We are a family of strong 800+ people including 480+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
We stay up-to-date and periodically share insightful commentary and analysis on the legal issues shaping businesses, both domestically and globally. Our opinionised articles offer fresh perspective on current burning issues, thus keeping you ahead of the curve.
The article discusses at length the question as to whether ‘slump exchange’ is covered by the provisions of Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the authors, the question that arises is whether only transfer as a result of ‘sale’ would be covered by the provisions of Section 50B or whether slump sale includes other forms of ‘transfer’ as well as defined in Section 2(47). Another issue that comes to light is whether transfer for non-monetary consideration can constitute a sale.
To file a divisional application in India, the parent application should include more than one invention while claims based on the same inventive concept is not allowed. Elaborately discussing various IPAB Orders, starting from the 2011 decision in the case of LG Electronics and up to the very recent decision in the case of Esco Corporation, the article examines several issues involving divisional applications.
The first article elaborately discusses a recent circular issued by SEBI that will be applicable for a scheme of merger, demerger, amalgamation or arrangement filed with the stock exchanges after 17 November 2020. The authors analyse the key implications of the circular, like additional factors which need to be considered by the audit committee, requirement of a recommendation in the form of a report from the committee of independent directors of the listed company.
This article covers a recent decision of the Gujarat High Court where the Court has reiterated that the order of the arbitral tribunal could not be challenged in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The authors note that though the question of maintainability of writ proceedings against an order of the arbitral tribunal has been settled in a long line of decisions.
This case Sparx Group Co. Ltd. v. Senior Examiner of Trade Marks provides a definitive interpretation and application of the law with respect to the precedence of prior use and market recognition of a trademark when objected on relative grounds of refusal under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Delhi High Court recently addressed an important issue under the copyright law, the idea-expression dichotomy, and rebuked the practice of litigants approaching the Courts for reliefs at the eleventh hour without any justification.
The article discusses at length the provisions relating to Mid-Term Review (‘MTR’) of anti-dumping measures. Observing that MTR can even be requested by the user industry for excluding certain products from the scope of the product under consideration, where such product is of a technical grade that is not or cannot be produced by the domestic industry for the specific user requirements, the author elaborately examines a recent final finding of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (‘DGTR’).
Rapid technological advancement has given birth to new products and services which are ever-evolving and an unchartered territory for competition regulators. Digital markets have grown from being considered an extension of brick and mortar markets to an alternate market unto themselves in less than half a decade.
Analysing Section 15(2)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the article elaborately discusses the question as to whether every charge paid for delayed payment of any amount form part of the value of supply. In the opinion of the authors, Section 15(2)(d) does not cover all scenarios where additional charges are paid.
The article discusses at length a peculiar issue relating to Equalisation levy on non-resident e-commerce facilitators, regarding the amount on which the such e-commerce facilitators should charge such levy. Analysing the question as to whether the ecommerce operator should calculate the levy on the entire sale value of the goods/services or only on the commission amount, the author observes that the provisions do not provide a clear answer.
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 was enacted to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution. Foreign contribution refers to the donation, delivery or transfer of any article, currency or security by any foreign source. With an objective to streamline the provisions under FCRA by enhancing transparency and accountability in the receipt and utilization of foreign contributions, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020 was passed by recently.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in a recent order dated 29-09-2020 allowed the appeal filed by Pharmacyclics, LLC challenging the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262968 by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, New Delhi following post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Laurus Labs Pvt. Ltd.; and has set aside the revocation order as being ‘devoid of merit’.
The Second National Commission on Labour Laws, which submitted its report in June 2002 had recommended that the existing set of labour laws should be broadly divided and grouped into the four groups. Acting on the recommendations, the Union Government has proposed to enact four labour codes, subsuming 29 labour law legislations. The Code on Wages, 2019 (‘Wage Code’) is the first of the lot to get the legislative approval and subsequently, the assent of the President of India on August 8, 2019.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IRC 20”) has been introduced as a part of the labour legislations consolidations, in terms of the recommendation of the Second National Commission on Labour (2002). Accepting their recommendations, the Ministry of Labour and Employment has consolidated labour code in to four labour codes of (i) Industrial Relations (ii) Wages (iii) Social Security (iv) Welfare and Safety.
• The purpose of Code on Social Security, 2020 (‘SS Code’) is to amend and consolidate the laws relating to social security with the goal to extend social security to all employees and workers either in the organized or unorganized or any other sectors and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
