Welcome To Charlewar Associates

The Ultimate Goal oF     

Get Legal Advice


Why Select Us?

At Charlewar Associates, we believe in putting our clients first. We take the time to listen to your concerns and priorities, and we work closely with you to develop a strategy that aligns with your objectives. We are committed to keeping you informed every step of the way, and we will always be transparent and honest in our communications with you.

Free Consultation

Fight for Justice

We preserve our values while seeking justice for our clients.

Best Case Strategy

Our experts works on case to case basis and update our clients.

Experienced Attorney

We have a battery of subjectwise expert attorneys.

Welcome to Charlewar Associates

“We diligently work towards furthering our collective pursuit of justice”

Our team of experienced attorneys is committed to delivering personalized and effective legal solutions that meet your unique needs and objectives.

Our mission is to provide exceptional legal services to our clients with integrity, professionalism, and dedication. We strive to achieve positive outcomes and exceed expectations through our expertise, thoroughness, and attention to detail. Our goal is to build lasting relationships with our clients based on trust, respect, transparency and to contribute to the advancement of justice and the rule of law in our communities.

Our vision is to be a leading law firm that empowers individuals and businesses to achieve their legal goals and aspirations. We aspire to be recognized for our excellence, innovation, and commitment to delivering personalized and effective legal solutions. We seek to create a culture that attracts and retains the best legal talent, fosters diversity, inclusion, collaboration and promotes professional and personal growth. Our ultimate goal is to make a positive impact on the lives of our clients, our employees, and our communities.

Our core values are integrity, excellence, client-centeredness, diversity, inclusion and community service. We believe in upholding the highest ethical and moral standards in everything we do, treating everyone with respect and professionalism and delivering exceptional legal services that meet our clients expectations. We are committed to promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in our workplace and in the legal profession and for giving back to the communities we serve through pro bono work and other charitable initiatives.

0 Years of Experience

Our Attorney

Our Legal Attorneys

Adv Shweta Chauvhan

Associate Lawyer, Yavatmal

“- ”

Adv Shweta Chauvhan Associate Lawyer, Yavatmal

Rasika Alur

Law Intern

“. ”

Rasika Alur Law Intern

Adv. Anant Dixit

Associate Lawyer

“Associated with Charlewar Associates since last 13 years. ”

Adv. Anant Dixit Associate Lawyer

Adv Ujwala Dixit

Associate Lawyer

“Associated with Charlewar Associates since last 12 years. ”

Adv Ujwala Dixit Associate Lawyer
Booking an Appointment

Free Consultation


Happy Clients

Our Blog

Recent Blog

The Bombay High Court invalidated the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the CBI against Rhea Chakraborty and her family concerning the investigation into actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, emphasizing that the mere registration of an FIR does not warrant the issuance of an LOC. "The court emphasized that the Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot linger indefinitely, particularly in this instance, where it extended for over 3½ years. Despite the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation, a fact undisputed, the court highlighted that the fundamental right to travel cannot be restricted except through a due process established by law." Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over a division bench, granted the petitions submitted by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their parents, Indrajit and Sandhya, to annul the LOCs issued against them in 2020. The court acknowledged the Chakrabortys' cooperation with the CBI's investigation, highlighting their prompt attendance at the CBI office whenever summoned, and found no evidence of attempts to evade arrest or summons on their part. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. .

Read more

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the Sessions Court not to proceed in the matter till the next date of hearing. The Applicant Chandrashekhar .S. Jhadav a retired chief fire officer of NMC has approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court by filing criminal application challenging the session court order of rejecting the application for discharge. The offense under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of corruption act, came to be registered in Crime No.3520 of 2013 against the applicant Chandrashekhar Jhadav and other co-accused, on the pretext that by issuing the Fire NOC to one Pratibha Khandelwal to the tune of Rs.1,13,75,500/- The Session Court rejected the applicant for discharge filed by the applicant/accused Shri Chandrashekhar Jhadav. The matter came before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice M.W. Chandwani. The Counsel for Applicant Adv. Ishwar.S. Charlewar along with Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti contended before the court that there are no allegations about the accepting any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage which is a condition precedent of attracting Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Adv. Ishwar .S. Charlewar, Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti appeared for the applicant and APP N.B. Jawade represented the state. .

Read more

Supreme Court: Resigned Director Not Liable for Cheque Bounce In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a director who resigns before a company issues a cheque cannot be held accountable for its bounce. The court's decision, grounded in Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizes the legal protection afforded to directors who have severed ties with a company. The case revolved around a complaint alleging cheque dishonor due to insufficient funds, invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol scrutinized the timeline, noting that the director's resignation preceded the issuance of the disputed cheque. They emphasized that the director had submitted Form 32 in compliance with the Companies Act, 1956, indicating the termination of their association with the company. The court highlighted the dates, with resignations occurring on December 9th, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, while the cheque in question was issued on March 22nd, 2014. This chronological distinction absolved the resigned director from any responsibility for the company's affairs at the time of the cheque issuance. Represented by AOR K. Parameshwar, the appellant successfully argued that the director had no involvement in the issuance of the cheque, as evidenced by Form 32 and the resignation dates. Conversely, AOR Sumeer Sodhi represented the respondent. The court's ruling underscores the significance of Form 32, which unequivocally demonstrates a director's disassociation from the company and absolves them of liability for subsequent financial transactions. By aligning with the Companies Act and prioritizing legal compliance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the protection afforded to directors who have formally resigned from their positions before the occurrence of financial obligations. .

Read more

Subcribe to our Newsletter