Write for Us

Write for us

Law and Literature welcomes guest posts from advocates, law students, academics and writers who care about law, justice and the written word.

What we publish

Legal essays

Analysis of a statute, a doctrine or a line of judgments, especially arbitration, IBC, SARFAESI, civil and criminal procedure, constitutional and labour law.

Case comments

A close reading of a recent Supreme Court or High Court decision and why it matters.

Literature and life

Poetry, reflections and essays on the life of the law, the courtroom and the profession.

Guidelines

  • Original and unpublished work onlyIf it has appeared elsewhere, say where; reposts are accepted only with permission and a link to the original.
  • Length: 1,000–2,500 words for essays, 600–1,200 for case commentsPoems have no minimum.
  • Cite your sourcesGive case names with citations, and link to statutes or judgments where possible.
  • Write clearlyPlain English, short paragraphs and a clear argument. Avoid excessive capitals and jargon.
  • Include a short bioTwo or three lines about yourself, and a LinkedIn link if you wish.
  • No promotional contentPosts that advertise legal services or carry paid links will not be accepted.

How to submit

Send your post or article to asangharai@gmail.com.

Views expressed in guest posts are the authors' own. Publication is at the editor's discretion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE PRACTICE OF EXHIBITION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN LAW.

Exhibition of a document in judicial proceedings is a standard customary practice that has been followed for a long period of time. There isn’t any specific provision under the law that governs the  expression ‘ exhibit ’   or ‘marking’ of documents. There are only certain rules laid down in the Delhi High Court (original side) rules with regard to the mandatory marking of the document with exhibit or labeling of every document produced during trial. PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates rules for admission or rejection of documents. The same read as follows: Rule 3   - Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. ― The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. Rule 4  -  Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. ― (1) Subject to the provisions of the next foll...
Read more

WHAT IS 'QUESTION OF LAW' & ' SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW'

The maintainability of an appeal before the high court or the Supreme Court depends on the narrow  determination/validity of issues of laws involved. The courts in appeal should be convinced that a  substantial question of law is involved for its indulgence into the matter and not mere question of  law. The legislation does not describe ‘Question of law’ and ‘Substantial question of Law’ but  judicial precedents overtime has shaped and differentiated its true meaning. A Question of law arises when there is ambiguity and uncertainty in application of a settled legal provision to the facts and circumstances of the case and this question of law becomes substantial when the question of law has not been dealt with or when there are conflicting judicial opinions by  different benches of the High Court or the Supreme Court that requires effective interpretation and  permanent judicial consideration. What is the test for determination on whether a Substantial Quest...
Read more

ARE SUBSIDARIES INCLUDED AS ASSETS OF THE PARENT COMPANY DURING INSOLVENCY.

Once a company goes into insolvency, the Resolution Professional (RP) is mandated to take over all the assets of the Corporate Debtor thereto but the IBC code imposes some statutory restrictions to the term ' assets ' stipulated under section 18 of the IBC code (herein after the code) Do subsidiaries come under the purview of insolvency of the parent shareholding company? It is a settled law that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity from its parent company as laid down by the celebrated english precedent in  Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 . This foundational doctrine of a separate corporate personality has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, most notably in the landmark case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 , which has clarified that even a wholly-owned subsidiary does not lose its distinct identity and that its assets belong to it, not to its parent shareholder.  The statutory pro...
Read more