The process of establishing a franchise can be complex and overwhelming, but with the help of our experienced team of attorneys, we were able to guide KHATICRAFT through every step of the process.

We assisted in the drafting and review of the franchise agreement, ensuring that it protected the interests of both the franchisor and franchisee. And we provided ongoing legal support and guidance throughout the entire process, ensuring that everything was running smoothly and that any issues were quickly and efficiently resolved.

Overall, working with LexForti Legal was a seamless and stress-free experience for KHATICRAFT. We are proud to have been a part of their journey in establishing their franchise business and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

At LexForti Legal, we understand the importance of protecting and promoting your business, and we are dedicated to providing the legal support and guidance you need to succeed. If you’re thinking about establishing a franchise, or have any other legal needs, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

More about KHATICRAFT

Khaticraft is a renowned furniture brand known for its exquisite craftsmanship and high-quality products. Specializing in solid wood furniture, Khaticraft offers a wide range of designs that blend traditional artistry with modern functionality. Their collections cater to diverse tastes, ensuring that every piece adds a unique charm to any space. With a commitment to sustainability and customer satisfaction, Khaticraft has become a trusted name in the furniture industry, providing durable and stylish solutions for homes and offices alike.

The post LexForti Legal advised KHATICRAFT on Franchising appeared first on LexForti .

The process of establishing a franchise can be complex and overwhelming, but with the help of our experienced team of attorneys, we were able to guide Homeoved through every step of the process.

We assisted in the drafting and review of the franchise agreement, ensuring that it protected the interests of both the franchisor and franchisee. And we provided ongoing legal support and guidance throughout the entire process, ensuring that everything was running smoothly and that any issues were quickly and efficiently resolved.

Overall, working with LexForti Legal was a seamless and stress-free experience for Homeoved. We are proud to have been a part of their journey in establishing their franchise business and wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

At LexForti Legal, we understand the importance of protecting and promoting your business, and we are dedicated to providing the legal support and guidance you need to succeed. If you’re thinking about establishing a franchise, or have any other legal needs, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Advocate Rohit Pradhan and Jahnvi Shah assisted the brand to proceed with the Franchise business.

Watch this video on YouTube.

The post LexForti Legal advised Homeoved on Franchising appeared first on LexForti .

“A big heartfelt thanks to the entire team of A&A for assisting us in closing this round of investment for the Company. It was a pleasure working with them. The sharp analytical skills portrayed by Disha, and her team helped us in traversing through and understanding the complex structures of the transaction documents and the team was always available to guide us throughout the transaction.”

Mr. Ragavan Venkatesan, Founder of the Company, commented.

The post A&A team advises Digivriddhi Technologies Private Limited in raising its Pre-Series A Investment round appeared first on LexForti .

A&A advised the Acquirer on the above transaction including conducting legal due diligence and closing of the transaction documents. The approximate deal value is INR 500 billion.

A&A Team included Mr. Uday S. Ahlawat (Managing Partner), Ms. Kavita Patwardhan (Partner), Ms. Disha Toshniwal (Senior Associate), Mr. Aman Chadha (Senior Associate), Ms. Shramona Sarkar (Associate), Mr. Sarthak Chawla (Associate) and Mr. Garv Sood (Associate). 

“This transaction was particularly interesting for us since it involved multiple parties from multiple jurisdictions and the brainstorming involved in structuring and closing the transaction documents. It was a wonderful experience to be leading this transaction.”

Kavita Patwardhan, (Partner) Ahlawat & Associates

The post Deal Update: A&A advises Dev Clever Holding PLC on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited appeared first on LexForti .

According to the appellant, the State government had accepted the proposal of KUDA to allot 200 sq. yard developed plot free of cost to each of the 134 ex-employees of a mill in the form of a rehabilitation and welfare measure.

Knowing this, the 318 other retired workers who had opted for voluntary retirement along with the previous 134 workers made a representation before the government for allotting them the plot. However, the government rejected their request.

Aggrieved by this, the workers’ approached High Court. The single-bench High Court had allowed the writ petition, but upon appeal, the Division bench had set aside the judgment.

The appellants’ then approached the apex court wherein they contended that there stands no reasonable differentia between the 134 ex-employees who had taken voluntary retirement and remaining 318 who had also taken up the benefit of voluntary retirement.

The bench accepted the contentions made by appellant and stated that for a classification to be valid, they must stand two tests- the distinguishing rationale should be based on a just objective and the choice of differentiating two sets of persons ought to bear a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.

The bench further observed that there had been no justification for treating 318 ex-employees different from the 134 ex-employees.

Therefore, the bench restored the single bench judgment and directed the state government to allot plots to the remaining 318 ex-employees as well.

The post Right vested under Art. 14 violated when equals treated unequally- SC appeared first on LexForti .

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India had made several observations regarding the allegations against the government for intruding the privacy of general public.

It observed that it is its duty to uphold the constitutional expectations, rule of law and principles of natural justice without being affected by political rhetoric. However, it clarified that political thicket would not under any circumstance prevent the judiciary from raising voice against abuse of fundamental rights.

It addressed the issue of vulnerability of data stored in the cloud and stated that the technology can be useful and at the same time, might breach one’s private space by sharing the information with unauthorized authorities.

The Apex Court’s take on breach of individual’s privacy included every citizen’s right to be protected against violations of privacy. The bench reiterated that restrictions, if any, should pass the constitutional scrutiny as the restrictions ought to bear reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the bench observed that surveillance is permitted, only when the statute provides so. Unless the surveillance runs on constitutional grounds, it could not be questioned by judiciary. However, the alleged intrusion/surveillance had been conducted without any mention of national security or national interest.

The bench also highlighted the protection to journalistic sources as the same remains primary condition for the freedom of press. The snooping techniques had potential chilling effect and had raised grave allegation on the infringement of basic fundamental rights.

The bench upheld the celebrated values like governmental transparency and openness as the same ensure free flow of information from citizens’ to State. The State ought to gather trust of general public as then only the latter would attain belief in former’s scheme and policies.

The post Indiscriminate spying on individuals not allowed unless statute provides so- SC on Pegasus Snooping case appeared first on LexForti .

In the instant case, the High Court of Kerala had held that petitioner (mother-in-law) could not be entitled to be a legal representative under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and thus dismissed her petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal.

The counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that petitioner had been living with the deceased and his family members and thereby is entitled to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of determining the compensation.

The counsel further raised the issue whether the High Court had been justified in precluding petitioner as a legal representative of deceased. The bench addressed the issue by noting that Motor Vehicle Act does not explicitly define “legal representative.”

The bench defined the term as person who has been legally empowered to represent the estate of deceased person and receive compensatory benefits. The bench clarified that a legal representative might not necessarily be a legal heir.

Moreover, it emphasized on the fact that the term be given wider interpretative w.r.t the Chapter XII of Motor Vehicle Act and not be confined to spouse, parents and children of deceased. The bench highlighted the objective of this legislative, which is to provide monetary relief to the family of victims, and called for liberal interpretation in order to accomplish the underlying objective.

The bench also observed that nowadays it is not uncommon for the Indian Society to see a mother-in-law residing with her daughter and son-in-law. It agreed to the fact that mother-in-law can be a dependent on her son-in-law for maintenance.

The bench concluded the petition by addressing the situation of mother-in-law, who certainly suffered on account of her son-in-law’s death, and therefore, allowed the appeal by holding her as a legal representative of deceased.

The post Mother-in-law of a deceased a legal representative in a claim petition filed u/MV Act- SC appeared first on LexForti .

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 .

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 .

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 .