INTERNSHIP REPORT

INTERNSHIP AT DELHI HIGH COURT

Submitted to

Submitted by,
Akshay Pundir
A3221610018
Bcom.LLb(h) 9th semester

OVERVIEW

I did my internship at the Delhi High Court. The internship, I did was during my summer
vacations. The internship span was starting from 20thMay to 3rd July under Adv. Shrey
Yadav.

I attended the court from 10:00 a.m. in the morning to 3:30 p.m. and then I went to his office
at G-3, Lower Ground Floor, South Extension to read the matters for the next day. In the
court I learnt and followed the procedure for case filing, I learnt a lot of other issues in the
court, which are being further elaborated in my report. I even interacted with other litigants
over there as well.

Internship at Delhi High Court

20th May Thursday

I reached the Delhi High Court at 10:00. I visited the court no. 22, 23, and 24.
I observed the proceedings of various matters pending in the court. I observed and heard
arguments of several litigants.
Further in a case in which Adv. Shrey Yadav argued, he stated and proved to the court that on
the re-examination of the witness stage, the court can still open up the door for the lawyer to
cross-examine a witness even if he has been already cross-examined.
Further I observed the arguments in a case where Ansals construction group was involved.
The matter was on an illegal mortgage property and then claiming rights over it.

In the evening I visited the office at Defence colony, C block.

I read a case of Kunal Jhulka v. Deepti. It was a petition filed u/r sec 13(1) and sec 14 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, claiming nullification of the marriage to declare it null and void.

21st May Friday

Visited the court and observed the matters.
In the evening at the office, read the case of
Om Sai Mandir Myan Trust v. East Delhi Municipal Corp & others.

22nd May Saturday

Went to the Saket District Court and observed the matters over there.
The cases over there included
State v. Nitin Arjun
Meena Tiwari v. Virender Singh in this matter there were trespass and theft allegations on
an 85 year old lady

23rd May Monday

I attended the court.
Further, in the matter of Umesh Sharma v. Preeti
Earlier the court had ordered to follow the provisions accepted and mentioned in the MOU
memorandum of understanding.
But the plaintiff did not follow it and still claimed for invalid stridhan and other articles.
The defendant, here the appellant, filed a suit of criminal contempt of court as the plaintiff
did not follow the order, directions of the court. Thus amounting to criminal contempt of
court.

24th May Tuesday

I attended the court. Further, I observed the cross examination in the court of joint registrar in
the case of, Arati Bhargava v. Madhur Bhargava. The case was relating to the Indian Trusts
Act, 1882.
In the evening I read files at the office.

25th May Wednesday

Court 8:30 12:30 visited Faridabad District court.
In the case of Arun Khanna v. Monika Khanna
It was a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was a divorce by
mutual consent. What I learned today that when there is a mutual consent petition, there,
there are no two parties such as petitioner and the respondent. There are instead 2 petitioners
petitioner 1 and petitioner 2.

Further I read the section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and observed that there are 2
motions under the section.
1st both the parties file a petition for divorce proving that they have been living separately
for not less than 1 year and they have not been able to live together and they seek divorce by
mutual consent.
2nd not earlier than 6 months and not after 18 months, if they do not withdraw the divorce
petition then the court may grant them a divorce on mutual consent.

26th May Thursday

Attended the court and the office in the evening. In the office I researched for judgments on
the concept of cooling period of 6 months provided in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
matters of divorce by mutual consent. On intervening period of 6 months is mandatory or
not?
1. Priyanka Khanna v. Amit Khanna, 2012(1) JCC 155
Contention in the interest of justice, period of 6 months should be waived. Appeal granted.

2. Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia, 2012 AIR (SC) 2890

Reasons are provided for the cooling period to be there. But it was held that 1 year has
already passed living separately. So there is no reason to continue the agony for other 2
months when it is not possible for the parties to live together and discharge marital
obligations. In this case, 4 months out of 6 months had already passed, so the remaining 2
months were waived off.

3. Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, 2011(5) SCC 234

Held that, the court is bound to pass a decree of divorce as appropriate but not before a
second motion of both parties is made not before 6 months from the date of filing a petition
as required under the sub-section (1) and not later than 18 months.

4. Neeti Malviya V. Rakesh Malviya, 2010(6) SCC 413

Held that the language of sub-section (2) of section 13B is unambiguous and the court may
declare the marriage to be dissolved w.e.f. the date of decree. But still it stayed on the ground
to wait for 6 months because the statute says so.

5. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, 2010(4) SCC 393

It said that the cooling period of 6 months is given to provide an opportunity to reconcile and
withdraw petition for dissolution of marriage.

6. Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chopra, 2013(13) SCALE 142

If disputes are settled amicably and their own free will and if then the court is satisfied then
the memorandum of settlement is accepted in the interest of the parties. Court exercised its

power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and statutory period was waived off and
the decree of divorce was passed.

7. Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, 2009(10) SCC 415, Altamas Kabir
It stated that none of the courts can exercise this power to waive of the statutory obligation
but only the Supreme Court can, under the Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

27th May Friday

Attended the court and the office in the evening.

28th May Monday

Attended the court and the office in the evening. Read the matter of Rajat Shah v. Adita Shah.
It was a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(i-1) for the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The respondent never revealed before the solemnization of marriage that she suffered from a
gynaecological disease, Poly-Cystic ovaries, which made conception difficult. Petitioner
came to know about it, after 6 months of the marriage. So he filed a divorce petition.

29th May Tuesday

I learned that an appeal against a writ in known as LPA ( letters patent appeal).
It is an appeal made to high court itself on the order of the high court. That is, once an order
is passed by the high court, an appeal has to be made in the high court only, but to a higher or
a 2 seat or a division bench. And then after that an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court
of India.

30th May Thursday

Attended the court and the office in the evening.

1st June Friday

I learned that the evidences in the Delhi High Court takes place under the joint registrars.
It takes months at these courts for evidences. So to make it quick with shorter dates,
sometimes at the request of the parties, to make it faster, the court appoints a local
commissioner who conducts evidences in the exact same procedure as that of a court. This
local commissioner is authorized as a judge for that particular case and the evidences are then
made with shorter dates to dispose off the matter quicker.

2nd June Saturday

Matters in Saket court, Took a leave, was not feeling well.

3rd June Thursday

Attended the court. I also observed the matter of Rajpal Yadav. The matter was a recovery
suit, where he had taken a loan of 5 crores on the name of his wife for production of a film
and failed to repay the amount.

4th June Friday

Attended the high court and then went to the Supreme Court with a colleague to file a Caveat.

5th June Monday

Visited the court. Attended a matter where the briefing counsel was Sr. Adv. Sandeep Sethi
and he had hired Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, where I also observed the arguments of both the
counsels.

6th June Tuesday

Attended the court and the office in the evening. Read a case and made some research for
judgments on the matter.
Rakesh Passi & others v. Rajesh Passi & others
In the case plaintiff no. 1 is a doctor in United States. His wife dies in a car accident.

Plaintiff no. 2 is the sister of his wife. She takes care of him and his daughter.
To bestow gratitude P1 decides to buy a property for P2 for her benefit.
Defendant 1, brother of P1 finds a property.
P1 and P2 are busy, so they are not able to visit India. P1 decides to buy the property in the
name of D1 for the benefit of P2.
D1 turns out to be dishonest in intentions when prices goes up.
Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 2 defines property purchased in one persons name where consideration is paid by
the other person.
Section 3 prohibits such properties.
Section 4 no suit can be filed to re-claim the property,
Unless a. Hindu Undivided Family property
b. there is a fiduciary capacity and a fiduciary relationship as of a trust, trustee for benefit.
Like principal and agent.

Researched for case laws where a person buys a property in name of other person for the
benefit of third party.
Read the judgment of Marcel Martins v. M. Printer, 2012(5) SCC 342
And found a judgment of Dr. Jagdish Bansal v. Shiv Kumar Pal, delhi high court.

7th June Wednesday

Visited the court. There were no matters but some matters were lined up as Regular matters.
Observed the proceedings in different court rooms. Did a research in the court library for the
judgments of previous case and found Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, 2007(6) SCC 100
Went to the office, then the judgment of Dr. Jagdish Bansal v. Shiv Kumar pal, where there
was an appeal made to a higher bench to make amendments in the order passed by the single
judge, but the bench dismissed the appeal relying on the previous order.

8th June Thursday

I heard my mentors argument over a case STATE V/S JANAK CHOUDHRY. This case
related to the Prevention of Corruption Act
I also made a research for case laws on Sec 156(3) of CrPC.
9th June Friday
Case study: Neeraj Kumar V State Of Jharkhand. Did thecase study with him and discussed
the relevant points under the Dowry Prohibition Act by referring to the case laws Abrahim
Ajith & Others V Inspector of Police, Chennai and Bhuraram and others V state of Rajasthan.
Gone through the Negotiable Instruments Act and gone through Supreme Court JUdgements
on cases related to the same. Gone through the process to be followed when the cheque given
by a company is bounced.
Further, in the matter of Umesh Sharma v. Preeti
Earlier the court had ordered to follow the provisions accepted and mentioned in the MOU
memorandum of understanding.
But the plaintiff did not follow it and still claimed for invalid stridhan and other articles.
The defendant, here the appellant, filed a suit of criminal contempt of court as the plaintiff
did not follow the order, directions of the court. Thus amounting to criminal contempt of
court.

10th June Saturday

I learnt that in a corruption case, a person cannot file a suit by just alleging that the other
person was demanding a bribe. But first, he goes to the State Vigilance Bureau. They make a
team then they send the team with the 2nd person and make him give the bribe in front of them
to gain evidences. Also, phynophthelene powder ( P. Powder ) is put on the notes of currency
of bribe, which changes the colour of the water pink. The bribe giver puts this powder on the
notes and gives the notes to the bribe taker, this way the powder gets into the hands of both
the bribe taker and the bribe giver. This is how evidences are taken in the corruption cases.
I saw the matters being argued for bail applications. Also heard arguments on the case
HARBHAJAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA

11th June Monday

Attended the arguments for Kashish v/s Uma widowed, property dispute in family.
State v/s Dharambir property dispute
State v/s Rahul (307) juvenile and attempt to murder
Gone through the case Krishna Ram V State Of Jharkhand in which the petition was filed for
bail by the petitioner who was in the custody from 30.01.2014
In the case of Arun Khanna v. Monika Khanna
It was a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was a divorce by
mutual consent. What I learned today that when there is a mutual consent petition, there,
there are no two parties such as petitioner and the respondent. There are instead 2 petitioners
petitioner 1 and petitioner 2.

Further I read the section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and observed that there are 2
motions under the section.
1st both the parties file a petition for divorce proving that they have been living separately
for not less than 1 year and they have not been able to live together and they seek divorce by
mutual consent.
2nd not earlier than 6 months and not after 18 months, if they do not withdraw the divorce
petition then the court may grant them a divorce on mutual consent.

12th June Tuesday

Attended the environment court for the board cases. These included cases on pollution,
cutting of trees etc.
HSPCB v/s **
Dr. Sanjeev v/s Quimat Rai case on 420 of IPC. Relating to cheating.
Gone through various court rooms and heard different proceedings. Specially the writ cases.
Heard theproceeding of Ashok Jha Godda V Arvind Kumar Singh whichj was in lokayukt.
13th June Wednesday
I observed my colleagues, how they asked the judges for exemptions, for future dates. Also
listened to the session where my mentor was taking PWS in the case of State v/s Sachin. This
was a case relating to sec 376 of IPC and the person was accused of raping a 3 year old girl.
. Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia,

Reasons are provided for the cooling period to be there. But it was held that 1 year has
already passed living separately. So there is no reason to continue the agony for other 2
months when it is not possible for the parties to live together and discharge marital
obligations. In this case, 4 months out of 6 months had already passed, so the remaining 2
months were waived off.

14th June Thursday

Attended the mediation sessions. Observed the procedures of dispute solving between two
parties. These were mainly matrimonial disputes, seeking for divorce or some other solutions.
Heard different cases proceeding in high court. Accompanied sir to the civil court for the
proceeding of the case Anubha Sinha V Amit Kumar
Rakesh Passi & others v. Rajesh Passi & others
In the case plaintiff no. 1 is a doctor in United States. His wife dies in a car accident.
Plaintiff no. 2 is the sister of his wife. She takes care of him and his daughter.
To bestow gratitude P1 decides to buy a property for P2 for her benefit.
Defendant 1, brother of P1 finds a property.
P1 and P2 are busy, so they are not able to visit India. P1 decides to buy the property in the
name of D1 for the benefit of P2.
D1 turns out to be dishonest in intentions when prices goes up.
Benami Transaction (prohibition) Act, 1988
Section 2 defines property purchased in one persons name where consideration is paid by
the other person.
Section 3 prohibits such properties.
Section 4 no suit can be filed to re-claim the property,
Unless a. Hindu Undivided Family property
b. there is a fiduciary capacity and a fiduciary relationship as of a trust, trustee for benefit.
Like principal and agent.

Researched for case laws where a person buys a property in name of other person for the
benefit of third party.

It was a fruitful internship for me. I learned a lot of things, procedures and conduct of the
Delhi High Court. I hereby, assure, that I tried to be regular and consistent in my internship as
much I could.
Over all, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Rajesh Yadav (Adv.), for all the time he invested in
me. For all the concepts he cleared out to make me understand. For the support and sense of
belongingness he gave to me during this 1 month span and for his guidance.
I am thankful to Ms. Ruchira Arora (Adv.), for her guidance.
I am thankful to Mr. Samit Khosla (Adv.), for his guidance.
I am thankful to Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat (Adv.), for his guidance.

15th June Friday

I attended the court.
Further, in the matter of Umesh Sharma v. Preeti
Earlier the court had ordered to follow the provisions accepted and mentioned in the MOU
memorandum of understanding.
But the plaintiff did not follow it and still claimed for invalid stridhan and other articles.
The defendant, here the appellant, filed a suit of criminal contempt of court as the plaintiff
did not follow the order, directions of the court. Thus amounting to criminal contempt of
court.

16th June Saturday

I attended the court. Further, I observed the cross examination in the court of joint registrar in
the case of, Arati Bhargava v. Madhur Bhargava. The case was relating to the Indian Trusts
Act, 1882.
In the evening I read files at the office.

18th June Monday

Court 8:30 12:30 visited Faridabad District court.
In the case of Arun Khanna v. Monika Khanna

It was a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was a divorce by
mutual consent. What I learned today that when there is a mutual consent petition, there,
there are no two parties such as petitioner and the respondent. There are instead 2 petitioners
petitioner 1 and petitioner 2.

Further I read the section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and observed that there are 2
motions under the section.
1st both the parties file a petition for divorce proving that they have been living separately
for not less than 1 year and they have not been able to live together and they seek divorce by
mutual consent.
2nd not earlier than 6 months and not after 18 months, if they do not withdraw the divorce
petition then the court may grant them a divorce on mutual consent.

19th June Tuesday

Attended the court and the office in the evening. In the office I researched for judgments on
the concept of cooling period of 6 months provided in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
matters of divorce by mutual consent. On intervening period of 6 months is mandatory or
not?
1. Priyanka Khanna v. Amit Khanna, 2012(1) JCC 155
Contention in the interest of justice, period of 6 months should be waived. Appeal granted.

2. Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia, 2012 AIR (SC) 2890

Reasons are provided for the cooling period to be there. But it was held that 1 year has
already passed living separately. So there is no reason to continue the agony for other 2
months when it is not possible for the parties to live together and discharge marital
obligations. In this case, 4 months out of 6 months had already passed, so the remaining 2
months were waived off.

3. Neeti Malviya V. Rakesh Malviya, 2010(6) SCC 413

Held that the language of sub-section (2) of section 13B is unambiguous and the court may
declare the marriage to be dissolved w.e.f. the date of decree. But still it stayed on the ground
to wait for 6 months because the statute says so.

4. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, 2010(4) SCC 393

It said that the cooling period of 6 months is given to provide an opportunity to reconcile and
withdraw petition for dissolution of marriage.

5. Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chopra, 2013(13) SCALE 142

If disputes are settled amicably and their own free will and if then the court is satisfied then
the memorandum of settlement is accepted in the interest of the parties. Court exercised its
power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and statutory period was waived off and
the decree of divorce was passed.

6. Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, 2009(10) SCC 415, Altamas Kabir
It stated that none of the courts can exercise this power to waive of the statutory obligation
but only the Supreme Court can, under the Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

20th June Wednesday

Attended the court and the office in the evening.

21st June Thursday

Attended the court and the office in the evening. Read the matter of Rajat Shah v. Adita Shah.
It was a divorce petition u/s 13(1)(i-1) for the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The respondent never revealed before the solemnization of marriage that she suffered from a
gynaecological disease, Poly-Cystic ovaries, which made conception difficult. Petitioner
came to know about it, after 6 months of the marriage. So he filed a divorce petition.

22nd June Friday

I learned that an appeal against a writ in known as LPA ( letters patent appeal).
It is an appeal made to high court itself on the order of the high court. That is, once an order
is passed by the high court, an appeal has to be made in the high court only, but to a higher or

a 2 seat or a division bench. And then after that an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court
of India.
23rd June Saturday
Attended the mediation sessions. Observed the procedures of dispute solving between two
parties. These were mainly matrimonial disputes, seeking for divorce or some other solutions.
Heard different cases proceeding in high court. Accompanied sir to the civil court for the
proceeding of the case Anubha Sinha V Amit Kumar
Rakesh Passi & others v. Rajesh Passi & others

25th June Monday

Attended the environment court for the board cases. These included cases on pollution,
cutting of trees etc.
HSPCB v/s **
Dr. Sanjeev v/s Quimat Rai case on 420 of IPC. Relating to cheating.
Gone through various court rooms and heard different proceedings. Specially the writ cases.
Heard theproceeding of Ashok Jha Godda V Arvind Kumar Singh whichj was in lokayukt.
26th June Tuesday
I observed my colleagues, how they asked the judges for exemptions, for future dates. Also
listened to the session where my mentor was taking PWS in the case of State v/s Sachin. This
was a case relating to sec 376 of IPC and the person was accused of raping a 3 year old girl.
. Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia,
Reasons are provided for the cooling period to be there. But it was held that 1 year has
already passed living separately. So there is no reason to continue the agony for other 2
months when it is not possible for the parties to live together and discharge marital
obligations. In this case, 4 months out of 6 months had already passed, so the remaining 2
months were waived off.

27th June Wednesday

I heard my mentors argument over a case STATE V/S JANAK CHOUDHRY. This case
related to the Prevention of Corruption Act
I also made a research for case laws on Sec 156(3) of CrPC.

28th June Thursday

Visited the court. There were no matters but some matters were lined up as Regular matters.
Observed the proceedings in different court rooms. Did a research in the court library for the
judgments of previous case and found Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, 2007(6) SCC 100
Went to the office, then the judgment of Dr. Jagdish Bansal v. Shiv Kumar pal, where there
was an appeal made to a higher bench to make amendments in the order passed by the single
judge, but the bench dismissed the appeal relying on the previous order.

29th June Friday

I heard my mentors argument over a case STATE V/S JANAK CHOUDHRY. This case
related to the Prevention of Corruption Act
I also made a research for case laws on Sec 156(3) of CrPC.
30th June Saturday
Case study: Neeraj Kumar V State Of Jharkhand. Did thecase study with him and discussed
the relevant points under the Dowry Prohibition Act by referring to the case laws Abrahim
Ajith & Others V Inspector of Police, Chennai and Bhuraram and others V state of Rajasthan.
Gone through the Negotiable Instruments Act and gone through Supreme Court JUdgements
on cases related to the same. Gone through the process to be followed when the cheque given
by a company is bounced.
Further, in the matter of Umesh Sharma v. Preeti

2nd July Monday

Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chopra, 2013(13) SCALE 142
If disputes are settled amicably and their own free will and if then the court is satisfied then
the memorandum of settlement is accepted in the interest of the parties. Court exercised its
power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and statutory period was waived off and
the decree of divorce was passed.

It was a fruitful internship for me. I learned a lot of things. I hereby, assure, that
I tried to be regular and consistent in my internship as much I could.
Over all, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Shrey Yadav (Adv.), for all the time he
invested in me. For all the concepts he cleared out to make me understand. For
the support and sense of belongingness he gave to me during this time span and
for his guidance.