Lawful Talks

Are You Making These 3 Job Search Mistakes & Here’s How You Can Troubleshoot Them! Navigating the job market can be challenging, and many candidates unknowingly make mistakes that hinder their success. Here are three common pitfalls and how you can troubleshoot them to enhance your job search strategy. 1️⃣ Not Tailoring Your Resume for Each Application 📝 ❌ Mistake: Sending out a generic resume can make you blend in with the crowd. Employers want to see how your skills and experiences align with their specific needs. 🔧 Troubleshooting: Customize your resume for each application. Highlight relevant experiences, skills, and accomplishments that directly relate to the job description. Use keywords from the job posting to ensure your resume resonates with hiring managers and passes through Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) 🔍. 2️⃣ Neglecting to Network Effectively 🤝 ❌ Mistake: Many job seekers underestimate the power of networking. Relying solely on online applications can limit your opportunities. 🔧 Troubleshooting: Leverage your network! Reach out to alumni 🎓, former colleagues, or industry professionals. Attend networking events, join relevant groups on LinkedIn, and engage in conversations. Building meaningful connections can lead to referrals and insider information about job openings 🔑. 3️⃣ Failing to Prepare for Interviews 🎤 ❌ Mistake: Walking into an interview without adequate preparation can leave you feeling unconfident and unprepared. 🔧 Troubleshooting: Practice makes perfect! Review common interview questions and conduct mock interviews with friends or peers. Research the company thoroughly—know their values, culture, and recent developments 🌐. This preparation will help you articulate your fit for the role and demonstrate genuine interest. By addressing these common mistakes, you’ll position yourself as a strong candidate in a competitive job market. Remember, every step you take in your job search is an opportunity for growth and learning 🌱 Happy job hunting! 🌟 #JobSearch #CareerAdvice #Networking #ResumeTips #InterviewPreparation

Choosing the right law school in India is a pivotal decision that can shape your legal career. With numerous options available, it is essential to consider various factors to ensure you make an informed choice that aligns with your goals and aspirations. Here’s a comprehensive guide to help you choose the best law school in India. Author: Amrit Pal Kaur, Career Coach & Corporate Navigator Read More: https://lnkd.in/gq-JmSur

#CaseBrief: Nandlal Khodidas Barot v Bar Council Of Gujarat Author: Aryan Agarwal, Law Student IFIM Law School  Petitioner: Nandlal Khodidas Barot · Respondent: Bar Council of Gujarat · Bench: Justice A Gupta, Justice A Sen Nandlal Khodidas Barot, the appellant, appealed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India, in a proceeding transferred under Section 36B of the Act, found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct based on a complaint filed on October 9, 1971, before the Gujarat Bar Council. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gHZ_BcWw

#Case Brief: Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan Author: Mimansa Mrinalini, Law Student IFIM Law School Case Title and Citation: Case Title: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241 The case addressed the absence of laws protecting women from sexual harassment at the workplace. Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was sexually harassed, and the case sought guidelines for preventing such incidents. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gS_JRYgD

#CaseBrief: K. M Nanavat v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 Author: Devanshi Agarwal , Law Student IFIM Law School In 1959, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a naval officer, was accused of murdering Prem Ahuja, a businessman, on the grounds of an alleged illicit relationship between Ahuja and Nanavati's wife, Sylvia Nanavati. On April 27, 1959, Nanavati confronted Ahuja, leading to a heated argument. Nanavati left the scene briefly, returned with a revolver, and shot Ahuja dead. Nanavati immediately surrendered to the police, claiming the act was a result of a momentary lapse of reason. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gqaiRXU2

#CaseBrief: Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Author: Aryan Agarwal , Law Student IFIM Law School Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd PETITIONER: Khenyei RESPONDENT: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. BENCH: H.L. Dattu, S.A. Bobde, Arun Mishra The case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. involves a collision between a bus and a trailer-truck, resulting in injuries to the claimants. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer of the bus, but the High Court concluded, based on additional evidence, that it is not the insurer of the trailer-truck. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gtNZw4uQ

#Title: Emergency Provisions In The Indian Constitution: Safeguarding Democracy In Times Of Crisis Author: Shashank Chawathe , Law Student IFIM Law School Emergency Provisions In The Indian Constitution: Safeguarding Democracy In Times Of Crisis The Constitution of India, adopted on January 26, 1950, is not merely a legal document; it is the soul of the world's largest democracy. In recognition of the inherent uncertainties of a diverse and populous nation, the framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated a series of emergency provisions to ensure the  survival of democratic values even in the face of grave crises. These provisions grant the government exceptional powers, but they are carefully circumscribed to prevent abuse and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. This article explores the emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution and their significance in safeguarding democracy. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gRMKfrSe

#CaseBrief: K. M Nanavat v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 Author: Devanshi Agarwal, Law Student IFIM Law School In 1959, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a naval officer, was accused of murdering Prem Ahuja, a businessman, on the grounds of an alleged illicit relationship between Ahuja and Nanavati's wife, Sylvia Nanavati. On April 27, 1959, Nanavati confronted Ahuja, leading to a heated argument. Nanavati left the scene briefly, returned with a revolver, and shot Ahuja dead. Nanavati immediately surrendered to the police, claiming the act was a result of a momentary lapse of reason. Read More at: https://lnkd.in/gqaiRXU2

#CaseBrief: Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Author: Aryan Agarwal, Law Student @ IFIM Law School PETITIONER: Khenyei RESPONDENT: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. BENCH: H.L. Dattu, S.A. Bobde, Arun Mishra The case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. involves a collision between a bus and a trailer-truck, resulting in injuries to the claimants. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer of the bus, but the High Court concluded, based on additional evidence, that it is not the insurer of the trailer-truck. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gtNZw4uQ

#CaseBrief: Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2018)  Author: Devanshi Agarwal, Law Student @ IFIM Law School  Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2018) 1 SCC 791 1. Petitioners and Leadership: Navtej Singh Johar, along with a group of petitioners, initiated the legal action by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners included individuals who identified as LGBTQ+, highlighting the personal and immediate impact of Section 377 on their lives. The petitioners argued that Section 377 violated their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The respondents, represented by the Union of India, argued that Section 377 was necessary to protect public morality and public health.   2.Nature of Challenged Law:The focal point of the case was Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."Section 377's broad language and historical application disproportionately affected the LGBTQ+ community, creating an environment of fear and discrimination.   3.Fundamental Rights Violation:The petitioners contended that Section 377 contravened fundamental rights, specifically the rights to privacy, dignity, and equality. The right to privacy, as established in the Puttaswamy case (2017), formed a crucial aspect of the argument, emphasizing the evolving understanding of individual autonomy. Read More: https://lnkd.in/gSEPn2jQ