​​Legal win 

Consulting LLP


We serve a wide range of clientele, and every client relationship is valued greatly. Each engagement benefits from the depth and breadth of our expertise.

​The Partners and members our Firm are senior professionals with years of experience behind them. They bring the highest level of professional service to clients along with the traditions of the profession, integrity and sound ethical practices.

LegalWin's  team of professionals comprise of Lawyers, Legal Counsels with rich experience in Civil and Criminal Law, Taxation Law, Copy Rights and Intellectual Property law. 

We also have on board Chartered Accountants who have specialized in Taxation, Project finance,  Share Valuation and Company related work. 

Legal Win Lawyers: business savvy & Client connected

​Update from Managing Partner

1) Right to be Forgotten

In A First An Indian Court Upholds The ‘Right To Be Forgotten

The Karnataka High Court while passing an order in a writ petition, directed its Registry to make sure that an internet search made in the public domain would not reflect the woman’s name in a previous criminal order passed by the same High Court. The High Court conclusively observed, “This is in line with the trend in Western countries of ‘right to be forgotten’ in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned.

After hearing the plea, the High Court ordered, “It should be the endeavour of the Registry to ensure that any internet search made in the public domain ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the cause-title of the order or in the  body of the order in the criminal petition.

2) Only Plaintiff’s Pleadings Can Be Looked Into For Order VII Rule 11 CPC Enquiry

Under Order VII Rule 11, the court has to take a decision looking at the pleadings of the plaintiff only and not on the rebuttal made by the defendant or any other materials produced by the defendant.

The Supreme Court, in Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jarya, has held that for an enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure, only the pleadings of the plaintiff can be looked into even if it is at the stage of trial of preliminary issues.

3) Oppression plea wasn't maintainable as alternate remedy was available to parties under JV agreement

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH, Demerara Distillers (P.) Ltd. v. Demerara Distillers Ltd., Guyana

Section 241, read with section 242, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with section 398, of the Companies Act, 1956 and section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Oppression and mismanagement - Whether when an alternative remedy is available to parties, under Joint Venture Agreement in question by way of Arbitration and, an Arbitrator has already been appointed by Supreme Court, approaching Tribunal, under section 397/398 is not at all tenable - Held, yes

4) Management of family business to be transferred to mother who was holding 98% shares

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, Sanjay Parlikar  v. Ajit Scanning & Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.

Section 241, read with section 242, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with section 398, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and mismanagement - Respondent company, a family company, was started by petitioner's father 'S' -

On his death 98 per cent of shareholding was transferred to his wife (R2) - A company petition was filed by petitioner and his wife against his mother (R2) and his brother (R3) under sections 397 & 398 on ground that R2 and R3 were holding EGM for ouster of petitioner and R2 & R3 were non co-operating with petitioner for clearance of all statutory dues which petitioner claimed was oppressive against petitioners and detrimental to interest of company - Whether since account of company was fully operated by petitioner and he had control over funds of company, petitioner had failed to prove that respondents caused hinderance for clearing statutory dues - Held, yes - Whether since petitioner kept bank account of company to himself and not allowed his own mother (wife of progenitor of family business) to take money for her treatment, mother (R2) being 98 per cent shareholder and brother R3 having remained looking after her would continue to manage respondent-company for time being - Held, yes


04 FEBRUARY  2017



Experience You Can Trust

Legal Win Lawyers and Tax experts offer a full range of Legal and Tax advisory to Small and Medium Enterprises, Multinational Corporations, Start-Up's, Public / Private Sector Undertakings, Family run Businesses, High Net Worth Individuals and Private Clients.