&A) is a leading Indian law firm with offices in Mumbai and Delhi. Established in 2007, the firm has advised on several significant and complex transactions in India.

The firm is known for combining experienced legal professionals with a strong team of lawyers to provide commercially focused legal advice to clients.

About Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship

The Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship provides law students with an opportunity to gain practical exposure to the functioning of a leading corporate law firm.

Internship applications are accepted throughout the year, making it possible for eligible students to apply based on their preferred internship period and availability.

Eligibility

Students looking to gain practical experience through an internship at Talwar Thakore & Associates should be at least in their penultimate year of study at the time of the internship.

Accordingly, eligible applicants would generally include:

4th and 5th-year students of a five-year integrated law course; and
2nd and 3rd-year students of a three-year LL.B. course.

Students should ensure that they meet this eligibility requirement for the period during which they intend to undertake the internship.

Work Areas

Interns at Talwar Thakore & Associates may get exposure to matters relating to the firm’s major practice areas, including:

Mergers and Acquisitions
Private Equity
Banking and Finance
Capital Markets
Competition Law
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Corporate and Commercial Law
Restructuring
Intellectual Property
Projects
Tax

The internship can be particularly useful for students interested in building a career in corporate and transactional law.

Location

Talwar Thakore & Associates currently has offices in Mumbai and New Delhi.

Application Process

Interested students can apply for the Talwar Thakore & Associates Internship by filling the form.

Click Here to Apply

Internship Opportunity at Plato’s Law: Apply Now!

2026-09-13T14:16:10.007+05:30

About the job

Plato’s Law is accepting applications for the position of Legal Intern.

Eligibility

Students in the 3rd and 4th year of a five-year law course are preferred.

Work Profile

The intern will primarily work in the following areas:Tribunals, including NCLT, DRT and RERA

District Courts

High Courts

Duration

The internship is for the month of October.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates can share their CV at

shivansh@platoslaw.in

The subject line should be in the following format: Name/Year of Study/Preferred Month

Legal Job | Advocate at Law Chambers of Garima Jain: Apply Now!

2026-09-13T13:34:02.850+05:30

About One Law Partners

One Law Partners is a law office practising before various judicial and quasi-judicial forums.

About the Job

One Law Partners is inviting applications for the position of Advocate.

Position:

Advocate

Primary Forums of Practice:

Supreme Court of India

High Courts

NCLAT

Eligibility

Candidates with 0–2 years of post-qualification experience may apply.

Location

Greater Kailash–1, New Delhi

Application Procedure

Interested candidates should send their CV along with a writing sample to garima@garimajain.co.in

Internship Opportunity at Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates: Apply Now!

2026-09-13T13:21:11.019+05:30

About Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates

Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates (VLLP) is looking for an Associate to join our growing Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution team. The role includes legal research, drafting pleadings and agreements, court and authority appearances, and supporting senior counsel across litigation, arbitration, commercial contract drafting , IP, and corporate advisory matters.

About the Internship

The internship at Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates is designed for students seeking practical insight into how legal research, drafting, transactions, advisory and disputes are handled in practice.

Eligibility

Candidates should demonstrate:Strong research ability

Attention to detail

Clear written communication

Willingness to learn

Curiosity and discipline

Ability to approach legal questions critically

Prior internship experience is welcome but is not mandatory.

Responsibilities

Interns may receive exposure to:Legal research and case-law analysis

Drafting and review of legal documents

Regulatory and compliance research

Preparation of legal notes, briefs and case summaries

Application Procedure

Interested candidates can apply by filling out the application link.

Click Here To Apply.

What is Segmented custody as per bnss?

2026-07-19T11:05:38.228+05:30

"Segmented custody" (or staggered police custody) refers to a significant change in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Under Section 187 of the BNSS, the 15-day maximum police custody period no longer needs to be taken consecutively within the first 15 days of arrest. "Segmented custody" is Police custody which is broken into segments.

Instead, the police can now take custody in "whole or in parts" at any time within a larger window of the initial 40 or 60 days of the total 60/90 days investigation period.

Key Aspects of Segmented Custody under BNSS

15-Day Limit Staggered: While the total number of days an accused can be in police custody remains capped at 15, the police can distribute these 15 days over a longer duration.

40/60 Day Window: For offenses punishable by up to 10 years, police custody can be sought within the first 40 days. For more serious offenses (more than 10 years, life imprisonment, or death), this window is extended to the first 60 days.

Impact on Bail: This provision significantly delays the possibility of bail. Under the old CrPC, after the first 15 days, an accused was usually sent to judicial custody, reducing the risk of further interrogation. Under BNSS, an accused can be pulled out of jail for interrogation weeks or months after their initial arrest.

Operational Flexibility for Police: It allows police to take custody in segments, such as 3 days initially for questioning, followed by judicial custody, and then another 5 days of police custody later after analyzing evidence or forensic reports.

Comparison with Old Law (CrPC)

CrPC 167: Police custody was limited to the first 15 days only. Subsequent remand had to be judicial custody.

BNSS 187: Police custody can be claimed in segments (e.g., 2 days, 5 days, 8 days) anytime during the initial 40/60 days.

Legal Controversy

This provision has been criticized by civil rights activists as a "retrograde step" that increases the risk of custodial torture and weakens individual liberties, as the looming threat of police custody remains for a longer period.

Note: The Supreme Court has affirmed that for offenses with punishment up to 10 years, this 15-day custody must be sought within the first 40 days

Additional Evidence in First Appeal: Original Documents, Subsequent Events, and the Limits of Remand

2026-07-19T11:03:18.887+05:30

Q :- Documents were not produced before trial court as those documents were not traceable and were not exhibited as xerox copies were filed. whether any party can produce original documents before appellate court? whether appellate court can allow production of original documents at appellate stage only on the ground that those documents were not traceable at the time of proceeding before trial court?

Ans:- First appeals often raise a recurring procedural problem: can a party produce documents for the first time in appeal, especially when the originals were not filed before the trial court? The answer is yes, but only in limited circumstances, because additional evidence in appeal is an exception and not a matter of right.

The governing framework lies in Section 107 CPC and Order XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29 CPC. These provisions give the appellate court flexibility, but only within a structured and reasoned process.

The basic rule

An appeal is ordinarily decided on the record of the trial court. A party cannot treat the appellate stage as an opportunity to repair omissions, fill gaps, or improve a weak case.

Key takeaway

First appeal is not a second trial.

New documents cannot be produced as of right.

Additional evidence is allowed only within the limits of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Can original documents be produced in appeal

If only xerox copies were filed before the trial court and the originals were said to be untraceable, the party may seek permission to produce the originals before the appellate court. But the mere statement that the originals were “not traceable” is not enough.

The party must establish due diligence and satisfy the court that the case truly falls within Order XLI Rule 27. The appellate court must be satisfied that the request is genuine and not an attempt to fill a lacuna.

What the party must show

Where the originals were kept.

What efforts were made to trace them.

Why they could not be produced during trial despite due diligence

When and how they were later found.

Why their production is necessary for deciding the appeal.

Xerox copies do not solve the problem

The fact that xerox copies were filed before the trial court does not automatically entitle a party to file originals at the appellate stage. The court must still examine whether the omission was bona fide and whether the statutory conditions for additional evidence are satisfied.

Even if the originals are allowed to be brought on record, they do not stand proved automatically. They must still be proved according to law.

Important point

Admission on record is not the same as proof in evidence.

The opposite party can still object to admissibility and authenticity.

The opposite party must get a chance to cross-examine and rebut.

Documents relating to subsequent events

A different situation arises where the document relates to a later development, meaning an event that took place after the decree or after the trial. Such documents stand on a different footing from documents that existed during the suit but were omitted earlier.

Courts may consider subsequent developments where they materially affect the relief, alter the legal relationship of the parties, affect enforceability, or where ignoring them would lead to ineffective relief or multiplicity of proceedings.

When later events may be considered

When the later event materially affects the relief in appeal.

When it changes the legal or factual situation between the parties.

When ignoring it would make the relief ineffective.

When consideration of the event avoids further litigation.

But there is a limit

A later event cannot be used as a pretext to introduce an entirely new case.

The event must be genuine, relevant, and material.The proper course is still an application for additional evidence.

Is amendment of appeal memo necessary

If a party relies on a subsequent event, a practical procedural question arises: must the memorandum of appeal be amended? In many cases, amendment is the safer course.

If the later document is being filed only for a limited purpose, amendment may not always be indispensable. But if the party wants to base a new ground of challenge on that event, or asks the court to mould relief on that basis, amendment should ordinarily be sought.

Safe working rule

Limited reference to later event: amendment may not always be necessary.

New ground based on later event: amendment is advisable

Prayer for moulding relief on later event: amendment should ordinarily be sought.

What happens after additional evidence is allowed

This is the stage most often mishandled in practice. Once additional evidence is allowed, the appellate court must follow the procedure laid down in the Code.

First, the court must record reasons for admitting the evidence. Second, it must identify the precise points to which the evidence is confined under Order XLI Rule 29. Third, it must either record the evidence itself or direct the trial court, or another subordinate court, to record it under Order XLI Rule 28.

Mandatory procedural steps

Record reasons for admitting additional evidence.

Specify the exact points for which the evidence is received.

Decide whether the appellate court will record evidence itself or send it to the subordinate court.

Give the opposite party full opportunity to object, challenge, and rebut.

Hear and decide the appeal finally after the evidence is properly recorded.

Additional evidence does not mean automatic remand

A common error is to assume that once additional evidence is permitted, the whole matter must be remanded. That is incorrect.

The power to admit additional evidence and the power to remand are distinct. Once evidence is allowed, the normal course is under Order XLI Rule 28, not an automatic remand of the entire suit.

District Judges should remember

Additional evidence and remand operate in different fields.

The appellate court can itself record evidence.

Or it can direct the subordinate court to record evidence and return it.

Full remand is justified only if Order XLI Rules 23, 23A, or 25 are independently attracted.

What order should the first appellate court pass

A good appellate order must be clear, limited, and reasoned. The court should first decide the application under Order XLI Rule 27 by stating the exact ground on which the evidence is being allowed or refused.

If the application is allowed, the court should specify the documents admitted, identify the issues to which the evidence is confined, and state whether the evidence will be recorded by the appellate court itself or by the subordinate court. It should also expressly protect the other side’s right to objection, cross-examination, and rebuttal.

Structure of a proper order

Decide the Rule 27 application by a speaking order.

Mention the exact statutory ground.

Identify the documents permitted.

Confine the evidence to specific points under Rule 29

Follow Rule 28 for recording of evidence.

Preserve full opportunity to the opposite party.

Decide the appeal on merits after the additional evidence is duly proved.

Bullet highlights for quick reading

First appeal is normally confined to the trial court record.

Additional evidence is exceptional.

“Documents were not traceable” is not enough by itself.

Due diligence must be shown.

Originals may be allowed in appeal, but only under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Later events may also be considered if materially relevant.

If a later event becomes a fresh ground of challenge, amendment of appeal memo is usually the safer course.

Once additional evidence is allowed, Rules 28 and 29 must be followed.

Additional evidence does not automatically require remand.

A disciplined appellate order is essential.

Closing line

The strength of appellate adjudication lies in balance: the court must not shut out material that law allows it to consider, but it must equally prevent the appeal from turning into a disguised retrial.

Ex Parte at Trial, New Defence in Appeal? The Real Limits of the First Appellate Court Under the CPC

2026-07-19T10:51:36.851+05:30

A first appeal under Section 96 CPC is not a mere formality. It is a rehearing on facts and law, and the first appellate court has a duty to independently test the correctness of the decree on the basis of the pleadings, issues, and evidence already on record. But that wide appellate jurisdiction does not mean that a defendant who remained ex parte before the trial court can use the appeal as a fresh opportunity to construct an altogether new defence.

The governing principle is simple: appeal is a continuation of the suit, not a reconstruction of it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in a first appeal the entire case is open for rehearing on facts and law, and the appellate court may reverse or affirm the trial court after reappreciating the evidence. At the same time, the appellate court remains confined to adjudicating the controversy as framed by the pleadings of the parties and proved through the trial record.

This distinction becomes important when the defendant either did not contest the suit at all, or failed to take a particular plea in the written statement or at trial. In such a case, the appellate court does not sit as a court for granting the defendant a fresh innings. The defendant’s non-participation below does not destroy his status as respondent in appeal, but it narrows the manner in which he can participate.

If the suit was dismissed by the trial court despite the defendant being ex parte, and the plaintiff files a first appeal, the defendant-respondent may still support the decree of dismissal. He may argue that even on the plaintiff’s own pleadings and evidence no decree could legally have been passed, because the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case. For this limited purpose, Order XLI Rule 22 permits the respondent to support the decree even on grounds decided against him, and no cross-objection is necessary so long as he seeks only to maintain the decree as it stands.

The position changes when the respondent wants more than preservation of the decree. If he seeks variation of the decree, reversal of an operative part against him, or any affirmative relief, he must file a cross-objection or separate appeal. Order XLI Rule 22 thus draws a clear line between supporting a decree and seeking a better decree.

A further distinction must be kept in view between three categories of pleas. First, there are grounds already arising from the existing pleadings and evidence; these can ordinarily be argued in appeal. Second, there are pure questions of law going to the root of the matter and not requiring further evidence; these too may be permitted. Third, there are wholly new factual pleas that were never pleaded and would require fresh evidence; these are ordinarily impermissible at the appellate stage.

That limitation is not merely technical. Pleadings define the case to be met, shape the issues for trial, and govern the evidence led by the parties. When a defendant has not pleaded a factual defence before the trial court, permitting him to raise it for the first time in appeal may prejudice the opposite party and distort the appellate process into a retrial.

The same disciplined approach applies to additional evidence. Order XLI Rule 27 is an exception, not the rule. The Supreme Court has reiterated that additional evidence cannot be allowed merely to fill lacunae in appeal, and an appellate court must first examine whether the proposed material is rooted in the pleadings and whether the statutory conditions of Rule 27 are actually satisfied.

Therefore, a defendant who remained absent at trial cannot claim, as of right, to produce fresh documents in appeal simply because he failed to contest the suit earlier. Neglect, strategy, or convenience is not the test; the statutory conditions in Order XLI Rule 27 control the matter.

Section 105 CPC adds another dimension. Even where no independent appeal was filed against an interlocutory order, an error, defect, or irregularity in such order may be urged in an appeal from the decree, provided it affected the decision of the case. Thus, in an appropriate case, a respondent may challenge in appeal the correctness of an order proceeding ex parte, or another interlocutory order, if that error bears upon the decree under challenge.

Still, Section 105 does not authorize the appellate court to reopen the suit for an unrestricted defence. It only permits scrutiny of interlocutory error affecting the final decision; it does not dissolve the boundaries created by pleadings, issues, and evidence.

The practical rule, then, may be stated in this form: where the defendant did not contest the suit before the trial court, or omitted a particular plea, the appellate court may permit him, as respondent, to support the decree on grounds arising from the existing pleadings, findings, and record, and may also consider objections to interlocutory orders under Section 105 CPC if such orders affected the decision of the case. However, the appellate court should not ordinarily entertain a wholly new factual defence, allow additional evidence merely to fill lacunae, or create a new case for the parties at the appellate stage.

Key takeaway

In a first appeal, the appellate court has wide power to reappreciate facts and law and test the legality of the decree on the trial record, but that jurisdiction is exercised within the framework of the pleadings, issues, and evidence in the suit. Accordingly, where the defendant remained ex parte or omitted a plea before the trial court, he may, as respondent, support the decree on grounds available from the existing record and may invoke Section 105 CPC against interlocutory errors affecting the decision, but he cannot ordinarily be allowed to set up a wholly new factual defence or adduce additional evidence merely to fill lacunae, save in the exceptional situations recognized by Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Ex Parte Commissioner, Ex Parte Decree: Can the Defendant Challenge It in Appeal?

2026-07-19T10:38:12.200+05:30

Q :- Lower court has appointed court commissioner without hearing defendant as he was proceeded exparte before trial court. Whether he can challenge that order before appellate court? what order the appellate court should pass in such circumstances?

Ans:- Civil procedure does not permit justice to become one-sided merely because the defendant has been proceeded ex parte. A recurring question arises where, after setting the defendant ex parte, the trial court appoints a Court Commissioner without hearing him. Can that order be challenged before the appellate court, and if yes, what should the appellate court do? The answer lies in a careful reading of Section 96(2), Section 105 and Order XXVI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

At the outset, one distinction must be kept clear. An order appointing a Court Commissioner is ordinarily not an independently appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Therefore, the proper course in most cases is not to file a separate appeal against the appointment order, but to challenge that interlocutory order in the appeal against the final decree if that order affected the ultimate decision of the case.

This is where Section 105 CPC becomes crucial. The provision declares that, save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal lies from every order; however, where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in an order affecting the decision of the case may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. In other words, a non-appealable interlocutory order does not become immune from scrutiny; it may still be attacked when the decree founded upon or influenced by that order is challenged.

If the decree itself is ex parte, the defendant has a statutory remedy under Section 96(2) CPC. A regular first appeal against an ex parte decree is maintainable, and such remedy can exist even alongside proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. More importantly, the appellate court in such an appeal can examine whether the trial court was justified in proceeding ex parte in the first place.

In the context of commissioner proceedings, Order XXVI Rule 18 CPC assumes significance. It provides that where a commission is issued, the court shall direct the parties to appear before the Commissioner in person or by agent or pleader, and if they do not so appear, the Commissioner may proceed in their absence. The structure of the rule shows that participation of parties is the normal rule and absence-based proceeding is only permissible after due opportunity has been afforded.

Therefore, the mere fact that the defendant had earlier been set ex parte does not automatically answer the entire controversy. The appellate court must still examine whether the ex parte order itself was proper, whether the commissioner proceedings were notified in accordance with law, whether the defendant had a fair chance to participate, and whether the Commissioner’s report materially influenced the decree. The central issue is not formal ex parte status alone, but whether the procedure adopted caused legal prejudice.

A Court Commissioner is meant to assist the court in clarifying physical features, local conditions, accounts, partitions or other matters requiring on-the-spot or specialized inquiry. The process is not intended to become a substitute for unilateral evidence collection by one party behind the back of the other. If the report was obtained in circumstances that denied effective participation to the defendant and was then relied upon as a significant basis of the decree, the appellate court can legitimately treat the irregularity as one affecting the decision of the case.

Yet, every ex parte appointment of a Commissioner does not automatically vitiate the decree. Section 99 CPC also reflects the general policy that a decree should not be reversed for mere error or irregularity unless it affects the merits or jurisdiction. Read with Section 105 CPC, the appellate approach should be one of substance: whether the challenged order caused failure of justice and whether it had a real nexus with the outcome of the suit.

What, then, should the appellate court do? If it finds that the defendant was wrongly proceeded ex parte, or that the commissioner process violated fair opportunity and the report materially influenced the decree, the proper order would ordinarily be to set aside the ex parte decree and remit the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Such remand may include liberty to contest the commissioner proceedings, file objections to the report, and lead evidence on the relevant issues.

On the other hand, if the commissioner’s report had little or no bearing on the final adjudication, and the decree is independently sustainable on other unimpeachable material, the appellate court may decline interference despite the procedural objection. The law does not reward technical objections detached from prejudice; it intervenes when the irregularity has materially affected the decision.

The correct legal position may therefore be stated thus: an order appointing a Court Commissioner after the defendant has been proceeded ex parte is generally not separately appealable, but it can be challenged in the appeal against the decree under Section 105 CPC if it affected the decision of the case. If the decree is ex parte, the defendant can invoke Section 96(2) CPC and ask the appellate court to examine both the legality of the ex parte proceedings and the prejudice caused by the commissioner order.

The true principle is one of procedural fairness. A defendant may be absent, but justice cannot be absent. Where the commissioner process becomes part of an unfair chain leading to an ex parte decree, the appellate court not only may interfere—it ought to.

Key takeaway

The order appointing Commissioner is ordinarily not independently appealable, but it can be challenged in the appeal against the ex parte decree under Section 105 CPC if it affected the decision of the case; and if prejudice is shown, the appellate court may set aside the decree and remand the suit.

Ex Parte at Trial, Active in Appeal: Can the Defendant File Fresh Documents in First Appeal?

2026-07-06T17:21:06.894+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

Q :- Suit is proceeded exparte against defendant before trial court. trial court has dismissed the suit of plaintiff. plaintiff has filed appeal against dismissal of his suit. in that appeal, notice is issued to defendant. he appears before appellate court and produce copies of documents in support of his case. whether appellate court can consider those documents while deciding that appeal. what role defendant can play in the appeal?

Ans:-A defendant who was proceeded ex parte before the trial court does not get an unrestricted right to introduce fresh documents when he appears as respondent in the plaintiff’s first appeal. The appellate court normally decides the appeal on the trial court record, and any fresh documents can be considered only if they are admitted as additional evidence under Section 107 CPC read with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

This distinction is important in practice. A respondent in appeal may fully defend the decree of dismissal and may support it on grounds decided against him, but he cannot casually improve his defence by filing documents for the first time at the appellate stage.

Factual setting

The typical situation is this: the defendant remained absent before the trial court, the suit proceeded ex parte against him, and yet the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff then files a first appeal, notice is issued to the defendant, and the defendant appears before the appellate court with copies of documents in support of his case.

The legal question is whether the appellate court can rely upon those documents while deciding the appeal, and what precise role the defendant can play as respondent in that appeal. The answer lies mainly in Section 107 CPC and Order XLI Rules 22, 27, 28 and 29 CPC.

General rule in appeal

The general rule is that an appeal is decided on the basis of the record of the court below. Parties do not have a vested or automatic right to adduce fresh documentary or oral evidence before the appellate court.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is an exception and not the rule. Additional evidence at the appellate stage cannot be permitted merely to repair omissions, patch up a weak case, or fill gaps left at trial.

Therefore, if the defendant simply tenders copies of documents after entering appearance in appeal, those documents do not become evidence merely because they are filed in the appellate court. Unless they are formally admitted in accordance with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court should not rely upon them while deciding the appeal.

Scope of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence only in limited and exceptional circumstances. Broadly stated, additional evidence may be received where the trial court wrongly refused evidence, where despite due diligence the evidence was not within the party’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier, or where the appellate court itself requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for some other substantial cause.

This means the defendant must do more than merely produce documents. He must file a proper application explaining under which clause of Rule 27 the documents are sought to be introduced and why they were not produced before the trial court.

The appellate court must then hear both sides and pass a reasoned order. Order XLI Rule 27(2) requires the appellate court to record its reasons for admitting additional evidence, which is a significant procedural safeguard against abuse.

Effect of defendant being ex parte below

The fact that the defendant was set ex parte before the trial court does not by itself create a special privilege in appeal. Ex parte status is not a licence to reconstruct the defence at the appellate stage.

If the documents were available earlier and were not produced because of negligence, default, or conscious abstention, the appellate court should ordinarily refuse to receive them. Rule 27 is not meant to reward lack of diligence or to reopen the trial indirectly.

At the same time, the defendant’s earlier ex parte position does not shut him out from the appeal. Once notice is served and he appears, he is entitled to participate as respondent and to defend the decree that is under challenge.

Role of the respondent-defendant in first appeal

Order XLI Rule 22 CPC is central to understanding the defendant’s role in such an appeal. A respondent may support the decree not only on the grounds accepted by the trial court, but also on grounds which were decided against him in the trial court.

For that limited purpose, the respondent need not file cross-objections. In other words, if the decree dismissing the plaintiff’s suit is in his favour, he may argue that the dismissal is correct even though certain issues or findings were recorded against him.

For example, the defendant may contend that the plaintiff failed to prove title, possession, limitation, maintainability, valuation, readiness and willingness, cause of action, or any other ingredient required for success in the suit, provided these contentions arise from the pleadings, evidence, and record already before the court.

However, supporting the decree is different from seeking affirmative relief. If the respondent wants the appellate court to modify the decree in his favour, set aside an adverse part of the decree, or grant him substantive relief, he must ordinarily file cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC or file an independent appeal, subject to exceptional exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.

Can the appellate court consider the fresh documents?

The correct answer is: yes, but only through the legal route of additional evidence. The appellate court cannot rely upon the defendant’s fresh documents merely because they have been filed in appeal; it may consider them only if they are admitted by a reasoned order under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Thus, a broad statement that the appellate court “cannot consider” the documents at all would be inaccurate. The more precise position is that the appellate court cannot consider them unless the statutory conditions for additional evidence are satisfied.

This distinction is vital for legal drafting and judicial orders. A casual reference to documents lying on the appellate file, without first admitting them under Rule 27, would be procedurally unsound.

Procedure after admission of additional evidence

If the appellate court allows the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the matter does not end with mere filing of the documents. Admission of additional evidence does not mean that the documents stand automatically proved in law.

The appellate court may itself take such evidence, or it may direct the trial court or another subordinate court to record it and return the evidence. This flows from Section 107 CPC and Order XLI Rule 28 CPC.

Further, under Order XLI Rule 29 CPC, the appellate court may specify the points to which the additional evidence shall be confined. This ensures that the remand or evidence-taking exercise remains limited and relevant to the actual controversy.

This procedural discipline becomes especially important where the documents are photocopies, disputed documents, documents requiring formal proof, or documents whose genuineness, execution, or contents are denied by the appellant-plaintiff. In such cases, an opportunity for objection, proof, cross-examination, and rebuttal is ordinarily necessary before the material can be read in evidence.

Practical legal position

In the factual situation under discussion, the defendant-respondent has two clear rights and one clear limitation. He has the right to appear in the appeal, the right to support the decree of dismissal on all available grounds arising from the existing record, and the right to rely on findings recorded against him for the purpose of supporting the decree without necessarily filing cross-objection.

But he has no automatic right to place new documents before the appellate court and ask the court to act on them. If he wants those documents to be considered, he must satisfy the test of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and the appellate court must record reasons before admitting them.

Therefore, where the defendant merely files copies of documents without a proper Rule 27 application or without showing due diligence, wrongful refusal by the trial court, or necessity for pronouncing judgment, the appellate court should decline to consider those documents and should decide the appeal on the original trial court record.

Suggested judicial approach

In such a case, the appellate court may adopt the following course:

Hear the respondent on his right to support the decree under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

Refuse to read the freshly filed documents unless a proper application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is filed and allowed.

If such an application is filed, examine whether the case falls within the recognised grounds for additional evidence.

If the application is rejected, decide the appeal on the existing record.

If the application is allowed, record reasons and then follow Order XLI Rules 28 and 29 CPC for proof and limited evidence-taking.

Model draft order

The following is a workable draft order for use in such circumstances:

In the Court of the District Judge / First Appellate Court

Civil Appeal No. _ of 20__

A.B. … Appellant original plaintiff

Versus

C.D. … Respondent original defendant

Order below Exh.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated //20__ passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. /20__, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff came to be dismissed.

The respondent-original defendant was proceeded ex parte before the Trial Court. In the present appeal, after service of notice, he has appeared and produced copies of certain documents in support of his defence.

The appeal is ordinarily to be decided on the basis of the record of the Trial Court. A party has no automatic right to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, except in accordance with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The respondent has not shown that the Trial Court had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. The respondent has also not established that, despite due diligence, the documents sought to be produced were not within his knowledge or could not be produced before the decree appealed against was passed.

This Court further finds that the present appeal can be decided on the basis of the pleadings, evidence, and findings already available on the record of the Trial Court. The documents now produced are not required by this Court for pronouncing judgment within the meaning of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Mere appearance of the respondent in appeal, after having remained ex parte before the Trial Court, does not confer a right to introduce fresh documents and improve the defence at the appellate stage.

The documents tendered by the respondent are therefore not liable to be received in evidence. However, the respondent shall be entitled to support the decree of dismissal on all grounds available in law under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC on the basis of the material already on record.

Order

(i) The request/application of the respondent to take the said documents on record as additional evidence stands rejected.

(ii) The documents tendered by the respondent shall not be read in evidence for the purpose of disposal of the appeal.

(iii) The appeal shall proceed for hearing on merits on the basis of the record of the Trial Court.

(iv) The respondent is at liberty to support the impugned decree on all permissible grounds under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

Pronounced on: //20__

Judge

Alternative order where Rule 27 is satisfied

If the defendant files a proper application and the appellate court is satisfied that the case genuinely falls within Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the order may be framed differently. In that event, the appellate court should expressly admit the identified documents as additional evidence, record the reason for such admission, and then direct proof and rebuttal in accordance with Order XLI Rules 28 and 29 CPC.

A brief operative portion in such a case may read as follows:

“The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is allowed for the reasons recorded above. The documents described in Schedule-A are taken on record as additional evidence. The learned Trial Court shall record evidence limited to those documents, permit cross-examination and rebuttal, and return the evidence to this Court within weeks. Thereafter the appeal shall be listed for final hearing.”

Conclusion

The true legal position is clear. A defendant who was ex parte before the trial court may still appear in the plaintiff’s first appeal and fully support the decree dismissing the suit, but he cannot as of right introduce fresh documents at the appellate stage.

Those documents can be looked into only if the appellate court admits them as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC by a reasoned order. Failing that, the appeal must be decided on the trial court record, though the respondent remains entitled to defend the decree under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

What is difference between standard of proof in deciding criminal appeal against acquittal and conviction?

2026-07-06T17:15:40.316+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

In criminal law, appellate courts apply distinct standards when deciding appeals against conviction versus appeals against acquittal, primarily because an acquittal reinforces the fundamental presumption of innocence. While both appeals allow for a review of evidence, an appeal against acquittal faces a higher threshold for interference compared to a standard appeal against conviction.

Here is the detailed difference:

1. Appeal Against Conviction

Initial Presumption: The presumption of innocence is lost once a trial court finds the accused guilty. The trial court's finding provides a initial presumption of guilt, which the accused must overcome to win the appeal.

Standard of Review: The appellate court reviews the evidence to see if it sustains the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The focus is on finding legal or factual errors in the conviction.

Interference Level: Lower. If the appellate court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, or there is a strong possibility of innocence, it will set aside the conviction.

If Two Views Are Possible: If the evidence is equally balanced, the appellate court may still interfere to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

2. Appeal Against Acquittal (Appeal to Convict)

Double Presumption of Innocence: When an accused is acquitted, the initial presumption of innocence is reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the acquittal verdict. This creates a "double presumption" of innocence.

Standard of Review: The appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence, but it will only interfere if the acquittal is "perverse," "unreasonable," or "distorted".

Interference Level: High Threshold. Interference only occurs when there are "substantial and compelling reasons" (e.g., ignoring material evidence, or a gross error of law).

If Two Views Are Possible: If two reasonable views can be reached from the evidence—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the appellate court must not disturb the acquittal.

Summary of Differences

Feature Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Acquittal

Presumption Presumption of guilt Double presumption of innocence

Interference Threshold Normal High (Perversity/Substantial Error)

If Two Views Possible Can favor the accused (Conviction reversed) Must favor the accused (Acquittal upheld)

Role of Court Correction of errors Correction of miscarriage of justice

Re-appreciation Normal appreciation Studied, deeper scrutiny

Conclusion

An appeal against acquittal is "altogether on a different pedestal". The appellate court must remain cautious, as reversing an acquittal takes away the liberty of a person who has already been declared not guilty by a court of law. The court must act only if it is "imperative" to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice

What factors the courts must consider when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed punishment under NDPS act?

2026-07-06T17:12:38.620+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

Section 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, outlines the factors courts must consider when imposing a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed punishment. Introduced by the 2001 amendment, it allows for enhanced punishment to ensure sentencing is proportional to the gravity of the offense.

Key Factors for Higher Punishment (Section 32B)

When a minimum term of imprisonment or fine is set, the court can impose a higher sentence based on the following aggravating factors:

(a) Violence or Arms: Use or threat of use of violence or weapons by the offender.

(b) Abuse of Public Office: The offender is a public servant and used their position to commit the offense.

(d) Near Sensitive Areas: The offense is committed in or near an educational institution, social service facility, or places frequented by students/children.

(e) Organized Crime: The offender is part of an organized, international, or other criminal group.

(f) Other Illegal Activities: Involvement in other illegal activities facilitated by the drug offense (e.g., money laundering).

Judicial Interpretation and Scope

Not Exhaustive: The Supreme Court has clarified that the factors listed under Section 32B are not exhaustive. The court may consider other relevant factors, such as the large quantity of contraband involved.

Quantity as a Factor: Even if none of the specific factors (a-f) are present, a sentence higher than the minimum can be imposed if the quantity of the drug is high, especially if it far exceeds the "commercial quantity".

"May Deem Fit" Clause: The phrase "in addition to such factors as it may deem fit" provides broad discretion to the court to consider the overall circumstances.

Recording Reasons: When imposing a sentence above the minimum, courts are required to record specific, justified reasons.

Mitigating Circumstances: While Section 32B focuses on aggravating factors, courts are expected to balance them with mitigating circumstances (such as the offender being a first-time offender, poverty, or acting merely as a carrier).

Key Legal Precedent

The Supreme Court's decision in Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau serves as a clarifying precedent on the application of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act. By affirming the court's ability to impose higher than minimum sentences based on factors beyond those explicitly listed, such as the quantity of narcotics involved, the judgment ensures a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to sentencing. This promotes justice by allowing sentences to reflect the severity of each individual case, while still respecting the legislative framework. Consequently, this landmark decision will guide lower courts in their sentencing practices under the NDPS Act, balancing statutory adherence with judicial discretion..

Supreme Court explains distinction between the “sum adjudged” and the “principal sum adjudged

2026-07-06T17:09:18.410+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

On the basis of this judgment, the distinction is that “sum adjudged” may mean the whole amount adjudicated as payable, while “principal sum adjudged” means only the principal amount adjudged, excluding the interest component unless there is a specific legal basis to merge it into principal.

Meaning of “sum adjudged”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014

M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 INSC 587

Read full judgment here: Click here.

The judgment explains this distinction indirectly by comparing Section 34 CPC with Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It notes that Section 31(7) uses the broader word “sum”, and in Hyder Consulting that expression was understood to include the aggregate amount, namely the award amount plus pre-award interest.

So, sum adjudged is a wider expression. It can comprehend the total amount directed to be paid, including components like pre-award interest, if the statute uses broad language and the scheme permits it.

Meaning of “principal sum adjudged”

By contrast, Section 34 CPC uses the narrower phrase “principal sum adjudged.” The Supreme Court says this departure in language is of “great significance” and shows that under Section 34 the interest is payable only on the principal amount adjudged and not on the interest part of the award.

Thus, principal sum adjudged refers to the core compensation or debt amount found due. It does not automatically include earlier interest merely because that interest is also recoverable.

Why the distinction matters

This distinction matters because it controls the base on which later interest is calculated. If the law speaks of “sum adjudged,” later interest may run on the whole adjudicated amount; but if it speaks of “principal sum adjudged,” later interest runs only on the principal component.

That is why the Court held that post-award or post-decree interest cannot automatically be granted on pre-award interest also. To do that, there must be a specific statute, contract term, or express award granting interest upon interest.

Application in this case

In this case, 12% simple interest was granted for the pre-award period and 15% for the post-award period on the “amount awarded.” The claimant argued that the later 15% should run on both the compensation amount and the earlier 12% interest.

The Court rejected that argument and held that the “amount awarded” in both parts meant the same thing, namely the principal compensation amount of Rs. 21,56,745. Since there was no express direction to grant 15% on the earlier interest also, the later interest had to be confined to the principal amount awarded

SC approves Witness Protection Scheme 2018

2026-07-06T17:05:48.728+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

We, accordingly, direct that:

(i) This Court has given its imprimatur to the Scheme prepared by respondent No. 1 which is approved hereby. It comes into effect forthwith.

(ii) The Union of India as well as States and Union Territories shall enforce the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in letter and spirit.

(iii) It shall be the ‘law’ under Article 141/142 of the Constitution, till the enactment of suitable Parliamentary and/or State Legislations on the subject.

(iv) In line with the aforesaid provisions contained in the Scheme, in all the district courts in India, vulnerable witness deposition complexes shall be set up by the States and Union Territories. This should be achieved within a period of one year, i.e, by the end of the year 2019. The Central Government should also support this endeavour of the States/Union Territories by helping them financially and otherwise.

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before A.K Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)

Mahender Chawla v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016

Decided on December 5, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2679

A Policy Analysis of the Witness Protection Scheme 2018-explainer

2026-06-04T16:05:46.349+05:30

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

1. The Witness as the "Eyes and Ears of Justice"

In the architecture of the Indian adversarial legal system, the witness serves as the fundamental pivot upon which the scales of justice balance. The integrity of oral testimony is not merely a procedural convenience; it is the primary strategic asset for any court engaged in the arduous process of uncovering factual truth. Within this framework, the witness acts as the medium through which facts—disputed or otherwise—are effectively conveyed to the judiciary, forming the backbone of the decision-making process.

This role finds its philosophical foundation in the works of Jeremy Bentham and Whittaker Chambers. Bentham famously characterized witnesses as the "eyes and ears of justice" more than 150 years ago, a functional metaphor emphasizing the court's sensory reliance on external testimony.

2. Deconstructing Systemic Failure: The 'Pathetic' State of the Witness

Historically, the Indian criminal justice system has functioned with a profound neglect of its primary stakeholders: the witnesses. Understanding this failure is not merely a matter of addressing logistical lapses; it is a strategic necessity for preserving the Rule of Law. As observed in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and reaffirmed in the Mahender Chawla judgment, the treatment meted out to witnesses is nothing short of "pathetic," representing a fundamental breach of procedural due process.

The specific hardships can be categorized into three distinct layers of systemic failure:

Institutional Harassment: Witnesses are often denied basic human dignity within the court complex. This includes being "pulled out of the courtroom by the peon," a lack of sitting space, and the absence of basic amenities like drinking water.

Procedural Trauma: The system frequently rewards the accused through a "routine" of unnecessary adjournments. Trials are often protracted until the witness is "tired out" and ceases to appear. Furthermore, witnesses are subjected to "prolonged stretched examinations" long after the incident, when memory has naturally decayed.

Economic Burden: Witnesses are summoned regardless of their financial condition, often traveling from distant locations at their own expense without timely or suitable remuneration for travel or loss of productive time.

This environment fosters a "tendency of reluctance" among the citizenry. This reluctance does not merely "reward the accused"; it effectively grants immunity to those with the means to intimidate, creating a tiered system of justice that is fundamentally unconstitutional. When the court permits this harassment, it unintentionally becomes a party to a miscarriage of justice.

3. The Anatomy of Hostility: Forces Undermining the Trial Process

The phenomenon of the "hostile witness" is a corrosive force that undermines public confidence in the judiciary and renders trials "putrefied and paralyzed." When a witness retracts their statement, the trial is reduced to a "mockery," making the attainment of truth a casualty of the process.

In Ramesh v. State of Haryana, the Court analyzed the catalysts for such retractions, identifying seven primary reasons (Paragraph 44):

Threat and Intimidation: Direct peril to the witness or their family members.

Inducement: Monetary considerations or other "tempting offers."

Muscle and Money Power: The influence of habitual criminals or those high in government.

Stock Witnesses: The reliance on professional or compromised individuals.

Protracted Trials: The exhaustion of the witness through years of delay.

Investigation/Trial Hassles: The general trauma and lack of respect within the machinery.

Lack of Legislation: The historical absence of a formal, structured protection program.

The power dynamics of "political patronage" and "money power" highlighted in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar demonstrate how the influential can derail the search for truth. Furthermore, as noted in Sakshi v. Union of India, the "mere sight of the accused" can induce extreme fear or shock. This psychological barrier necessitates physical safeguards, as a witness incapacitated by fear cannot serve as the eyes and ears of justice.

4. Case Study in Crisis: The Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai Trials

The petition filed by Mahender Chawla and others served as a critical "stress test" for the criminal justice system, highlighting the specific atrocities committed by influential accused persons to stifle testimony. In the trials involving Asaram Bapu and Narayan Sai, the petitioners revealed a shocking collapse of State protection:

Mahender Chawla: Survived a murder attempt after testifying regarding child rape and witnessing Narayan Sai performing "Tantrik practices on the dead body of a child in an Ashram in Madhya Pradesh"—an investigation that was stifled by influence.

Naresh Gupta: The father of Akhil Gupta, a witness who was murdered for daring to testify against the accused.

Karamvir Singh: The father of a child rape victim whose family lived in constant fear. His son, Somvir, was threatened by attackers who were "shockingly" released on bail. One such attacker, Narayan Pandey, subsequently murdered another prosecution witness, Kripal Singh.

Narendra Yadav: A journalist who survived a murder attempt and continued to receive death threats from the jailed sharpshooter, Narayan Pandey.

The "shocking" negligence of the police—including the withdrawal of security despite active threats—prompted a constitutional intervention. The Court established a direct nexus between the ability to testify and Article 21, ruling that the "right to life" includes the right to live in a society free from crime and fear. If a citizen is unable to testify due to intimidation, it is a direct violation of their constitutional right to the protection of the law.

5. The Evolution of Witness Protection Policy in India

The 2018 Scheme is the culmination of decades of unimplemented recommendations, marking a strategic shift from a "case-to-case" approach to a structured procedural mandate.

The policy evolution includes:

14th Law Commission Report (1958): The first formal recognition of the need for protection.

154th, 178th, and 198th Reports: Progressive advocacy for witness identity protection.

2003 Malimath Committee Report: Emphasized the "sacred duty" of the witness and the necessity of anonymity or physical disguise.

Previous legislative attempts, such as Section 195A IPC or the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, were insufficient because they were piecemeal; they failed to provide the physical, relocational, and holistic framework required for a comprehensive program. The 2018 Scheme fills this legislative vacuum, incorporating inputs from 18 States, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), and civil society.

6. Structural Deconstruction of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

The objective of the Scheme is to ensure that investigation and trial are not prejudiced by intimidation. It introduces a "Taxonomy of Threat" to categorize protection needs:

Category ‘A’: Threat extends to the life of the witness or their family.

Category ‘B’: Threat extends to safety, reputation, or property.

Category ‘C’: Moderate threat involving harassment or intimidation.

The procedural mechanics are designed for rapid response:

Filing: Application to the Competent Authority (District and Sessions Judge).

Threat Analysis Report (TAR): Mandated from the Head of Police within five working days.

Disposal: The application must be decided within five working days of receiving the TAR.

This strict 10-day timeline is a critical safeguard against the "delay tactics" that usually lead to witness elimination. Protection measures are proportionate to the threat, ranging from CCTV installation to "Change of Identity" and "Relocation," funded by the "State Witness Protection Fund."

7. The Architecture of Safety: Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complexes (VWDC)

Strategic physical architecture is essential to reduce witness trauma. The "Delhi Model," exemplified by the Dwarka District Court, provides the blueprint for these facilities, featuring:

One-way mirrors and screens to prevent direct eye contact.

Modified audio-visual feeds to disguise face and voice.

Separate passages and entry points for witnesses to avoid the accused.

These complexes address a significant legal tension regarding Section 273 Cr.P.C., which requires evidence to be taken in the "presence of the accused." The Court specifically rejected Law Commission suggestions to examine witnesses in the absence of the accused, citing principles of natural justice. Instead, VWDCs utilize video conferencing as the "middle path," satisfying the requirement of the accused's "presence" while shielding the witness from the "shame or embarrassment" often weaponized by defense counsel during cross-examinations.

8. Conclusion: The Scheme as 'Law' under Article 141

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, represents a transformative constitutional correction. In the absence of Parliamentary legislation, the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 to fill a legislative vacuum, giving its "imprimatur" to the Scheme and declaring it the "law" under Article 141.

The Court’s mandate includes:

Immediate enforcement of the Scheme across all States and Union Territories.

The creation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complexes in every district court in India by the end of 2019.

The directive for the Central Government to provide financial and logistical support to the States.

This "beneficial and benevolent" scheme finally accords the witness the dignity required to sustain the criminal justice system. By protecting those who perform their "sacred duty," the Scheme ensures that the "eyes and ears of justice" remain open, effectively eliminating the darkness of intimidation and illuminating the face of justice.