A delay of six to nine days in filing a first information report (FIR) in an attempt to rape case is "unnatural", the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed while setting aside a judgment against a man accused of attempt to rape [Golu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].

Justice Prem Narayan Singh found that scratch injuries sustained by the victim in an attempt to rape case have no meaning when there is a delay of six to nine days in filing of FIR after the date of the alleged incident.

"So far as the injuries on the person of prosecutrix is concerned, since the FIR was lodged by delay of six to nine days from the incident, such injuries of scratches has no meaning," the Court said in its September 27 order.

The Court was a dealing with a plea filed by a man named Golu convicted of having attempted to rape a woman.

The trial court had found him guilty of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to imprisonment for 15 years.

This led to the appeal before the High Court.

Apart from the delay in filing of FIR, the High Court also noted that the sole testimony of the alleged victim contained material contradictions and exaggerations and there was a pre-existing land dispute between the parties.

Further, it noted that no specific forensic science laboratory (FSL) report or DNA report were produced by the prosecution and that there was a delay of seven day in medico-legal case (MLC) report.

It also found that the incident was neither supported by any independent witness nor by any medical testimony.

Thus, it observed that the case of prosecution suffered from skepticism, misgivings, deficiencies and distrust and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, it allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court judgment and acquitted Golu.

Advocate Mukesh Kumawat appeared for Golu while Government Advocate HS Rathore represented the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh.

[Read Judgment]

In an unprecedented turn of events, the Supreme Court recently issued notice to Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra and sought an explanation from him after an advocate-on-record (AoR) told the Court that he had signed off on appeal filed before the Court at Malhotra's instance and was unaware that the appeal did not disclose certain crucial facts [Jitender @ Kalla vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and anr].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih on September 30 expressed its shock with the development and noticed it had become a trend in remission cases where facts are hidden from court.

"Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record has filed an affidavit pursuant to order passed by this Court. To say the least, the contents are shocking. We will elaborately deal with the stand taken by him at an appropriate stage. In view of what is stated in the affidavit, we issue notice to Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate to appear before this Court for explaining what is stated in the affidavit filed by Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on Record," the Court directed.

AoRs are advocates who, after clearing the AoR exam, are entitled to file cases before the apex court.

The Supreme Court had earlier too asked AoRs not to blindly become signing authorities.

In July last year, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai had remarked that AoRs were now being used like postmen merely to file and sign off on petitions without such pleas going through proper scrutiny.

The present issue arose last month when the Supreme Court found that the appeal filed through AoR Jaydip Pati did not disclose certain facts.

The Bench had objected to the fact that the special leave petition did not highlight that the top court had earlier restored the sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission which was handed down to a convict in a kidnapping case.

These facts were suppressed while filing the appeal for remission of sentence.

The Court, therefore, sought an explanation from Pati.

Pati then filed an affidavit before the Court stating that he never doubted the bonafides of Malhotra and hence signed off on the pleadings as requested by the Senior Advocate.

He also highlighted that he was Malhotra's chamber junior and used Malhotra's chamber.

"The deponent was asked to sign petitions as Advocate-on-Record. The deponent never doubted the bona fide of Mr. Rishi Malhotra nor could refuse to sign the Petitions and Vakalatnamas as AOR as the deponent was his chamber junior and sitting in his chamber."

He added that he could not fathom that Malhotra would take advantage of the same.

"The deponent submits that he could not even imagine that Mr. Rishi Malhotra will exploit the situation and get the matters filed through him by concealing the order passed," the affidavit said.

Pati also said he would not repeat his mistake.

"That the deponent undertakes not to commit such a mistake in the future and will not sign any matter as AOR without thoroughly verifying facts from the records of Courts below," he said.

The Bench was not impressed and proceeded to summon Malhotra.

The Court also asked Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record (SCAORA) president Vipin Nair to assist it in the matter,

The matter will be heard again on October 21.

Notably, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had in January 2023 praised Malhotra while hearing a case.

"We must commend that whenever you appear before us, you always place the facts in a clear manner. Even facts against your client. So we know there is a degree of assurance here."

He was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in August this year.

[Read our interview with him on his public interest litigation (PIL) petition against hanging as a mode of death penalty]

[Read order]

The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations that personnel from an all-woman police station in Chennai violated the rights of a minor sexual assault victim and assaulted her parents.

A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam directed the CBI to investigate the allegations made by the parents of the victim, who had claimed that an inspector of the Anna Nagar All Women Police Station in Chennai had questioned the minor victim in the absence of her parents.

The parents also told the Court that when they questioned the police’s conduct, the inspector allegedly assaulted them and snatched away their phones.

The Court said that it found there was a “clear violation of Section 24 of the POCSO Act,” and that it was disturbed by the manner in which the victim and her parents had been treated by the police.

“We are not satisfied with the manner in which the case was registered. This Court is very disturbed and expresses its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the POCSO case was registered, how the victim was examined, and the manner of investigation. We have no option but to transfer the investigation from the State police to the CBI,” the High Court said.

On September 25, the High Court had taken suo motu cognisance following a news report highlighting the alleged incident.

The parents of the victim had subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition before the Court. While the State had opposed both the habeas corpus petition and the Court taking suo motu cognisance of the issue, the Court heard both pleas together.

The parents suspected that their minor daughter was sexually abused by their neighbour on August 29, and thus took her for a medical examination to a nearby doctor. They were then sent to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, where the said police inspector came to record their statements. The inspector asked them to visit the police station the next day, but took the victim aside and began to question her near the hospital lift, the parents said.

The next day, the inspector allegedly asked the victim’s parents to agree to settle the issue with the accused and when they refused, she assaulted them, the Court was told.

Advocate R Sampath Kumar appeared for the parents.

State Public Prosecutor and Senior Advocate Hasan Mohammed Jinnah appeared for the State.

Suri & Company has declared October 1 as its founder's day in memory of late Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India RS Suri.

This year, the firm celebrates 40 years of its establishment under the leadership of RS Suri.

Rupinder Singh Suri was born on October 1, 1951, in Ludhiana, Punjab. After earning his Master’s degree in Economics from St. Stephen’s College and completing his law degree at Delhi University, he embarked on a legal career in 1976.

In 1984, he founded Suri & Company, which would later grow into a firm that has trained and mentored over 500 lawyers practicing across India.

Suri was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in 2009 after having practiced as an Advocate on Record (AoR) since 1981.

Throughout his career, Suri held several prestigious positions, including President of the Supreme Court Bar Association in 2017. He also served as Standing Counsel for the State of Punjab from 1987 to 2003, representing the State in high-profile cases such as the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal dispute and terrorism-related matters during the insurgency period.

In 2020, Suri was appointed Additional Solicitor General of India, a position he held until his unfortunate passing in 2022 due to COVID-related complications.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the evidence taken from social media by a husband regarding wife's adultery cannot be ignored while deciding the wife's plea for interim maintenance.

Justice Sumeet Goel reasoned that a family court is well within its jurisdiction to look into any evidence which in its judicial discretion may be essential for adjudicating the case before it.

“The material pertaining to social media etc., produced by the husband, in order to prove adultery of wife, can be looked into by the Court at the stage of adjudication of interim maintenance and expense of proceeding (litigation expenses),” the Court ruled.

This would be irrespective of the fact whether or not such material fulfils the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court clarified.

“Interpretation of law ought to be in accordance with the veritable tenets of justice, equity and good conscience & must not be shackled by obsolete interpretations(s) that have lost their relevance in the present era. Evidentiary material emanating from social media timelines and profiles can also be relied upon by rival parties to substantial their case,” the Court said.

Justice Goel added that the current social life is extensively and openly engaged on social media platforms and apps like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp. 

The social network footprints including photographs, textual exchanges can be well-mapped for evidentiary purposes and courts can take judicial notice of the same, the single-judge said.

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed a husband against the family court’s order directing him to pay an interim maintenance of ₹3,000 to his wife per month and one time litigation expenses of ₹10,000. 

The counsel representing the husband alleged that she was living in adultery and thus was not entitled to interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He referred to certain photographs to claim that she was either married or living in with some other man. A copy of a petition filed by the wife was also produced to show that she herself had claimed to be living with that man.

However, the counsel representing the wife argued that the plea of adultery cannot be raised at the stage of interim maintenance. It was also contended that the husband had no cogent evidence to prove the claim of adultery.

After hearing both parties, the Court held that a husband can raise the plea of adultery by wife to oppose the petition for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses.

“The statutory scheme reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that justice is not only served to the wife but also does not unduly burden the husband when marital obligations are breached by the wife's conduct,” it remarked.

It added that both the spouses have certain obligations towards each other and enjoy equal rights. 

"Just as a wife is not a helpless person only deserving of benevolent commiseration from her spouse, a husband is not to be assumed as a sumpter to bear the financial duties under any or all circumstances, on account of being a male. In other words, if the implacable cause of the collapse in the marriage is adultery committed by the wife, it would be sans reasonableness to shackle the husband with obligations of maintenance," the Court said.

With regard to the nature of evidence in such cases, the Court observed that direct proof is generally difficult to get and therefore, reliance on circumstantial evidence is often sought for.

“Just as Shakespeare advised “Let every eye negotiate for itself/And trust no agent…” (Much Ado About Nothing: Act II, Scene I), all the actions of adultery can be perceived, deciphered and ascertained by discerning observations within the context,” it added.

On evidence taken from social media or messaging apps, the Court observed that even though it is possible to manipulate or morph photos, all such material cannot be ignored outrightly on such a supposition. 

However, the Bench also cautioned that a court ought to record cogent reasons when it deems it appropriate to take into account such material at the stage of interim maintenance. 

In the present case, after looking at the photographs presented by the husband, the Court opined that they reflected some kind of relationship between his wife and the other man.

It also took into account her own admission that she was living with that man. The Court said there was no plausible explanation regarding the photographs and in what capacity she was living with that man.

Accordingly, it ruled that she was not entitled to any interim maintenance and litigation expenses from the husband.

Thus, the revision petition was allowed and the family court order was set aside.

Advocate Pardhuman Garg represented the husband.

Advocates Simranjeet S Sarwara and Khushika Setia represented the wife.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Telangana Director General of Police (DGP) to be present before it in a matter where counsel for the State could not answer queries concerning a case [Vatti Janaiah v State of Telangana].

A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti noted that the prosecution and arguing counsel were not in sync with case details regarding when the the chargesheet was filed.

"We are indeed surprised by the response of the Government counsel as the respective dates of filing of the chargesheets should either be readily accessible or the instructing officer should have indicated the relevant dates of the chargesheets ... The disconnect between the prosecution and the Government counsel is clearly discernible," it stated.

The DGP was directed to be present before the Court on October 4, either via video conference or in person. State counsel were also asked to be ready with the information on chargesheet.

The observations came while hearing a plea by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav, who was earlier part of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

He had moved the top court last year alleging criminal persecution by the then BRS-led State government after he quit BRS and joined BSP.

The top court had in October 6 last year sought the response of the Telangana government in the matter, and provided interim protection from arrest in thirteen first information reports (FIRs) against him.

Yadav had unsuccessfully contested the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections from the Suryapet constituency, losing out to the BRS candidate.

Advocates Vinay P Tripathi, B Shravanth Shanker, Prerna Robin, Shivam Kunal and B Yeshwanth Raj appeared for Yadav.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel with advocates Devina Sehgal, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, S Uday Bhanu, Siddhi Gupta, Ashutosh Ghade, Adithya Koshy Roy and Naveen Goel appeared for the State of Telangana.

[Read order]

The Bombay High Court recently restrained five juice centre outlets in Kerala's Kochi from using the name, trademark and logo of Mumbai's iconic Haji Ali juice centre [Asma Farid Noorani v. Mumbai Wagon Company & Anr.].

Justice RI Chagla passed two interim orders to this effect, one on August 9 and another on September 5, in a trademark infringement suit filed by Asma Farid Noorani (the daughter of Mumbai's Haji Ali Juice Centre founder) who presently owns the trademark for Haji Ali Juice Centre.

The Court found that there was a strong prima facie case for granting interim relief to Noorani.

Therefore, it tasked a court receiver and two additional special court receivers to confiscate all materials bearing the Haji Ali Juice Centre trademark and related marks from the Kochi outlets.

The Court directed the court receivers to take control of all materials - stationary, menu cards, sign boards etc with the Haji Ali mark with or without its logo, which is a red apple.

The order was passed in the wake of Noorani's submission that the Kochi outlets had continued to use the Haji Ali trademark without authorisation, despite the termination of franchise agreements.

"I find that inspite of termination of aforesaid Master Franchise Agreement and consequent thereupon the sub-franchise agreement, the Defendants have unauthorizedly continued with the use of the plaintiff’s registered trade mark including its abbreviation HAJC JUICE CENTRE and logo MUMBAI HAJI ALI, ‘The ORIGINAL STORE’ ... Plaintiff has indeed made out a strong prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim reliefs," Justice Chagla held in an August 9 order.

The ownership of the iconic Haji Ali Juice Centre, which began its operations in the 1970s in Mumbai, had been passed on to Asma Farid Noorani (following a family settlement agreement) in 2019 after the death of her father and the juice centre's founder, Fareed Abdul Latif Noorani.

Prior to this, a Master Franchise Agreement (MFA) with Altius Lifestyle Brands LLP (Master Franchisee) in 2018 had allowed various players to operate Hali Ali juice centres in several States, including Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Kerala.

With respect to Kerala, a supplementary deed executed in 2021 led to the launch of a sub-franchise outlet in Edappally, Kochi.

However, Asma Noorani terminated the franchise agreements in 2022, citing a failure by franchisees to comply with the terms of their agreements.

However, since the franchise outlets refused to halt their operations, Noorani filed a trademark infringement suit against them in January this year.

She complained that several Haji Ali outlets were set up in Kerala without authorisation and in violation of the franchise agreement. The outlets so complained of included the ones in Panampilly Nagar, Aluva, Kakkanad and Kothamangalam.

She said that these outlets did not respond to legal notices and that the defendants (the operators of outlets in Kochi) refused to pay royalties for the unauthorized use of the "Haji Ali Juice Centre" mark and its logo for the period between December 1, 2022 and May 24, 2023.

By an order dated August 9, the Court granted Noorani ad-interim relief and issued a restraining order against outlets using the Haji Ali name in Edappally, Aluva and Panampilly Nagar.

Later, Noorani informed that she came to know about new outlets in Kakkanad and Kothamangalam that were not brought to the court's notice before. Accordingly, the Court on September 5 passed another order with similar directions with respect to the Kakkanad and Kothamangalam outlets as well.

A court receiver and two additional special court receivers (advocates Atif Sayyed and Smera Sebastian Elenjickal) were ordered to visit the Kochi outlets and take control of all materials featuring the Haji Ali trademarks. The receivers were also allowed to seek police assistance, if necessary, to perform this task.

The matter was earlier listed on September 27 but could not be taken up on that day. It is next listed on October 23.

Asma Noorani was represented by advocates Yatin Khochare, Minesh Andharia and Jay Shah briefed by Krishna and Saurastri Associates LLP. None appeared for the defendants.

The Madras High Court Tuesday directed the Tamil Nadu (TN) police to permit the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct a route march across Tamil Nadu on October 6 this year.

Justice G Jayachandran also directed the police to follow the guidelines laid out in its previous order passed last year regarding grant of permission for public marches and gatherings

The route march that is scheduled to take place at over 50 locations across TN.

“This Court is hoping police will follow court’s guidelines in its January 5 order. And not trouble the court each time inventing new, fanciful, ideas. These are sensitive issues and the police is bound to provide protection both to the organisers and the public. They (RSS) were forced to come to this court only because you did not pass an order on their representation. Once they came to the Court, you passed and order rejecting 42 proposals. You can't avoid these things simply by not passing any orders,” the High Court said.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by RSS functionaries from Tirupur and Dindigul districts in Tamil Nadu, challenging the orders of the local police rejecting their representations seeking permission to conduct the route march.

The counsel for the State told the Court on Tuesday that permission for the march at some locations had been rejected keeping in mind possible traffic and general law and order concerns.

However, the Court reminded the State that it had already clarified in its previous order that permission for such public events cannot be denied merely on apprehension of obstruction to traffic or the presence of religious institutions along such routes.

Are you planning to be a seasoned Criminal Litigation Lawyer? 

Our eight-week Advanced Certificate Course on New Criminal Litigation Practice and Drafting is meticulously designed to provide a comprehensive framework for mastering criminal litigation. Dive deep into the nuances of criminal law and emerge with the practical skills needed to succeed in this challenging and rewarding field.

To excel as a criminal litigator, one must acquire a comprehensive foundation, encompassing tasks such as drafting criminal complaints, bail applications, criminal appeals, criminal SLPs, and chargesheets, preparing submissions, learning the new criminal laws and mastering the art of cross-examination.

Instructed by leading Criminal Litigation Practitioners, Advocates-on-Record (AoR), Supreme Court and Expert Legal Practitioners, with several decades of experience in the field, this eight-week Advanced Course on New Criminal Laws Practice and Drafting will equip you with both theoretical knowledge and practical aspects concerning Criminal Litigation practice.

This course will also cover the new criminal laws introduced in the Indian legal system that were enforced from July 1, 2024, which offer better protection for victims and ensure fair trials and update outdated laws to reflect current realities and ensure equitable treatment.

Having trained more than 20,000 practicing advocates, in-house counsel, law officers, IAS Officers, CA, CS etc, Bettering Results is known for imparting high-quality practical legal education with the help of India’s leading practitioners.

Bettering Results has also provided practical legal training to prominent institutions/companies such as LBSNAA, Mussoorie (IAS Training Academy), Government of India, NLSIU, Bangalore, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Ministry of Power, Thermax Limited, VIPS Delhi, among others. 

The eight-week batch starts from October 19, 2024, with live sessions only on weekends, i.e. Saturday and Sunday.

Enroll now to avail early bird discount and reserve your seat.

You will have the opportunity to learn LIVE with these experts and solve all your queries. Along with that, you will have access to recordings of live sessions, drafting exercises, career guidance sessions, internship opportunities and so much more. 

Join us now to grow or kickstart your Criminal Litigation Practice.

Top Trainers for the Course are:

a) Ashish Dixit, Criminal Lawyer and Central Government Standing Counsel for Delhi High Court at the Ministry of Law and Justice;

b) Anuj Kapoor, Criminal Lawyer and Advocate on Record, Supreme Court;

c) Shriya Maini, Criminal Lawyer and Advocate on Record, Supreme Court;

d) Siddarth Agrawal, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court.

What Will You Learn ?

Session 1: Introduction to the New Criminal Laws

• Background/ Historical implication of IPC, CrPC with the HC, and SC judgments

• Malimath report

• Discussion on new laws and changes: BNS, BNSS, BSA

• Implications of the legislative changes

• Elements required for the crime

Session 2: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

• Understanding important terms

• Key Changes in the BNSS procedure

• Hierarchy of Criminal Courts as per the new law

Session 3: Miscellaneous offences 

• Changes in procedure after implementation of BNSS: All about FIRs including Zero FIR

• Quashing of an FIR

• Police Complaint and procedure for investigation

• Procedure of arrest by a police officer and magistrate

• Role of an Advocate in an FIR

Session 4: Drafting Session

• How to Lodge an FIR online and offline?

• How to search for an already registered FIR?

• How to Draft a Police Complaint? 

• How to Draft and File a Quashing Petition? 

• How to draft a police complaint addressed to the SHO if the Police refuse to lodge an FIR?

• Drafting Exercise

Session 5: Complete Trial Procedure

• Stages of trial

• Trial Before a Court of Session

• Summary Trials

• Double Jeopardy

• Introduction to Pre-Trial Procedure

• Introduction to Protest Petition

Session 6:  Cognizance and Framing Charges

• Cognizance of Offences by Magistrates

• Complaint to Magistrates

• Commencement of Proceedings Before Magistrates

• Commencement of proceeding before Court of Session

• Framing of Charges, chargesheet and examples

• All about Discharge and Acquittal

Drafting:

• How to Draft a Charge Sheet?

• How to Draft a Discharge Petition?

• How to Draft a Protest Petition? 

Session 7: General Provisions and Evidence in Inquiries and Trials

• Plea Bargaining 

• Record of Evidence in Absence of Accused

• Application for Summoning Material Witness, or Examine Person Present

• Accused Person to be Competent Witness

• Power to Proceed against other Persons Appearing to be Guilty of Offence

• Compounding of Offences 

• Proclaimed offender

Session 8 - Judgement, Reference, Revision, Transfer

• Powers of Session court and High Court for revision and reference. 

• Transfer of criminal cases to Session Court, High Court and Supreme Court

• Inherent power of Court 

• How to draft a Criminal Revision application?

Session 9: Criminal Appeals

• Appeal Against Acquittal and Conviction

• Appeal by State government against sentence

• Powers of Appellate Court

• Suspension of Sentence Pending the Appeal, Release of Appellant on Bail

Drafting 

• How to draft a Criminal Appeal? 

• How to draft a Criminal Special Leave Petition?

Session 10: Bail Procedure and Drafting

• Bail in Bailable and Non-Bailable Cases

• Maximum Period for which an Undertrial Prisoner can be detained

• Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding Bail

• Anticipatory Bail

• Bail Bonds, Sureties and Security 

• With Case Studies and Practical Examples 

Drafting

• How to draft and file a bail application?

• How to draft and file an anticipatory Bail?

• How to file a bail bond in court?

Session 11: Execution, Remission and Commutation of sentences

• Execution of sentence of death and imprisonment 

• Suspension and remission of sentences

• Mercy petition 

• Power of State and Central Government

Session 12: Miscellaneous Drafting Exercise- Part I

• How to draft an Affidavit

• How to Draft Vakalatnama

• About Court fees and Stamp Duty 

• How to draft a Criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act?

• How to Draft an application under Section 125 of CrPC?

Session 13: Miscellaneous Drafting Exercise- Part II

• How to Draft a Criminal Writ?

• How to draft an application under Parole and Furlough? 

• How to draft Applications under Sections 256 and 317 of CrPC?

• How to draft and file informatory petition?

Session 14: Trial Advocacy - Hearing and Final Arguments including Art of Cross Examination, Oral and Written Submission

• Art of Cross Examination - Strategies, tactics and tips 

• What questions to be asked 

• What questions need not be asked 

• How to prepare a Witness for the trial and turn witness hostile  

• Oral and written submission 

• Lawyer’s Argumentation skills

• Filing of the documents before the court and marking them

Session 15: Court etiquette and How to find the Relevant Judgments?

• How to apply for the certified copy of the order? 

• Using search engines like Manupatra, SCC etc.

• Per Incuriam, Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

• Career Guidance Session

Exclusive Benefits:

1. Weekend Sessions ONLY (Saturday & Sunday)

2. Live and Interactive Sessions with Experts to provide a conducive classroom environment

3. Certificate on Completion of Course

4. Career Guidance from the Experts

5. Recorded Video Lectures accessible for 2 Years

6. Reading Material as per the module including a list of Landmark cases and comparative analysis of the new laws. 

7. Assignments and Feedback for the practical application of the learning

8. Access to Excellent Drafts on the topics covered in the session

9. Recorded Sessions on BSA & BNS

TIME DEVOTION: 4-5 Hours every weekend

Registration Details

Applications are open for practicing advocates, in-house counsel, business professionals, law students, etc.,  and anybody interested in learning about corporate litigation practice and drafting in India and across the world.

Click here to Register!

CONTACT INFORMATION

Interested people may also reach us at the contact details set out below:

betteringresults.br@gmail.com

+917252919181

Website: www.betteringresults.in