Many people believe a Prenuptial Agreement, or prenup, is a bad idea because it implies they are planning on a divorce at the same time they’re planning a wedding. But the truth is, a Prenuptial Agreement protects both spouses financially in case of divorce, disability, or death. Here, we answer some common questions about Prenuptial Agreements. Want to make a Prenuptial Agreement? Prepare a financial agreement that covers assets, debts, and children. We make it affordable and simple. Get started now Should I sign a Prenuptial Agreement? Being financially responsible is important for everyone. A Prenuptial Agreement can help protect each party’s current assets and ensure both spouses remain responsible for the debt they brought into the relationship. If either partner has children from a prior relationship, a Prenuptial Agreement can help ensure their financial stability as well. Prenuptial Agreements protect both partners, and they are helpful in the event a marriage does end in divorce. And it’s far easier to negotiate a financial arrangement that works for both parties while you’re communicating well, rather than waiting until your relationship becomes contentious. What happens if I don’t sign a prenup? State law prevails when there is no Prenuptial Agreement. For couples who live in states that adhere to community property laws, this means that most assets or liabilities accumulated during the marriage would be divided equally between the parties. However, individuals are able to retain assets they brought into the marriage and kept separate.   In states that don’t follow community property principles, distribution of assets normally follows a process called “equitable distribution.” In these states, multiple factors are taken into consideration to ensure property is distributed in a fair way between divorcing parties. Either way, it is helpful to have a Prenuptial Agreement ahead of time that allows you to

Last week I served on a panel about attorney burnout for a bar association club for attorneys in their first 10 years of practice. The panelists had lots of helpful guidance and information to share. The last question asked by an attendee, however, perfectly exemplified the real problem with burnout, and the way I answered repeated the same problem pattern. Here’s what I mean. sking the Right Questions About Attorney Burnout The question was about how to handle unreasonable expectations from a supervising attorney. In the example, based on the lawyer’s real-world experience, the partner would promise a deliverable to his client without consulting his team and then delay delegating the task to the more junior attorneys. The partner would then have an unrealistic deadline and freak out because he had promised the client an answer or deliverable by a date that was, by that time, impossible. The associate asked the panel: What should I do? How should I handle it? We provided good techniques for communicating the impossibility of the task to her supervising attorney, and how to talk with others about possibly getting an extension for others’ work without pressing deadlines. We also discussed how she could communicate the specifics of what she would be able to produce in the timeframe provided. This was all useful information, and hopefully, it helped the associate. But thinking about the question later, I realized we had addressed the wrong question. Whose Problem Are We Solving? Sure, we answered the question asked, but really, the question was about how to avoid getting in that situation in the first place. More importantly, the answers should have focused on the fact that the associate should not be the one responsible for solving this problem. There is plenty of advice out there about being proactive

The Supreme Court made an observation that merely on the ground that Test Identification Parade, i.e. TIP, had not been conducted, the testimony of a witness who identified the accused in the court could not be discarded. In the instant case, the prosecution witness confessed that he had been unable to identify any individual whom he had seen 11 years ago, however, he asserted that he would be able to identify the accused even though he has seen him for the first time 11 years ago, on the day of incident. The division bench stated that usually there is presence of sufficient corroborative evidence to corroborate the testimony of witnesses. The bench allowed the appeal filed by the accused who had been convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Akbari Act, and disbelieved the witness who had identified the accused in the court on the ground that he had seen him for the first time in 11 years. The accused contended that since the TIP had not been conducted, the prosecution’s version could not be relied upon. The bench, however, clarified that the TIP is a part of investigation and does not form part of substantive evidence. The post SC on accepting and discarding the testimony of witnesses appeared first on LexForti .

Centre notifies new Rules [Relaxation of Validation (Section 119 of the Finance Act, 2012) Rules, 2021; to settle the controversial retrospective tax case concerning Vodafone. INTRODUCTION Last year, Vodafone won an arbitration case against the Indian Government of amount worth Rs. 20,000 crores. There was this company Hutch. Vodafone in 2007 bought Hutch. There is a particular tax levied on the capital gain. Vodafone bought Hutch. Hutch got capital gain. Here Vodafone made payment to Hutch. Legally, Vodafone if is making payment to Hutch; Vodafone will have to hold its capital gain and pay rest to Hutch. Now here the capital gain tax; which was supposed to be paid to Government was Rs. 22,100 Crore; which was not put on hold. This matter went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It held that the taxation put here is wrongful; as there was breach of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment to the Vodafone. Background In May 2007, Vodafone had bought a 67% stake in Hutch for 11 billion dollars. Here Hutch is gaining capital gain. Here instead of Hutch; Vodafone is supposed to pay the tax. Vodafone contended that, Income Tax Act has no such provisions; and we are not liable to make the payment. Vodafone went to Bombay High Court; however, Bombay High Court ruled in the favour of Income Tax Department. Vodafone challenged it in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court overruled it and held that Vodafone Group’s interpretation of IT Act, is correct. This ruling was passed in the year 2012. The then finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, circumvented the Supreme Court’s ruling. As Government was unhappy with the decision, it decided to amend the Finance Act retrospectively.  There was global backlash upon this decision. After much criticism, Government decided to proceed to amicably settle the dispute. It

Ahlawat & Associates’ transactional team has advised Revfin Services Private Limited, a start-up electric vehicles-focused financing company operating a digital lending platform providing financial assistance by partnering with various financial institutions on its Pre-Series A Investment round which was led by LetsVenture Angel Fund along with existing angel investors. The Delhi-based business platform focuses on consumer lending enabling financing of electric three-wheeler loans in Tier 3 and Tier 4 towns. The target consumer of the business is largely away from the traditionally focused hotspots such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Hyderabad, and other states. The deal marks A&A’s latest advisory in relation to the investment raised by Revfin Services Private Limited. Partner, Uday Singh Ahlawat led the deal from Ahlawat & Associates’ team with support from Senior Associate, Disha Toshniwal, and Associate, Sarthak Chawla. “The promising sector of Finance technology (fintech) is growing at a rapid pace and there is a huge capital chasing a smaller number of start-ups engaged in this sector” Disha Toshniwal, (Senior Associate) Ahlawat & Associates The post Revfin Services Private Limited Raises Pre-Series A Investment appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=253

The Apex Court, while setting aside the order of High Court, made an observation that an absconder or a proclaimed offender, against whom proceedings have been initiated, is not entitled to a relief of anticipatory bail. The procedural history of this case has its traces in Trial Court’s order which dismissed the anticipatory bail application on similar grounds. The trial court denied the anticipatory bail to accused as proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been issued. Thereafter, the accused approached the High Court which allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the state approached the apex court and placed reliance on the verdict of State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma. The counsel contended that the person, against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under above mentioned sections have been initiated, does not stand entitled to the benefit of relief under anticipatory bail. The court accepted the contention of the counsel and noted that the High Court missed out on the facts which stated that the proceedings had already begun under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC. The court allowed the appeal and observed that what matters the most is the nature of allegations and accusations, and not that the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction. The post An absconder, against whom proceedings have been initiated, not entitled to anticipatory bail- SC appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=250

Remember when working remotely was taboo? Several years ago, I published a piece here on Attorney at Work titled “Solo Lawyers: Where Is Your Office?” Back then, lawyers working anywhere but a traditional bricks-and-mortar office with their firm name on the door typically glossed over their nontraditional working environment. Over time, the taboo surrounding less traditional work setups began to ease, and early in 2020, when COVID-19 hit the world, the stigma had all but disappeared. Today, the tables have really turned, and the lawyer in the bricks-and-mortar office is the less typical one. With that context, today we can boil down the question of where lawyers work to a much simpler answer: Lawyers work wherever we happen to be. Working Remotely Was Once Unthinkable in the Legal Profession At one time, the idea of a lawyer working remotely — even from home — was taboo. As an associate in Biglaw, the idea met with horror and was only semi-acceptable if you were sick. Then, the partners’ options were to allow you to actually use a sick day or let you work from home while recuperating. Working from home was better than not working at all, but it was definitely frowned on. In small law firms, where lifestyle mattered somewhat more, there was pushback against remote teams, too. Lawyers would argue that they could not effectively manage their team from afar, or ensure their team was working. Also, camaraderie would suffer if people were not face-to-face every day. Even for a solo lawyer, working remotely was frowned upon. We had ideas that clients expected us in an office (even if they didn’t come to see us). Somehow we were not real lawyers if we worked from home or anywhere besides a traditional brick-and-mortar office. Besides battling an entrenched workplace culture,

Keeping clients when your firm is changing is a tricky business and involves a lot of reassurance — not just for them, but for you. I vividly remember interviewing a client about his relationship with his law firm, my client. While he was very satisfied with the firm’s work and the people doing it, he moved quickly on to his top concern. Unbeknown to me but known by him, the senior partner who served as the primary point of contact was dying of cancer. The client said to me, “I feel terrible about it … but what is going to happen to me?” Even when there are great lawyer-client relationships, clients are concerned about their own interests. They notice when senior lawyers start spending more time at their condos down south, or when younger lawyers come and go on their work and invoices. The Challenges to Keeping Clients Any number of events can create a potential challenge to retaining a client, including: The departure of a lawyerA change in company ownershipThe death of a lawyerA change in company leadership In general, law firms do a poor job of establishing the kind of institutional relationship that binds a client to the firm. In some cases, it’s because of ego or compensation; in some cases, the nature of the lawyer-client relationship can’t be replicated. And in some cases, it’s a lack of confidence in colleagues. While you can’t guarantee that clients will connect with new firm contacts (or vice versa), you can do many things to make planned or unplanned transitions go more smoothly. Keeping Clients: If You Need to Triage In the event of an unexpected change, here are some smart steps to take: Have the managing partner or client relationship partner contact the client immediately to establish that the client

>In this Article, the author walks reader through the concept of Stamp Paper and ponders upon the validity of a Stamp Paper! What is a Stamp Paper? An illustrative representation of a Non Judicial Stamp Paper. It is a piece of paper which bears a pre-printed revenue stamp. Any transaction gets legal validity, once being executed on a stamp paper of proper value. It brings legal authenticity to any valid agreement. What documents need to be executed on the Stamp Paper? Be it an agreement or a documented business transaction; if legal sanctity need to be added, one should execute it on the legal stamp paper. Documents like Lease Agreement, Sale deed, Loan Agreement, Affidavits, Memorandum of Association or Article of Association; need to be executed on the stamp paper. However, all documents are not to be executed post payment of Stamp Duty. A few documents are exempt from it. One can have a look into the Schedule I of the Stamp Duty Act, to understand the same. SCHDULE-I-Indian-Stamp-Act Types of Stamp Papers: Judicial Stamp PapersNon Judicial Stamp Papers Judicial Stamp Papers: Judicial stamp papers are used for legal purposes. If any legal document need to be submitted for the purpose of legal procedure; then, applicant execute the same in Judicial Stamp Papers. These are often called as, Court Fee Stamp Papers. These Stamp Papers are used to avoid Cash Transactions in the Court. A case might not get admitted, if court fees is not paid properly. Non Judicial Stamp Papers: Whenever someone enters into a transaction and intends it to give legal sanctity; then such transaction are documented in the stamp papers of proper value. State Government charges tax for any of such transaction. Hence, State Governments decide the rates of stamp duty to be paid. Therefore, every states

The Delhi High Court issued a string of directions for the purpose of safeguarding the rights extended to undertrial prisoners. Apart from Magistrate and Courts, the directions have also been issued to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure that the undertrials remain informed about their fundamental rights. The directions included not extending the custody of an undertrial prisoner mechanically with respect to Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the authorities have been directed to ensure that the right of an undertrial to seek default bail is not defeated under any circumstances, including principles of law and legislative mandates. The single-judge bench specifically highlighted the provision under Section 167(2) of CrPC, 1973, and directed that neither the magistrate nor the court is empowered to mechanically extend the period of custody, for the maximum period of 15 days. The bench explained that custody should be extended keeping in mind the 60th, 90th and 120th day of completing the investigation and submitting the charge sheet. However, the same depends upon the nature of offence and applicability of a Special enactment. The bench added that the format of custody warrant shall include a column which would indicate the date on which the default bail had been granted to the undertrial prisoner. Moreover, the bench upheld the obligation of jail authorities to inform the undertrials regarding the date when their right to default bail accrues. The bench took note of this issue in a case wherein a plea had been filed to challenge the Sessions Court order which dismissed petitioner’s revision petition, which had been filed for challenging the dismissal of application of default bail under respective provisions. The post Order of remanding or extending the custody of undertrial a judicial function- Delhi HC appeared first on LexForti . Did