C2RM… To Know More
Something Awesome Is In The Work
In video No 3, Senior Advocate Fali Nariman comments that the heart governs the head very often. A lawyer must have a mix of heart and head. An advocate must have the ability, competence and confidence read more
In video No 3, Senior Advocate Fali Nariman comments that the heart governs the head very often. A lawyer must have a mix of heart and head. An advocate must have the ability, competence and confidence to admit that his case is weak . On a question, whether it is the Constitution which has failed us or it is we who have failed the Constitution, he recalls a saying by the then President Dr Rajendra Prasad that if the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, then they would be capable of making do even with a defective constitution. Asked to name the three most competent Chief Justices of India, according to him, he names Justices K Subba Rao and MN Venkatachaliah. He further adds the name of Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, even though he had never appeared before him. Fali Nariman is a senior Advocate and renowned jurist. Awarded with a Padma Bhushan (1991) and Padma Vibhushan (2007), he was an Additional Solicitor General of India from May 1972- June 1975. Now aged 94, he is one of India's most distinguished constitutional lawyers.
The above event is one of the most coveted competition for the law students.Was immensely pleased to attend the semifinal moot as a Judge on Sunday, 24 Sep 2023 at the Indian Society of International read more
The above event is one of the most coveted competition for the law students.
Was immensely pleased to attend the semifinal moot as a Judge on Sunday, 24 Sep 2023 at the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi. The annual event is jointly organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the ISIL. Front ranking law colleges in India nominate their teams for it. The participants had laboriously prepared hard for the competition and put in their best. The winners get to take part in the trans-national rounds.
The moot problem was based on an armed conflict situation witnessing war crimes leading to pre-trial chamber jurisdiction of the ICC. The other two co-Judges were Dr Sunod Mathew Jacob, Prof Anupam Jha of DU.
Gunjan Chawla from ICRC Regional Delegation and Asst Prof Vinai Kumar Singh from ISIL assisted by their colleagues had meticulously worked hard to make it a success.
Also met and interacted with Professors Manjula Batra and Manoj K Sinha, Sr Adv Sanjay Parikh, Dr Chandra Jeet and other invitees.
In Video Number 3 relating to the course on law and economics, the desired pedagogy for teaching the course has been explained. The students should have an elementary knowledge of elementary economics. read more
In Video Number 3 relating to the course on law and economics, the desired pedagogy for teaching the course has been explained. The students should have an elementary knowledge of elementary economics. They need to be taught the subject by use of examples and explanations. Prior understanding of calculus would certainly be beneficial. The course must commence by bringing out the preliminaries and the aspects concerning economic analysis of law together with the provisions relating to torts, contracts and property law. Related to this would be a discourse on acquisition of private property and also the crime and punishments. This video contains details of a few useful books for teaching of the subject.The list has been inserted with the link given as under. https://drive.google.com/file/d/18E7Q07Yu65HCnPtCto3yeknfHieERuIj/view?usp=sharing Lastly, this course must form part of the basket relating to international law. Common examples would be used of the positions existing in the UK, USA and India.The problems discussed would appear more or less similar. The video also covers the areas which may offer a scope for employment to the students. Professor Satish K Jain is one of the foremost economists in India. He was part of the faculty at the Center for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University for more than three and a half decades. He also served as Reserve Bank of India chair professor and national fellow for the Indian Council of Social Science Research. He has authored a number of authoritative and referral texts relative to his subjects.His teaching and research interests includes social choice theory, and law and economics. Malabika Pal is associate professor of economics at Miranda House, University of Delhi. She had earlier worked as associate professor in Law and Legal Studies, the School of Law, Governance and Citizenship at Ambedkar University, Delhi. Her research interests are in the fields of law and economics, and international finance. Her book 'Economic Analysis of Tort Law -The Negligence Determination' was published by Routledge in 2020.
A full bench consisting of all 15 Judges of the Pakistan Supreme Court heard petitions yesterday, 18th September, challenging the validity of the Supreme Court ( Practice and Procedure ) Bill 2023 made read more
The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, retired yesterday, 16th September, 2023. What is his legacy ? How will he be remembered ?No Judge is perfect. Some are short tempered and rude in court, read more
1. What is the meaning of a Leave and License Agreement? A leave and license agreement authorizes the licensee to use and occupy the licensor's immovable property/a portion of read more
1. What is the meaning of a Leave and License Agreement?
A leave and license agreement authorizes the licensee to use and occupy the licensor's immovable property/a portion of it, for a limited time. This agreement specifies whether such property will be used for residential or commercial purposes. The licensee pays the licensor, license fees for this use.
2. What is the difference between lease and license?
· A lease gives an exclusive interest in the property whereas license does not.
· A lease can be assigned to a third person, while a license being a personal right cannot be so assigned / transferred.
· A lessee can bring an action for trespass in his own name but a licensee cannot do the same. He must do so in the name of the licensor after obtaining his permission.
· A lease is not revocable whereas a license is revocable
3. Why is Leave and License Agreement required?
A leave and license agreement is not the same as a rental or lease agreement. In leave and license, the owner leaves the property with various amenities and grants the licensee the right to use it. The owner would return once his license period is over. Leave and license agreements are legal documents that record the parties' promises, terms, and conditions. These terms bind the parties to carry out the agreement's obligations. These obligations include the licensee's obligation to pay the security and consideration for using the property. As this agreement is a legal document, failure to fulfill these contractual obligations can result in legal disputes and penalties.
4. What should the terms of a Leave and License Agreement include?
· Parties' relevant personal information, such as full names and residential addresses
· Specifics about the property in question
· Lock in Period
· Payment of consideration/License Fee details
· Duties and responsibilities of the parties and between them
· Term of the agreement
· Details about Security deposit, maintenance, electricity, and water charges, etc.
· License revocation and renewal
· Describing the penalty clause, if either party fails to fulfill its obligations
· Fixture details and property schedule
· Termination of the agreement
· Applicable laws, Dispute resolution clause, etc.
5. What is the locking period in the Leave & License Agreement?
The Locking period is a mutually decided duration between the parties under which parties are restricted to break the agreement. If any party breaks the agreement before the completion of this duration then that party will need to compensate the other party.
6. What are the documents Required for Leave and License Agreement?
The parties' IDs should be scrutinized in order to confirm the names and permanent addresses of the licensor and licensee. Documents presenting the licensor's clear title to the property in question should be examined as well.
Proprietorship: Required Documents –
· PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of Licensor/s (Owner of the property)
· Aadhaar Card and/or any ID Proof of Licensee/s (Proprietor)
· Aadhaar Card and/or any ID Proof of two Identifiers
· Electricity Bill or Tax Receipt of the Licensed Premises
In case the Party is a Company –
· Board Resolution
· Company PAN and CIN Numbers
· Aadhaar of Authorized Signatory
In Case the Party is a Partnership Firm –
· Partnership Deed
· Authority Letter
· PAN Card Number of Partnership Firm
· Aadhaar of all Partners or Aadhaar of Authorized Partner.
7. What are the legal considerations for Leave and License Agreement?
A leave and license agreement is required to be printed on stamp paper of correct value, as per the laws in different States. A properly stamped and registered leave and license agreement is admissible in court.
8. Leave and License Agreements is governed by which Act?
The Indian Easements Act of 1882 governs leave and license agreements.
For more information, please contact us at +91 9810929455 or via email at email@example.com.
In the intricate and often perplexing world of the law, the role of an expert lawyer cannot be overstated, especially when it comes to navigating the labyrinthine process of High Court appeals. Legal read more
In the intricate and often
perplexing world of the law, the role of an expert lawyer cannot be overstated,
especially when it comes to navigating the labyrinthine process of High Court
appeals. Legal battles at this level demand not only a profound understanding
of the law but also a mastery of the art of advocacy. It is in this challenging
arena that an expert lawyer's skills shine the brightest, making the difference
between success and disappointment. In this blog post, we'll delve into the
artistry of an expert lawyer when handling High Court appeals.
**1. Understanding the Terrain:
**2. Thorough Case Analysis:
**3. Crafting a Persuasive Argument:
**4. Effective Legal Research:
**5. Courtroom Presence:
**6. Attention to Detail:
**7. Client-Centric Approach:
**8. Negotiation Skills:
In conclusion, the art of an expert lawyer for High Court appeals is a multi-faceted masterpiece. It involves a deep understanding of the law, meticulous preparation, persuasive advocacy, and unwavering dedication to the client's cause. Much like a skilled artist who brings a canvas to life with their brush strokes, an expert lawyer crafts legal success with their knowledge, skills, and artistry. When facing the complexities of a High Court appeal, having such an attorney by your side can make all the difference in the world.
Feel free to write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call +91 9845944896 if you wish to consult or discuss your matter. “Sonia and Partners” is a Boutique law firm led by Adv. Sonia Rajesh supported by a team of qualified and among the Best Lawyers in Bangalore appearing for clients at both District Courts and High Court practicing in the area of Family Law and Criminal defence serving Citizens of India, Overseas Indians, NRIs and Global International Clients.
IntroductionWith the rapid advancement of technology and the ease of sharing and storing information in the digital realm, businesses face a significant challenge in safeguarding their confidential data. read more
By Justice Markandey Katju, former Indian Supreme Court Judge, and Arifa Nadeem, a Pakistani attorneyDear CJP Bandial and Hon'ble Judges of Pakistan SC.We are appealing to you to take suo motu action read more
This case study examines the applicability of the objects and purpose of the Competition Act in the crucible of the Supreme Court of India's decision in the Swiss Challenge Method case. Swiss Challenge read more
This case study examines the applicability of the objects and purpose of the Competition Act in the crucible of the Supreme Court of India's decision in the Swiss Challenge Method case. Swiss Challenge Method is a distinct scheme adopted in a few cases in India. Under this method, any person, firm, association or private developer can approach the public authorities with an innovative proposal for development of the Government lands.
The Competition Act, 2002 which received the assent of the President on 13th January, 2003 has been enacted to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition and to ensure freedom of trade. It would be interesting to examine the applicability of the objects and purpose of this Act in the crucible of the Supreme Court of India's decision in the Swiss Challenge Method case.
"Swiss Challenge Method" is a distinct scheme adopted in a few cases in India. Under this method, any person, firm, association or private developer can approach the public authorities with an innovative proposal for development of the Government lands. The said proposal is scrutinized. If found to be technically and financially viable, the proposal is accepted. The professed aim ostensibly was to accelerate rapid growth in the housing sector by inducting private entrepreneur through public-private partnership. In view of the resource crunch, the Maharashtra Government decided to enter into joint venture agreements with private parties for development of the government lands by invoking the Swiss Challenge Method.
Public tenders are then floated. The person, who has voluntarily submitted a proposal for development of the Government lands called the originator, comes to acquire the priority right to the joint venture contract even if he is not the highest Tenderer. That is so provided he agree to raise his bid to that of the highest Tenderer. In this manner, the originator of the proposal is given the right of first refusal or right of first choice to match the offer given by the highest Tenderer and bag the joint venture contract even though he is not the highest bidder. On the other hand, if the originator of the proposal declines the option, the contract is awarded to the highest tendered whose bid is found to be most competitive. If the highest tendered backs out, then the earnest money deposited by him stands forfeited. Arguably, the policy is said to favor of public interest. The right of first refusal contained in the Swiss Challenge Method is said to serve twin purposes. Firstly, it boosts or encourages private participation in the development of the government lands and secondly, the development contract is awarded at the best competitive price ascertained from the bids received from the public tender.
This method was at the center of controversy of the case under discussion. Coming to the factual matrix of the actual case, on 25th August, 2006, M/s. Ravi Developers submitted a proposal to the civil authorities for development of certain land situated at Mira Road (District Thane in Maharashtra). The land belonged to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short MHADA), a body constituted by the State Government. The potential available on the said land was 69,000 sq. mtrs. (Residential) and 2,800 sq. mtrs. (Commercial). The originator offered to develop the said lands at his own cost and give roughly one fourth area free of costs to MHADA.
Thereafter, a similar proposal was submitted by M/s. Ravi Developers to the Chief Minister on 11th October, 2006. The Chief Minister was also holding the portfolio of Housing at the time. The same day the proposal was forwarded to the MHADA calling for a detailed report.
The proposal was accorded unusually high priority by the officials. It was felt that the "Swiss Challenge Method" was more desirable being totally transparent and open to public. It was further stated that under the said method the originator of the proposal gets a chance to develop the property by a democratic method provided he raises his offer up to the bid made by the highest Tenderer.
On receiving approval from the State Government, a public notice was issued inviting tenders for development of the said lands. After holding pre-bid conference, the tenders received from different parties were opened. The scrutiny of the tenders showed four persons to be eligible Tenderers. The bid offered by the petitioner for development of the lands was held to be the most competitive. This was so because the saleable area offered to MHADA free of cost by the petitioner was double as compared to the originator.
As per the notice about the Swiss Challenge Method circulated by way of public notice, MHADA had called upon the originator to exercise his right of first option. Within three days, he agreed to accept the project on the terms offered by the highest Tenderer.
The highest Tenderer challenged the denial of contract to him. He complained that the entire bidding process was devised and designed with a mala fide intent to favor the originator. He claimed that the authorities had adopted the Swiss Challenge Method only with a view to give preferential treatment without any justification to the originator. It was further contended that in awarding government contracts, the action of the authorities ought to have been fair, transparent. It should have given level playing field to all the eligible bidders. It should not be seen to be distributing largesse to the favored persons.
The contract was challenged by
other bidders before the Bombay High Court on the ground that the recourse to
the Swiss Challenge method lacked transparency, level playing field, and
equality of opportunity, competitive bidding and fairness.
The right of first option given to the originator simply because he had approached
the Chief Minister had been unfair to the other participants. The contract
should have been awarded to the highest Tenderer. In the alternative, all the
four Tenderers should have been given an opportunity to raise their bids. The
contract should have been given to the bidder whose offer
was the highest.
It was also pointed out MHADA has been established under a statute for the specific purpose of providing housing to the lower and middle income group to mitigate acute shortage of housing. The joint venture project entered into by MHADA with a favored private developer was beyond the scope for which MHADA was established.
Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M&N Publications Ltd., it was urged that the public authority or the State Government cannot have unfettered discretion and the doctrine of executive necessity had limited application in such cases. The Wednesbury Principle of fairness in administrative decisions was shown to apply in the matters of awarding government contracts by invitation of public tenders. Therefore awarding the contract to the originator without any justification was liable to be quashed and set aside.
The above arguments were countered by the State Government. It was asserted that the policy of the Government to enter into joint venture Public Private Partnership was purely in public interest. It was intended to accelerate the rapid growth of the housing sector. The resource crunch had left little option but to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) for development in housing sector. There were adequate checks and balances provided in the said scheme. The originator of the proposal was required to develop the lands on the terms offered by the highest Tenderer. Consequently, the same avoided scope of any loss to the exchequer. If the originator had declined to accept the project then the highest Tenderer would have been called upon to execute the contract, failing which the earnest money deposit was liable to be forfeited. This methodology had ensured that the tenders submitted were realistic and competitive. The originator of the proposal had conceptualized the entire project. Thereby, precious time and money of the public authorities were saved in that behalf. Therefore, Swiss Challenge Method introduced by the Government could not be said to be unjust, illegal or contrary to law.
The Respondents further highlighted that the Swiss Challenge Method had been introduced with the approval of the government. Therefore, the public tender in question was issued with due authority. The originator had been awarded the contract on the terms offered by the highest Tenderer. Had he declined, then the contract would have been awarded to the highest Tenderer. To conclude, there was complete transparency and no prejudice had been caused to any one due to adoption of the novel scheme.
The High Court held the invocation of the Swiss Challenge Method in the instant case to be "wholly unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law". It quashed the contract awarded to the originator.
The matter was then taken up to the Supreme Court in appeal. Finally, it came to be decided by the judgment dated, 11th May, 2009.
The Court pointed out that in the matter of inviting tenders and awarding Government contracts, public interest is of paramount consideration. Undoubtedly, the Courts can intervene in policy matters by applying the doctrine of proportionality, where the policy decision is found to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The policy can also be upturned where it was seen to be contrary to public interest for valid and good reasons or held to be unreasonable.
In the matters of awarding Government contracts, the doctrine of "level playing field" plays an important role. Article 14 of the Constitution would apply in contractual matters also. If the policy decision of the Government in a contractual matter was found to suffer from the vice of fairness or reasonableness, then such an act or decision would be unconstitutional.
Swiss Challenge Method introduced by the Government could not be
said to be unjust, illegal or contrary to law
The State Government had consistently held that it had not suffered any loss by awarding the contract to the originator. Such a view had failed to impress the High Court on many counts. Firstly, there was every possibility that many genuine Tenderers may not have participated in the tender activity with their competitive bid. Their reservation could have been on account of the preferential treatment sought to be given to the originator in the public tender. Secondly, the highest Tenderer was willing to raise his bid further. However, he was not permitted and only the originator was allowed to enhance his bid. The Government had thus suffered financially by invoking the Swiss Challenge Method.
The Supreme Court ruled that the originator was not conferred any preferential treatment by the State. Actually, he had submitted an innovative proposal for development of the government land. His plan which was found to be technically and financially viable. Earlier, the High Court had recorded that actually his proposal did not contain any innovative development plan for utilization of the government lands. He had only quantified the balance potential available in respect of the said lands. Moreover, he had expressed his willingness to develop the said lands at his own cost by offering certain constructed area in the form of units for allotment to MHADA free of costs. Consequently, conferring preferential treatment to the originator on the ground that he had quantified the balance potential available on the said lands amounted to treating the equals unequally which is not permissible in law.
The Supreme Court brushed aside the
High Court finding that granting
preferential treatment to the originator merely because he had approached the Chief Minister would be opposed to rule of law. In the eyes of the High Court, it cannot be said that the persons approaching the governmental authorities form a distinct class so as to avail preferential treatment.
The Supreme Court held that in adopting the impugned method proper public notice had been issued. All the intending developers had offered their bid. The originator of proposal had been given an opportunity to match the highest bid amount. After fulfilling all the formalities, the contract was accepted in favor of the originator. Therefore, the Government of Maharashtra had, in no way, suffered any financial loss or sidelined the other developer's in awarding contract in favor of Ravi Development.
Where the policy decision of the Government
is to award contract for
development of the government lands on the basis of the free saleable area made available to the administration, then, every Tenderer would have to be given a fair opportunity to bag the contract by offering a most competitive bid and in such a case, conferring preferential treatment to any particular Tenderer would be wholly unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and violate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court took notice of the situation that Swiss Challenge Method is adopted in Chile, Costa Rica, Guam (U.S. Territory), Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan (China), Virginia (U.S.) and also in India by Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat Uttaranchal, Punjab States and Cochin Port authorities. The above information by way of an assertion shows that Swiss Challenge Method is already in prevalence in various States in India as well as overseas. However, the Supreme Court did not take care to find if there is any information about the experiment being a success in those countries and whether it is still being favored.
The Supreme Court proceeded to underline
that the decision to apply
Swiss Challenge Method clearly fell within the realm of executive discretion and in this case the discretion was exercised after due application of mind. According to the Court, the State of Maharashtra, after due deliberations and study of the methodologies which were
prevailing in the country for dealing with suo motu development proposals had decided to apply Swiss Challenge method to the proposal of the originator, This method had been applied by the State Government only on a pilot basis, The scheme was transparent in as much as all the parties were well aware of the "right of first refusal" accorded to the "originator of proposal". As per the method, which was known to all the parties, the originator of the proposal must in consideration of his originator of his vision and his initiative is entitled
to the benefit of matching the highest bid submitted. The said method was beneficial to the government which did not lose any revenue as it had still got the highest possible value. The Supreme Court accepted the plea that in view of financial crunch and availability of undeveloped lands, National and State Housing policies provide for the encouragement of private participation The State Government was also well within its rights to try out on pilot basis a methodology recognized
internationally as well as in India. Under such circumstances, the order of the High Court was held to be unjustified where it struck out the Swiss Challenge Method without allowing the State Government to exercise its executive discretion on a pilot basis. According to the Supreme Court, it was not possible to reject the claim of State of Maharashtra and MR.ADA. The shortage of land and increasing cost in housing sector had led to the Central and State Governments to resort to public private joint ventures. In the said category, Swiss Challenge Method was the most acceptable and a democratic method as compared to other options.
In the concluding part of its judgment, the Supreme Court decided that the pilot project or the initiative taken by the Government of Maharashtra along with MHADA to encourage Public Private Participation was in accordance with the need of the time as well as a laudable effort. Strangely, in the same breath, the Court declared that to make it an effective approach Swiss Challenge Method or any other encouraging concept should be duly publicized first. "The effort of Public Private Participation can only be possible when private entities are aware of such scheme." It is difficult to imagine what was the cause for such an observation? If the scheme was actually well formulated, transparent and fairly executed then what led the highest Court to make this comment.
The Court went on to state, also in the scheme of availing a new system thorough rules and regulations are needed to be followed otherwise unfairness , arbitrariness or ambiguity may creep in. In order to avoid such ill- effects, the State Government is suggested to consider the following aspects:
(1) The State/ Authority shall publish in advance the nature of Swiss Challenge Method and particulars;
(2) Publish the nature of projects that can come under such method;
(3) Mention/notify the authorities
to be approached with respect to the
(4) Mention/notify the various fields
of the projects that can be
considered under the method;
(5) Set rules regarding time limits
on the approval of the project and
(6) The rules are to be followed after a project has been approved by the respective authorities to be considered under the method.
(7) All persons interested in such developmental
activities should be given equal and sufficient opportunity to participate in
such venture and there should be healthy inter
se competition amongst such developers. These suggestions are not exhaustive
and the State is free to incorporate any other clauses for transparency and
of the scheme. The State Government is suggested to frame regulations/instructions on the above lines and take necessary
steps thereafter in future.
Surely, there could not have been
any occasion for the Apex Court to make these observations, if all was well
with the award of contract. It was outside and beyond the call of the Supreme
Court to delve into the domain of executive policy. On the other hand, the remarks
need for "health inter se competition, "incorporate transparency" and "proper execution" raise doubts about the Apex Court's care for adherence to best practices related to the competition regime in this case. The judgment is silent whether the award of contract was examined to determine if it showed abuse of dominance.
The Competition Act, 2002 prohibits
anti-competition agreements and abuse of dominant position by enterprises. It
also prohibits any agreement which causes or is likely to cause, appreciable
adverse effect on competition in markets in India. Any such agreement is void.
decision has raised a number of interesting questions. To illustrate,
whether the Court had taken into consideration the import of competition law? Whether any scheme though lacking any innovation can still be considered for Swiss Challenge Method? Whether the countries like Chile, Costa Rica etc. which have recognized the Swiss Method also practice the competition regime?
The High Court had opined that the Government of Maharashtra had been put to financial loss. However, based on the same documents the Supreme Court recorded an opposite finding! It is hoped that numerous queries emanating from the Swiss Challenge case would find answer at a future data specially, from the stand point of competition law.
Copyright © Nilendra Kumar
 Act No 12 of 2003
 Ravi Development v. Shree Krishna Prathisthan MANU/SC/0994/2009: (2009) 7 SCC 462
 According to Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia, a "Swiss Challenge" is a form of public 172
procurement in some (usually lesser developed) jurisdictions which requires a
public authority (usually an agency of government) which has received an
unsolicited bid for a public project (usually a port, road or railway) or
services to be provided to Government, to publish the bid and invite third
parties to match or exceed it. It 1s an offer made by the original proponent to
the Government ensuring his process to be best by his initiative (as a
result of his own innovative approach) or on the demand of the Government to perform certain task.
 High Court of Bombay W.P. (L) No. 2714 of 2007 with PIL No. 72 of 2007
 MANU/SC/0439/1993: 1993 (1) sec 445
 Wednesbury Principle
relates to an English case law which set down the standard of unreasonableness
of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial
review. To have the right to intervene, the court would have to form the
• The authority taking the decision took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
• The authority failed to take in account factors that ought to have been taken into
• The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.
New Delhi, India
In adherence to the rules and regulations of Bar Council of India, this website has been designed only for the purposes of circulation of information and not for the purpose of advertising.
Your use of SoOLEGAL service is completely at your own risk. Readers and Subscribers should seek proper advice from an expert before acting on the information mentioned herein. The content on this website is general information and none of the information contained on the website is in the nature of a legal opinion or otherwise amounts to any legal advice. User is requested to use his or her judgment and exchange of any such information shall be solely at the user’s risk.
SoOLEGAL does not take responsibility for actions of any member registered on the site and is not accountable for any decision taken by the reader on the basis of information/commitment provided by the registered member(s).By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
Resource centre is one stop destination for users who are seeking for latest updates and information related to the law. takes the privilege to bring every single legal resource to your knowledge in a hassle free way. Legal Content in resource centre to help you understand your case, legal requirements. More than 3000 Documents are available for Reading and Download which are listed in below categories: