SBI Clerk Notification 2020 Released

By CL -

January 4, 2020

Applications are invited from eligible Indian Citizens for appointment as Junior Associate (Customer Support & Sales) in clerical cadre in State Bank of India. Candidates can apply for vacancies in one State only. Candidates can appear for the test only once under this recruitment project. The candidates applying for vacancies of a particular State, should be proficient (reading, writing, speaking and understanding) in the specified opted local language of that State (mentioned in the under given vacancy table against each state/UT).

The test for knowledge of specified opted local language will be conducted as a part of selection process. It will be conducted after qualifying the online main examination but before joining the Bank. Candidates who fail to qualify the language test will not be offered appointment. Candidates who produce 10th or 12th standard mark sheet/ certificate evidencing having studied the specified opted local language will not be required to undergo the language test. There is no provision for Inter Circle Transfer / Inter State Transfer for Junior Associates to be recruited.

Preliminary Examination will be conducted tentatively in the month of February/ March, 2020 and Main Examination will be conducted tentatively on 19.04.2020. Candidates are advised to check regularly Bank’s website https://bank.sbi/careers or https://www.sbi.co.in/careers for details and updates.

Total Vacancies: 8000

Online Registration of Application: 03.01.2020 to 26.01.2020

Online Preliminary Examination: February/March 2020

Online Main Examination: 19.04.2020

Age Limit (as on 01.01.2020): Minimum 20 years and Maximum 28 years

Essential Academic Qualifications (as on 01.01.2020): Graduation in any discipline from a recognized University or any equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Central Government.

Those who are in the final year/semester of their Graduation may also apply provisionally subject to the condition that, if provisionally selected, they will have to produce proof of having passed the graduation examination on or before 01.01.2020.

Selection Procedure is same as last year i.e., 2019.

Link to download the Notification:

https://sbi.co.in/documents/77530/400725/JA+20+-+Detailed+Ad+%28Eng%29++-+Final.pdf/7aeafcee-b7fd-b22d-8993-4eea4c969f7c?t=1577966465395

20 Landmark Verdicts of 2019: Must Read For Law Aspirants

By CL -

December 27, 2019

Alok Verma v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court has set aside the Central government’s order divesting Alok Verma of his powers as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
While doing so, the Court also directed the High Power Committee to consider the matter afresh, and held that Alok Verma shall cease and desist from taking any major policy decision pending the Committee’s consideration.
The Court has also set aside the order asking CBI Joint Director Nageshwar Rao to take over the duties of the CBI Director.

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India:

Constitutionality of IBC upheld
- Apex Court rejected a bunch of petitions which challenged the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
Court held that distinction between operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible differentia.
The Court also upheld the validity of Sections 12A (prescribing threshold for CoC approval for withdrawal of resolution application) and 29A (on bar of ‘related persons’ in participating in resolution bids).

Wildlife First v. MOEF:

Eviction of persons from forestland whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been rejected.
The order would have impacted over 1 million forest dwelling tribals.
The order led to a lot of controversy and confusion, as most states were yet to streamline the claims and appeals processes under the Forest Rights Act.
Later, on an application by the Central Government, the same bench stayed the eviction order. The matter is at present pending, and the Court has sought for data from states regarding claims under FRA.

Reliance Communication Ltd v. SBI:

Apex Court held Anil Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Communications, guilty of contempt of court for defaulting payments to Ericsson as per the undertaking given to the Court.
The three Reliance Companies – RCom, Reliance Telecom and Reliance InfraTel- were also held guilty of contempt, and fine of Rs One Crore each was imposed on them.
The Court granted an opportunity to Reliance companies to purge contempt by paying Rs.453 crores to Ericsson within 4 weeks. Later, Ambani avoided prison by clearing the dues.

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd v. Smt Mousumi Bhattacharjee:

Explaining the ambit of ‘accidental insurance’, the Supreme Court observed that where a disease is caused or transmitted by insect bite/virus in the natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident.
But, in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition may be regarded as an accident where its cause or course of transmission is unexpected and unforeseen.

Yashwant Sinha and othes v. CBI:

Official Secrets Act does not bar placing of documents in Court for adjudication.
Bench held that OSA will not bar the Court from receiving in evidence the documents. The criminal proceedings under the Act for unauthorized publication can be pursued independently; but that will not affect the evidentiary value of the documents, if they are otherwise relevant.

Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd v. Govt of WB:

Free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence
West Bengal cinema ban overturned. Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the makers of the Bengali film “Bhobhishyoter Bhoot”, which had suffered an ‘unofficial’ ban from the West Bengal government.
The police authorities had coerced the movie screens to withdraw the film citing law and order issues. The makers of the film complained that the movie was targeted for being critical against the government.

B K Pavitra v. UoI:

Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld.
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.
The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka.
The bench observed that this law has cured the deficiency noted in the earlier BK Pavitra judgment in respect of the 2002 law, and it does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature.
The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, the bench added.

Bikram Chatterji v. UoI:

In a major relief to thousands of homebuyers Apex Court cancelled the registration of Amrapali group under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, and directed the National Building Construction Corporation take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and Noida.
The bench found that Amrapali group had siphoned off homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater Noida and Noida authorities.
The Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to initiate action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act against Amrapali directors and authorities, and update the Court with progress of probe with periodic reports.

Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India:

Treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC not unconstitutional.
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by nearly 200 realtors, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2018 to treat homebuyers as financial creditors.
SC held that the amendments do not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and rejected the argument that they are ‘arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive and disproportionate’.

A.V. College Trust And Management Society vs. Director Of Public Instructions:

NGOs ‘Substantially Financed’ by Government amenable to RTI Act
In an important judgment delivered SC has held that non-governmental organisations [NGO] substantially financed, whether directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The bench held so, while considering appeals filed by colleges or associations running the colleges and/or schools.

UoI v. Tarsem Singh :

Sec 3J Of National Highways Act, to the extent it excludes solatium & interest as per Land Acquisition Act, unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the NH Act to be unconstitutional.

UoI v. State of Maharashtra:

Centre’s review against dilution of SC/ST Act allowed
A three judge bench allowed Centre’s petition seeking review of its March 20, 2018 judgement which had virtually diluted provisions of arrest under the SC/ST Act.
The Court observed that powers under Article 142 of the Constitution could not havebeen exercised to pass directions against the statute.
The two-judges bench should not have framed guidelines as it is within legislature’s domain to do so, the Court said.
It observed that the protective nature of the Act was necessary in view of the abuses to which people from marginalized communities are being subjected to.

P Chidambaram v CBI :

Bail granted to P Chidambaram in CBI case in INX Media scam
In the judgment granting bail to P Chidambaram in the INX Media case, the Supreme Court made certain pertinent observations regarding the practice of courts relying on sealed cover documents produced by prosecution during bail hearings.
The SC added that recording of findings based on the sealed cover documents submitted by the prosecution as if the offence has been committed, and using of such findings to deny bail would be against the concept of fair trial.

Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal :

Justice Arun Mishra’s non-recusal from Indore Development Authority case
In a controversial order, Justice Arun Mishra stated that he will not recuse from heading the Constitution Bench which was formed to decide the correctness of the interpretation give to Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act by the 2018 Indore Development Authority case.
The petitioners in the case sought his recusal contending that there was apprehension of bias as Justice Mishra had authored the 2018 judgment, which was under reference.

M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das

Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir.
At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of “desecration”, observed the Court.

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd:

Strikes Down Rules Framed By Centre Under Section 184 Finance Act 2017.
Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act 2017, which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals.
At the same time, the five judges bench struck down the Rules already framed by the Central Government under Section 184, and directed the formulation of new rules.
The Constitution Bench also doubted the correctness of 2018 decision which treated Aadhaar Act as ‘money bill’ and referred the point to larger bench.

Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v.Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly:

SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; Resignation Not To Affect Impact Of Defection.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker’s decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection. However, in partial relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of disqualification cannot be till the end of the term of the house.
A significant point in the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the discussion on the interplay between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The apex court held that resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of disqualification if defection has taken place before the date of resignation.

Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association:

SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices.
The Supreme Court by 3:2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices.
The majority expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger bench.

Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala:

State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing direct appeal to Supreme Court of India.
The Bench was considering the reference made to it in Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala.

RBI Assistant 2019 Notification Released

By CL -

December 26, 2019

The Reserve Bank of India invites applications from eligible candidates for 926 posts of “Assistant” – 2019 in various offices of the Bank. Selection for the post will be through a country-wide competitive examination in two phases i.e. Preliminary and Main examination followed by a Language Proficiency Test (LPT).

Website: www.rbi.org.in

Total No. of vacancies: 926

Online Registration: 23.12.2019 to 16.01.2020

Schedule of Online Preliminary Test (Tentative): February 14 & 15, 2020

Schedule of Online Main Test (Tentative): March 2020

Age (as on 01.12. 2019): Between 20 and 28 years

Educational Qualifications (as on 01.12. 2019): At least a Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline with a minimum of 50% marks (pass class for SC/ST/PWD candidates) in the aggregate and the knowledge of word processing on PC.

Scheme of Selection:

Preliminary Examination (Multiple Choices):
English Language (30 Questions, 30 Marks, 20 Minutes)
Numerical Ability(35 Questions, 35 Marks, 20 Minutes)
Reasoning Ability (35 Questions, 35 Marks, 20 Minutes)
Main Examination (Multiple Choices)
Reasoning (40 Questions, 40 Marks, 30 Minutes)
English Language (40 Questions, 40 Marks, 30 Minutes)
Numerical Ability (40 Questions, 40 Marks, 30 Minutes)
General Awareness (40 Questions, 40 Marks, 25 Minutes)
Computer Knowledge (40 Questions, 40 Marks, 20 Minutes)

III. Language Proficiency Test (LPT) – The candidates provisionally shortlisted from the main on-line examination will have to undergo a language proficiency test (LPT). The language proficiency test will be conducted in the Official / Local Language of the State concerned as detailed below. Candidate not proficient in the Official / Local Language shall be disqualified.

Link to download the Notification:

https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Content/PDFs/ADVTRPS231220191CA99C7B271B4474ABB2A6813C5B3850.PDF

RCEP Withdrawal: Understanding Free Trade Agreements, Custom Union & Plurilateral Agreements

By CL -

December 18, 2019

India’s brave and bold step in exiting the RCEP negotiation. India cited the following reason in the answer laid down in the parliament:-

“During the 3rd RCEP Leaders Summit which was held on 4 November, 2019 in Bangkok, India stated that the current structure of RCEP did not reflect the RCEP Guiding Principles or address the outstanding issues and concerns of India, in the light of which India did not join RCEP. While RCEP was intended to provide mutually beneficial outcomes for RCEP countries including India, the current structure did not adequately address ambition and concerns of India’s stakeholders”

RCEP issue brought to the center the subject of Plurilateral, Regional Trade Agreement and Multilateral Agreements. These agreements can take the form of Free Trade Agreement, Custom Union etc.

Five different forms of PTAs are –

PARTIAL SCOPE AGREEMENT (PSA): A PSA is only partial in scope, meaning it allows for trade between countries on a small number of goods.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (FTA): preferential arrangement in which members reduce tariffs on trade among them, while each having own tariff rates for trade with nonmembers.
CUSTOMS UNION (CU): A customs union (CU) is a free-trade agreement in which members apply a common external tariff (CET) schedule to imports from nonmembers.
COMMON MARKET (CM): A common market is a customs union where movement of factors of production is relatively free amongst member countries.
ECONOMIC UNION (EU): An economic union is a common market where member countries coordinate macro-economic and exchange rate policies.

Ever since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, the vast majority of economists have accepted the proposition that free trade among nations improves overall economic welfare.

Free trade, usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental impediments to international trade, allows each country to specialize in the goods that it can produce cheaply and efficiently relative to other countries. Such specialization enables all countries to achieve higher real incomes. While virtually all economists think free trade is desirable, they differ on how best to make the transition from tariffs and quotas to free trade. The three basic approaches to trade reform are

Unilateral
Multilateral &
Bilateral

Some countries, such as Britain in the nineteenth century and Chile and South Korea in recent decades, have undertaken unilateral tariff reductions—reductions made independently and without reciprocal action by other countries. The advantages of unilateral free trade are:

A country can reap the benefits of free trade immediately.
Countries that lower trade barriers by themselves do not have to postpone reform while they try to persuade other nations to lower their trade barriers.

The gains from such trade liberalization are substantial: a major study by the World Bank shows that income grows more rapidly in countries open to international trade than in those more closed to trade.

However, multilateral and bilateral approaches—dismantling trade barriers in concert with other countries—have two advantages over unilateral approaches.

The economic gains from international trade are reinforced and enhanced when many countries or regions agree to a mutual reduction in trade barriers. By broadening markets, concerted liberalization of trade increases competition and specialization among countries, thus giving a bigger boost to efficiency and consumer incomes. Britain reaped additional benefits from unilaterally lowering its tariffs in the nineteenth century because its success with free trade prompted other countries to lower their barriers as well.
Multilateral reductions in trade barriers may reduce political opposition to free trade in each of the countries involved. That is because groups that otherwise would be opposed or indifferent to trade reform might join the campaign for free trade if they see opportunities for exporting to the other countries in the trade agreement. Consequently, free trade agreements between countries or regions are a useful strategy for liberalizing world trade.

The best possible outcome of trade negotiations is a multilateral agreement that includes all major trading countries. Then free trade is widened to allow many participants to achieve the greatest possible gains from trade. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which the United States helped found after World War II, is an excellent example of a multilateral trade arrangement.

GATT Article XXIV

Although GATT embodies the principle of nondiscrimination in international trade, Article 24 of GATT permits the formation of “customs unions” among GATT members. A customs union is a group of countries that eliminate all tariffs on trade among themselves but maintain a common external tariff on trade with countries outside the union (thus technically violating MFN). This exception was designed in part to accommodate the formation of the European Economic Community (EC) in 1958. GATT also permits free trade areas (FTAs), such as the European Free Trade Area, which is composed primarily of Scandinavian countries. Members of FTAs eliminate tariffs on trade with each other but retain autonomy in determining their tariffs with nonmembers. Regional trade agreements (RTAs) have become increasingly prevalent since the early 1990s.

CLAT 2020 Notification Released! CLAT 2020 to be held on 10th May, 2020

By CL -

December 14, 2019

Are you awaiting the CLAT 2020 Exam Notification?

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) is the most important entrance examination for all Law aspirants. This national level entrance exam is conducted each year for admission to undergraduate and post-graduate Law courses. CLAT 2020 exam notification has been released.

As per the official notification, the CLAT 2020 exam will be held on – 10^th of May, 2020.

Currently, there are 22 National Law Universities (NLU) in India. Each of them considers CLAT scores for admissions to their UG and PG programs. For more information on CLAT exam pattern, eligibility, syllabus, application fee and more, please refer to our CLAT exam page.

CLAT 2020 Important Dates

Events	Tentative Dates
Start of online application form	January 1, 2020
Application form closes	March 31, 2020
CLAT 2020 Exam	May 10, 2020
Uploading of answer keys on Consortium of NLUs website	May 11, 2020
Inviting Objections	May 12, 2020 – May 15, 2020
Notification of Final Answer Key	May 18, 2020
CLAT 2020 Results	May 24, 2020

CLAT 2020 Exam Highlights

Exam Highlights	Details
Exam Name	CLAT (Common Law Admission Test)
CLAT Exam Conducting Body	Consortium of National Law Universities
CLAT Exam Level	UG and PG
CLAT Exam Frequency	Once a year
CLAT Exam Mode	Offline
CLAT Exam Duration	120 Minutes
Number of Questions	150
Marking Scheme	0.25 marks for each wrong answer
CLAT Exam Language	English
CLAT Exam Purpose	Admissions to BA LLB, BCom LLB, BSc LLB, BBA LLB, BSW LLB, LLM courses

CLAT 2020 Exam Areas: –

English language
Current affairs including general knowledge
Legal Reasoning
Logical Reasoning
Quantitative Techniques

The following National Law Universities (along with intake) accept CLAT scores to admit students to their five-year LLB programs every year:

National Law University	Location	Intake^*
National Law School of India University	Bangalore	80
NALSAR University of Law	Hyderabad	120
National Law Institute University	Bhopal	128
WB National University of Juridical Sciences	Kolkata	133
National Law University	Jodhpur	115
Hidayatullah National Law University	Raipur	187
Gujarat National Law University	Gandhinagar	187
Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University	Lucknow	178
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law	Patiala	196
Chankaya National Law University	Patna	140
National University of Advanced Legal Studies	Kochi	68
National Law University Odisha	Cuttack	180
National University of Study and Research in Law	Ranchi	120
National Law University and Judicial Academy	Guwahati	60
DamodaramSanjivayya National Law University	Vishakhapatnam	120
Tamil Nadu National Law School	Tiruchirappalli	110
Maharashtra National Law University	Mumbai	60
Maharashtra National Law University	Nagpur	60
Dharmashastra National Law University	Jabalpur	120
Himachal Pradesh National Law University	Shimla	120

*Please Note: Intake includes all categories and special seats.

Stay connected for more updates about CLAT 2020!

1...141516...201 Page 15 of 201

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY