Black and white. Black and gray. Maybe navy and cream. Women lawyers often have a hard time stepping beyond traditional conservative colors when choosing what to wear. But if you’re tired of the way those colors make you feel and ready to change things up a bit, you’ll appreciate Melanie Lippman’s latest video on how to wear color appropriately.  Step Two of the Confront Your Closet Challenge Is All About Color In the first “Confront Your Closet” Challenge we focused on why the idea of getting dressed to go back to the office or meetings is so hard. So many emotions come up — it’s as if we’ve forgotten how to get dressed. For the first homework assignment, I asked you to write down your non-negotiables. What are you no longer willing to put up with when it comes to your closet? If you didn’t complete step one, be sure to watch the first video here. Now, let’s talk about adding color to your closet. Wait, What Is the Confront Your Closet Challenge? The “Confront Your Closet” Challenge is designed to help you get clarity and control over what’s going on in your closet so that you feel empowered by the way you’re getting dressed every day. Every video will give you an action item to help you change your mindset on getting dressed or provide a tip you can take into your closet. This is not about spending big money; the goal is to help you learn how to use your wardrobe in a completely different way. Finding your style, getting dressed without stress, and wearing clothes that flatter you are skills you can learn easily. Learning How to Wear Color Wearing color can be a little challenging for female lawyers because they don’t ever want to look inappropriate.

Historical Perspective India has a long history of marine trading both within and outside of its oceanic borders. Various historical documents claim that many merchants and traders travelled to India in ancient times to exchange products and services, and vice versa. In this field, numerous laws, rules, and regulations have been enacted. Post-independence, the Indian government gave careful consideration to enacting several rules and legislation to ensure safe and efficient maritime trade. Various laws implemented by the Colonial Government such as the Inland Steam Vessels Act, 1917, the Coasting Vessels Act, 1838, the Indian Ports Act, 1908, the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, the Merchant Seamen (Litigation) Act, 1946, the Control of Shipping Act, 1947, the Merchant Shipping Laws (Extension to the Acceding States and Amendment) Act, 1949, etc. All the above laws and statutes were not according to the prevailing Indian System. As a result, post-Independence, the government enacted new rules and ordinances to improve existing coastal trading practices. In addition to the above-mentioned Acts, British legislators enacted several laws and statutes governing various aspects of the Indian shipping sector between 1823 and 1940, including salvage, certification of seafarers, ship-liability, owner’s safety, and line conventions, and others. The jurisdiction for trial and adjudication of cases related to Shipping and Admiralty Acts in India was vested in the High Courts at Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. Even during the post-independence period in India, the jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts of India was still with the colonial powers. In the case of M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt Ltd, it was held that the High Courts of India hold a superior status than any other Court of law for deciding matters within India. The Indian High Courts were said to have unrestricted jurisdiction and that their decisions were final and

The Apex Court, while setting aside NCDRC order, made an observation that rejection of insurance claim would be valid if the insured vehicle is found being used or driven without a valid registration. The bench made this observation as unavailability of valid registration would constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. In the instant case, the policy-holder had purchased a vehicle with temporary registration. Even though the registration had expired, the policy-holder travelled outside his residence and parked his vehicle at a premises from where later the vehicle had been stolen. Due to the incident, the policy-holder had claimed insurance but the same had been rejected on the ground that vehicle had not been registered. The policy-holder then approached DCDRC and claimed relief against insurer. However, the complaint had been dismissed. On an appeal before SCDRC, it had been held that insurance claim could not be repudiated on petty, technical and frivolous grounds. The forum blamed the insurer for escaping from its liability to indemnify the policy-holder/complainant for the loss of his vehicle. The revision petition preferred by the insurance company had also been rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the insurer contended that since the vehicle in question did not have permanent registration, which amounted to fundamental breach of policy, it had been entitled to reject the claim of policy-holder/respondent. The counsel on behalf of complainant/respondent argued that the compensation had been sought on ground of accident and not theft, thus the policy could not be applied in the case of complainant. The bench observed that in case of an insurable incident which bears the tendency of occurrence of liability, there should not be fundamental breach of terms and conditions provided in the contract of insurance. The bench placed reliance on the case of Narinder