INTERNSHIP DIARY

LAW CENTRE II, FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. NIDHI MINZ ROHIT KUMAR
LAW CENTRE II VTH SEMESTER
FACULTY OF LAW CLASS ROLL NO.- 167042
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI EXAM ROLL NO.-162411
SECTION- F

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate ---------------------------------------------------------2A-2B
Declaration-------------------------------------------------------3
Acknowledgement-----------------------------------------------4
Daily work--------------------------------------------------------5
Legal drafting----------------------------------------------------49

Conclusion -------------------------------------------------------57

2
 DECLARATION
This declaration is made at New Delhi that, this Internship Report is prepared and
drafted by me. It contains the work that was assigned to me during this internship,
and successfully accomplished from my side.

This report is a sincere attempt at compilation of the aforementioned work. Its

submission is a partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of
Law, (LL.B) degree.

This report is the original work prepared by ROHIT KUMAR a Student of LAW
CENTER II, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, VTH
SEMESTER for the fulfilment of requirement for internal assessment under the
supervision of my teacher.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards M/s SAI

KRISHNA & ASSOCIATES (Advocates )and Mr. AJIT KR. SINGH
, (Advocate) for giving me an opportunity to enhance my skills
towards this profession with his great knowledge it was only under
their guidelines that I was able to complete my internship
successfully.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our Dean Prof. VED KUMARI
for initiating this internship project for the students of IIIrd year. We students,
who previously had just theoretical knowledge of the procedures, through this
project were exposed to the practical aspects of the laws that we studied in the
classrooms. She has supported the students all through the procedure and in
guiding them with his valuable suggestions regarding the fields to be chosen for
practical study. I hereby thank her for this opportunity that he provided to us for
practical exposure of the subjects.

I have received help and encouragement from my friends and number of people
on completing this report and would like to take this opportunity to thanks them
all.

ROHIT KUMAR
VTH SEMESTER
SECTION F
EXAM ROLL NO.- 162411
CLASS ROLL NO.- 167042

4
 DAILY WORK IN 24 DAYS
DATE -1-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURTS

DISTRICT WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

PRABHJOT KAUR Petitioner1

AND

MAKHAN SINGH Petitioner 2

PETITION UNDER SECTION 13B (1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE

ACT 1955 FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES BY A DECREE OF DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT

Brief facts of the case:

(Petitioner 2 in the present suit)

1) That the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16th August
2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies (Anand Kharij) and the
parties were Hindu (Sikh) by religion at the time of their marriage and
then continue to be so up to the date of filing of the petition.
2) That they been living separately since 09.06.2015.
3) There is no possibility of living together as husband and wife, on account
of temperamental differences.
4) The efforts for reconciliation and resolution of differences made by them
and family members have failed.

5
 5) They have resolved all their dispute pertaining to marriage including
stridhan , permanent alimony , dowry articles and maintenance without
any consideration amount.
6) That they have agreed that they will not initiate any litigation or will not
raise any claim in future against each other and against the family
members and relatives of each other.
7) The consent has not been obtained by fraud , pressure or undue influence
and they have given their consent voluntarily

COURT OBSERVATION
1) The first motion petition of 13 B(1) is allowed.
2) Counsel of Petitioner.2 has filled the vakalatnama.
3) Joint statements of both the parties have been recorded separately.
4) N.D.O.H 12/08/2018

DATE -2-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

ROHINI COURTS DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S SMART CABLES & CORDS PVT LTD. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S VIJAY LAKSHMI ELECTRONICS DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 4,30,362

Brief facts of the case:

(Plaintiff in the present suit)

6
1) The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Companies
Act and is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of
electronics like wires, cords and cables for a long period.
2) The defendant placed the order for goods and considering the orders of
defendant .
3) Plaintiff supplied the goods through various invoices to defendant on its
orders/ demands which were placed at plaintiff office and in this regard a
running account was maintained by Plaintiff Company with respect to
goods supplied to defendant.
4) That the goods supplied were duly received by defendant in good condition
and the same were duly acknowledged by the defendant.
5) That as per the account maintained by the plaintiff there is a debit balance
of Rs 4,30,362 /- in account of defendant. That in the present suit the
plaintiff has claimed Rs 2,99,383/- (principal amount) , Rs 1,30,979 /-
(Interest till date) and interest pendent – lite and future with the cost of suit.
6) That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notices and reminders
calling upon to the Defendant for the payment of goods received by it,
which was duly served upon the defendant.
7) That despite the service of legal notice and reminder upon the defendant
8) The defendant has not made the payment of the goods supplied

COURT OBSERVATION

1) The defendant is ex – parte.

2) The Ld .Proxy council took the adjournment as the Ld. Senior Counsel is
not well.
3) NDOH – 08.08.2018 for final arguments.

7
DATE -3-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURTS:

NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS :DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-

SMT. INDU KUMARI BARANWAL & ONR PETIONERS

VERSUS

SH.AKHIL KUMAR BARANWAL RESPONDENT

PETITION U/S 125 Cr.P.C FOR THE GRANT OF MAINTENANCE

ALLOWENCE TO THE PETITIONERS.

Brief facts of the case.

(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) That Petitioner no.1 got married with the Respondent on 26.11.2015 according to
Hindu Rites and Customs. The marriage was duly consummated and out of the
said wedlock, one female child/Respondent no 2 namely Adya Baranwal was
born on 24.06.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that it was the second
marriage of both petitioner and Respondent
2) .That the Respondent and his family members started harassing and tortured
physically and mentally to the Petitioner persistently soon after her marriage
which forced the Petitioner to left her matrimonial home after informing the
police on 01.02.2018 and since that day Petitioner is residing separately from the
Respondent.

8
3) Petitioner has already filed the complaint against the Respondent and his family
member in CAW Cell for the harassment, tortured, dowry demand and other
illegal acts.
4) That Respondent is a government employee and is working in Comptroller and
Audit General Of India as Assistant Audit Officer and earns about Rs 1,50.000/-
per month .
5) The Petitioners are entitled to live with the same standard, in which Respondent
is living. Respondent has no other liability to maintain.
6) That the Petitioner no.1 is a house wife and Petitioner no.2 is a minor child and
are totally dependent upon the parents of the Petitioner no.1 who are maintaining
the Petitioners.
7) That the Respondent refused to maintain the Petitioner willfully and deliberately
with the malafide intention.
8) It is prayed before the court to pass an order in favour of Petitioner and against
Respondent to pay the tune of Rs. 75,000/- per month for the expenses of day-to-
day needs to the Petitioner .
9) And also pass an order of Rs.55,000/- for litigation charges in favour of the
Petitioner and against the Respondent.

COURT OBSERVATION

1) Ld. Judge was on leave.

2) NDOH – 12/10/18

9
DATE -4-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MEGISTRATE: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH FATEH CHAND LTD COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SHRI VIJAY CHAUDHARY ACCUSED

COMPLAINY UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 142 OF

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, (AS AMENDED UP TO
DATE)

Brief facts of the case:

(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the companies

Act and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of plywood’s,
laminates, Timber & Glue e.t.c for a long period of time.
2) Rahul Bajaj is the director Authorized Representative of the complainant
company.
3) The accused placed the order for ply, boards and laminates e.t.c to the
complainant company
4) Plaintiff supplied the goods through various invoices to accused on its
orders/ demands which were placed at plaintiff office and in this regard the
invoice no.1432 for a sum of Rs 10,08,480 was issued to the accused.

10
5) The accused issued two cheques of Rs 5,00,000 each both dated
27.12.2012.
6) The said cheaques were not cashed and returned dishonoured by accused
bank for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED” and the same were return to
the complainant company.
7) That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notices and
reminders calling upon to the accused for the payment of goods received by
it, which was duly served upon the accused.
8) That despite the service of legal notice and reminder upon the defendant
9) The defendant has not made the payment of the goods supplied to it despite
the service of the legal notice nor he has replied the same
10) The accused has committed the offence u/s138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act , by issuing the above said cheques for which he is liable to
be prosecuted.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) The Ld .Proxy council took the adjournment as the Ld. Senior Counsel was
busy in another court.
2) The matter is put up for Final Arguments.
3) NDOH – 1/08/18.

11
DATE -6-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE : NORTH WEST

DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAM SARAN GUPTA PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ASHOK GUPTA DEFENDANT 1

SWATI GUPTA DEFENDANT 2

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 7, 30,000 /-

Breif facts of the case

(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) Defendant 1 represent to plaintiff that they are looking for groom for
defendant 2.
2) The meeting of Defendant 2 and elder son of Plaintiff was fixed and the
date of marriage was fixed on 12.11.16.
3) In October Rs. 5,00,000 in cash was handed over the defendant 1 for the
purchase of jewellery for defendant 2 which plaintiff decided to give at
GOD TIKA ceremony scheduled on 5.11.16. Besides that plaintiff and her
wife got purchased clothes for 1, 50,000 as per the choice of Defendant
2.The plaintiff also gifted gold set of Rs.80,000 to Defendant 2 on GOAD
TIKA.
4) On 12.11.16 when they reached at Barat Resemble point then Defendant 1
came outside the venue to Barat Resemble Point and informed plaintiff that
Defendant 2 as she was having affair with someone at Noida.
12
5) That finding no alternative, plaintiff profound grief and returned back to
their home.
6) Instead of returning the money received by them in the name of marriage ,
visited to plaintiff house with police and took plaintiff at Police station and
threatened to pay Rs 35,00,000 either in cash or cheque and if not paid then
they will falsely implicate false dowry cases.
7) The plaintiff paid Rs 4, 00,000 cash and Rs 31,00,000 through cheques was
paid to Defendant No 1 also got signature of Plaintiff and his son on blank
papers.
8) Defendant are liable to pay Rs 7, 30,000 (5, 00,000 for jewellery + 80,000
of gold set + 1,50,000 for clothes) and of has not been returned by
defendant without any reason.
9) Legal Notice was sent to defendant for the payment. Defendants have not
made said payment as demanded by said notice. Therefore Plaintiff
approached the Hon’ble Court.

COURT OBSERVATION

1) Application is moved to transfer the case to the other court where the
connected matters have been pending before the court.
2) The application is allowed by the Judge.
3) NDOH 03-08-2018.

13
DATE -7-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

SWATI GUPTA COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

VARUN GUPTA ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138,142 OF NI ACT

Brief facts of the case

(Defendant in the present suit)

1) That Sh Ram Saran Gupta father of the accused, arranged the marriage of his
elder son (elder brother of the accused) Tarun Kumar Gupta with the
complainant which was to be solemnized on 12.11.16 at “TIVOLI GRAND”
2) Tarun Kumar Gupta did not arrive at the marriage place for marriage. This
led both the parties to the Police Station Ashok Vihar.
3) That the Accused, Ram Saran Gupta and Tarun Kumar Gupta expressed
apology for the incident and agreed to make good the expenses of Rs
31,00,000 incurred by Sh Ashok Gupta.
4) Expressing inability to pay in one go, they make payment in installment
through 14 cheques.
5) The complainant presented the cheaque in her Account on their due date ,
and the 4 cheques were duly honoured.
6) But when the 5th cheque is represented on due date by the complainant , the
cheque was dishonored by the drawee bank with the reason “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”.
14
 7) Similarly other cheaque was represented on due date and it was duly
dishonored
8) The accused issued a legal notice for the payment of above two cheques and
also filed a complaint criminal complaint under section 138 of NI Act.

COURT OBSERVATION

1) Written statement has been filed by Ld. Counsel and the copy of it is
being supplied to the court and to the plaintiff.
2) On next date the matter is fixed for Plaintiff evidence.
3) NDOH 18/08/18

DATE -8-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE: NORTH WEST

DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

VARUN GUPTA COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SWATI GUPTA ACCUSED

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs 10,00,000

Brief facts of the case

(Complainant in the present suit)

1) Marriage of plaintiff and defendant has been fixed at Tivoli Grand on

12.11.16.

15
2) Roka ceremony has been fixed at “Maidens Crown” and Goad Tika on
05.11.16 at “La Mansion”.
3) On 12.11.16 the plaintiff along with family reach at Tivoli , father of
defendant came out of venue and informed father of plaintiff that defendant
has refused to solemnized the marriage with elder brother of Plaintiff.
4) Father of Defendant revealed that Defendant has affair with Kamal Gupta.
5) Finding no other alternative Plaintiff , elder brother and relatives with sorrow
returned back to their home.
6) Next Day, Defendant’s father with some relatives and police visited to the
house of Plaintiff and and took the Plaintiff and his father at Police Station
where they threatened that in case Plaintiff and his Father did not pay Rs
35,00,000 either in cash or through cheaque otherwise they will falsely
implicate some false dowry case.
7) Plaintiff paid Rs 4,00,000 cheque in cash and gave 14 cheques of Rs
31,00,000. Defendant also take sign of plaintiff on blank paper and also
mentioned that there is no liability of the plaintiff toward the defendant and
her father.
8) Plaintiff request to banker of ICIC to shop the payment of cheque which are
in possession of the Defendant. Till 31st March 2017 encashed 4 cheques of
1,50,000 in total 6,00,000.
9) The Plaintiff received the legal notice and reply of it is duty received by
Defendant and Plaintiff has also demanded 10, 00,000 which has received by
defendant and Defendant has neither returned Rs 10, 00,000 nor returned the
remaining cheaques.
10) The Plaintiff duly replied to the defendant of the legal notice on 14.06.17 and
in said reply plaintiff also demanded 10,00,000 which was received by
defendant.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Defendant was not present.
2) The matter is put for framing issue for the next date.
3) NDOH 26/07/2018

16
DATE -9-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE : NORTH WEST
DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

KAWALJIT SINGH PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NORTH MCD DEFENDANT 1

DELHI BENGALI HINDU COOP H.B.SOCIETY DEFENDANT 2

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

SH JAGDISH CHANDER MOONA DEFENDANT 3

PREIDENT OF DELLHI BENGALI HINDU COOP

THE S.H.O DEFENDANT 4

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Breif facts of the case

(Defendant 3 in the present suit)

1) That the Plaintiff has been residing property bearing H No 161 , GF ,

adjoining to park , Tagore Park.
2) One more property being H No 160 is also adjoining to the park/plot , which
is adjacent to the property of Plaintiff.
3) The Defendant No 2 is the Society , Defendant No 3 is the president of
Defendant No 2 . The present suit is filled by General Secratery of
Defendant No 2 society.
4) There is a service lane of about 8 feet width b/w the property of Plaintiff and
the Park , Tagore Park.

17
5) The Plaintiff resident of the Society informed the Plaintiff and other
residents of Tagore Park the plot has been allotted to Defendant No 160 for
the construction of community hall there.
6) Site Plan has been sanctioned to the society by the Defendant No 1 , NMCD
for the construction of community hall in the plot.
7) The Defendant No 2&3 started construction over the complete land which
was allotted to them covering 100% of allotted plot although as per site plan
Defendant No 2 sanction was granted for the part of the allotted plot.
8) They have raised illegal and unotherised construction of basement and
ground floor and it is violation of site plan.
9) The free air and sun light to the Plaintiff and other residents will be
obstructed which is legal right of every citizen.
10) Plaintiff also met SHO , Mukherjee Nagar and made written complaint to
him about the same but the SHO also gave false assurance but did not take
any action against the unotherised / illegal construction.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Counter claim was filled against the Plaintiff.
2) Arguments were heard for framing of issues.
3) Plaintiff was demanded to file the documents on the next date and to
supply the copy to the defendant.
4) NDOH 29/08/18

18
DATE -10-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJESH GUPTA PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

YOGENDER JHA DEFENDANT 1

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI DEFENDANT 2

Through its Chief Secretary,
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT 3
THE COMMISSIONER, MCD DEFENDANT 4
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT 5
Lt. GOVERNOR DEFENDANT 6

SUIT FOR DECLARATION , MANDATORY & PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

Brief facts of the case

(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) The plaintiff is running a business from the premises bearing No. F-5 ,
Udhyog Nagar , Nangloi , Delhi.
2) Due to business requirements , Plaintiff to maintain an HT (High Tension)
meter / sub station . That for running this electricity station & generator ,
Plaintiff requires to keep flammable with him 24 hours in the above
premises.

19
3) Defendant No 1 is running a tea stall . The footpath was declared as No
Squatting Zone by Supreme Court.
4) The Plaintiff has full apprehension that any day a explosion may be caused
in the premises due to running tea stall as that is not far from HT Meter.
5) Initially Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendant about the
encroachment of the government land by Defendant No 1 but they did not
take any action.
6) Finally Plaintiff wrote letter to Hon’ble President Of India and thereafter tea
stall was demolished by defendant No 3 .
7) After Removal, the wife of Defendant 1 filled a false complaint against
Plaintiff and Defendant 1 filled a false suit for permanent injunction against
the Plaintiff.
8) That the above said act and actions of Defendant 1 are absolutely illegal,
unlawful. The defendant No 6 has no right to give any permission of running
a unauthorized tea stall on government land.
9) The defendant No 2 to 4 are land owing agency, they have the duty to
protect the government land.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Chief of Defendant No 1 was recorded.
2) The matter is put up for cross examination.
3) NDOH – 10/08/18

20
DATE -13-8-2018
BEFORE THE COMPTENT AUTHORTY SLUM, TIS HAZAZRI COURTS ,
DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-

M/S DAWN REAL ESTATE PETITIONER

VERSUS

KAILASH CHAND JAIN RESPONDENT

Brief facts of the case

(Petitioner in the present case)

1) Sunil Sharma is the authorized Representative of Dawn Real Estate Pvt Ltd is a co-
owner property bearing No 3683-3689, Mori Gate

2) The said property is purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed on
08.05.2013 registered at the office of Sub Registrar No1 Kashmere Gate .

3) The Respondent is the old tenant in the property and is in the arrears of rent since
long time.

4) Notice dated 7th October to clear arrears of rent and tender the rent in future to the
petitioner was issued to the petitioner was issued to the respondent which was duly
served upon him.

5) That the prayer is made that the permission be granted under Clause (a) of Sub Section
(1) of Section 19 of Slum Areas Act 1956 permitting the owner of the said premises to
institute of a suit / petition of proceedings for obtaining a decree or order for eviction of
the aforesaid tenant from property bearing No 3683-3689, Mori Gate ,Delhi – 110006.

COURT OBSERVATION
21
1) Senior counsel was not present due to the matter listed in the High Court.

2) NDOH 30/07/18

DATE -14-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRIC & CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE :

NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS :DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-

KUSUM GUPTA PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SHALU GUPTA DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR THE PATITION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Brief facts of the case

(Plaintiff in the present case)

1) The parties of suit are related to each other as sister-in-law i.e. Defendant is the wife
of the elder brother of Plaintiff’s husband.

2) The Plaintiff & Defendant jointly purchased the suit property on 2nd December 2010
from Shri Satish Kumar by way of sale deed which was registered by sub- registrar.

3) The Plaintiff & Defendant are entitled for equal shares in the suit property i.e. 50%
each. That the Plaintiff & Defendant had let out suit property to the tenant @ Rs 7000/-
per month.

4) The Defendant is in possession of the rent agreement enacted between the parties to
the suit.

5) The Defendant is taking rent from the tenant.

22
6)That inspite of repeated requests by the Plaintiff, Defendant is not ready for partition
and has started ill treatment with the Plaintiff and has also started giving illegal threats
that she will sell the share of the Plaintiff.

COURT OBSERVATION

1) Plaintiff was not present from past dates in the court

2) Court ordered to issue Non Bailable Warrant against the plaintiff.

3) NDOH 30/08/18

23
DATE -16-8-2018
IN THE COURT HON'BLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SANJEEV GUPTA COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. ANIL MITTAL
2. ANOOP MITTAL ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 142 OF

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 (AS AMENDED UPTO DATE)
Brief facts of the case
(Complainant in the present suit)

1) That complainant and accused persons are related to each other as old friends and
accused persons asked to complainant to advance them friendly loan for a sum of Rs.
30,00,000/.

2) That complainant having regard for the request made by accused persons advanced
them a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/.

3)That believing accused persons words as true and correct complainant deposited the
said cheques with his bank, but the above said cheques issued by accused were got
bounced dishonored with the reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" and the same were
returned unpaid to complainant after few days.

4) That the complainant was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 20.03.2017
under Speed Post on the accused persons, calling upon them to make the payment of the
amount of the dishonored cheque. The above notice was duly served upon the accused
persons.
5). The said act of the accused persons has caused a great loss, damages and harm to the
complainant and the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished as 24
provided under section 138 R/W Section 142 of the N.I. Act and under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code and other provisions of Law.
COURT OBSERVATION

1) It was submitted by the counsel that Sanjeev Gupta is in U.S.A. and can’t be
presented in the Hon’able Court.

2) Exemption application was moved on his behalf.

3) NDOH 12/11/18

DATE -17-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE WEST DISTRICT:

TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:-
AMARNATH GUPTA PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SURESH GUPTA DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS,MANDATORY AND

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Breif facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) That plaintiff is an absolute owner/ Landlord of property bearing No. A-156, (First
Floor and Second Floor), Karampura, New Delhi and the same is hereinafter referred as
suit рrореrtу.

2) That the defendant is the son of the sister of the plaintiff. Mother of the defendant
approached to the plaintiff for help and asked him to permit her to live in the suit
property.

25
3) That after the demise of the mother of the defendant, defendant and His brother
requested the plaintiff to let them live in the suit property for few months till defendant
and his brother arrange the alternate accommodation for themselves.

4) The plaintiff considered the request the defendant and his brother and permitted
/licensed them to continue to live in the suit property without charging any rent

5) That the plaintiff reminded the defendant several times through personal visits
regarding vacation of the suit property but defendant refused to vacate the same.
.
6) The plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 31.03.2018 under the
provision of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which has been duly served
upon.

7) The present market rent of the suit property is Rs. 25,000/- per month. After the
termination of the rights of the defendant from the suit property vide legal notice dated
19.03.2018, plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 25,000/- per month as damages for the
unauthorized use and occupation of the defendant over the suit property.

8).The defendant has openly threatened to sub let the suit property belonging to the
plaintiff to third person.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Summons of the suit as well as notice is issued to the Defendant.
2) NDOH 10.07.2018.

26
DATE -18-8-2018

IN THE COURT HON'BLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
POONAM GUPTA COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
VIKRAM SABHARWAL ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 142 OF

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881(AS AMENDED UPTO DATE)
Brief facts of the case
(Complainant in the present suit)

1) That complainant is in trading business of Raw Fabric for a long period and thus has
earned an excellent name, reputation and goodwill in the business market.

2) That accused represented to complainant that he is well known shirt manufacturer and
requested complainant to supply him Raw Fabric so that he can use the same for shirts
manufacturing/tailoring.

3) That Complainant supplied Raw Fabric to accused on credit which was duly received
by him.

4)That towards the due discharge of part liability of the repayment, assured complainant
that the said cheques shall be encashed on its presentation.

5) That believing accused words as true and correct complainant deposited the said
cheques with his bank but the above said cheques issued by you got bounced / dishonored
with the reason “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" vide respective bank.

27
6) That the complainant was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 28.04.2016
under Courier on the accused, calling upon him to make the payment of the amount of the
dishonored cheques.

7) The said act of the accused persons has caused a great loss, damages and harm
to the complainant and the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished as
provided under section 138 Read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act and under Section 420
of Indian Penal Code and other provisions of Law.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Husband of the complainant in person.
2) Proxy Counsel for the accused was present.
3) On application exemption of accused is allowed.
4) NDOH 8/10/18

DATE -20-8-2018

IN THE COURT HON'BLE CHIEFMETROPOLITANMAGISTRATE:

TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
SANJEEV GUPTA COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
VIKRAM SABHARWAL ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 142 OF

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT (AS AMENDED UPTO DATE)
Brief facts of the case
(Complainant in the present suit)

1).That complainant is in trading business of Raw Fabric

28
2) That accused represented to complainant that he is well known shirt manufacturer and
requested complainant to supply him Raw Fabric so that he can use the same for shirts
manufacturing/tailoring.

3. That complainant having regard for the request made by accused and believing his
representations as true and correct, supplied Raw Fabric to accused on credit which was
duly received by him.

4) That towards the due discharge of part liability of the repayment, Accused issued three
cheques all dated 27.04.2016 all drawn on Bank and assured complainant that the said
cheques shall be encashed on its presentation.

5)That believing accused words as true and correct complainant deposited the said
cheques with his bank but the above said cheques issued by you got bounced/dishonored
with the reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS"

6) That the complainant was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 28.04.2016
under Courier on the accused, calling upon him to make the payment of the amount of the
dishonored cheques.

7) The said act of the accused persons has caused a great loss, damages and harm
to the complainant and the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished as
provided under section 138 Read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act and under Section 420
of Indian Penal Code and other provisions of Law.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Ld. Presiding Officer has gone for inquest proceedings.
2) NDOH 12/11/2

29
DATE -21-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA CHAUHAN: HON'BLE A.D.J.
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF
KRISHNA PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KAUSHALYA DEFENDANT 1
SUSHILA DEVI DEFENDANT 2

SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Brief facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1) That the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other. The plaintiff and defendant
no.2 are the real sisters and the defendant no.1 is the mother of the both the plaintiff and
the defendant no. 2.

2) That Shri Mohan Lal was the Chacha (uncle) of the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 2.

3) That Late Shri Mohan Lal, S/o Sh. Chunni, R/o 7/106, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi had
been the owner of the property No. C-227, situated at J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar, New
Delhi-110027.

4). He executed a will dated 28.07.1999 in respect of the property No. C-227, situated at
J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi duly registered with the Sub-Registrar-II, and
bequeathed the said property in plaintiff and defendants in equal shares of 1/3 share each.

5). That Late Sh. Mohan Lal died on 05.10.2003 and after the death of Sh. Mohan Lal, all
of the above, plaintiff and defendants became the co-owners of the said property no. C-

30
227, J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi by operation of law of equal share each in
respect of the above said property.

6) That the defendant no. 1 is residing in the aforesaid property.

7) That the plaintiff has been asking to the defendant no 1 for the partition of the said
property by metes and bounds several times but the defendant no. 1 have been avoiding
to partition the same on one pretext or the other.

8) She is refusing to partition the said property and is threatening to create a third party
interest in case plaintiff insists to get it partition.

9) That the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in the said property as per WILL executed by
Late Sh. Mohan Lal.

10) That the above said acts of the defendant no.1 not to partition the suit premises is
illegal, un warranted and without any cause of action when the plaintiff is co-owner of
1/3 share in the suit property.

11) That the plaintiff do not want to keep the suit property jointly and seek partition by
metes and bounds and hence, filing the present plaint for partition the said property.

12) That the plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 25.01.2015 upon the defendant no. 1
for partition the defendant did not give any reply to the said notice and neither partition
above said property by metes and bounds.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Ld. Presiding Officer was on leave.
2) NDOH 14.01.2019.

31
DATE -23-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M/s ZAMIL AIR CONDITIONER PRIVATE LIMITED PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S GUNEET TRADERS DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 7.67,797/- (Rs. SEVENLACS SIXTY SEVEN

THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN ONLY) BESIDES INTERST
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE WITH COSTS OFTHE SUIT
Brief facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1. That plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956
and is engaged in the manufacturing and selling for Zamil Air Conditioners for a long
period and thus has earned an excellent name, reputation and goodwill in the business
market.

2. That defendant is a authorized dealer of plaintiff and deals in Air conditioners and
other electronic products.

3.Plaintiff authorized the defendant to sell its Air Conditioner Units and thus on the
demand of the defendant supplied it the Air Conditioner Units through various invoices
and in this regard running account was maintained by plaintiff with respect to the
goods supplied to the defendant.

4. That the goods supplied to the defendants were duly received by the defendant in good
condition and the same were acknowledged by him.

32
5. That as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff, there is debit balance of Rs.
7,67,797/- (Rs. SEVEN LACS SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
NINETY SEVEN ONLY) in the account of defendant.

6. That on various occasion plaintiff requested the defendant to clear the outstanding
balances but defendant initially dilly dallying to make the payment and lastly started
giving was no response to the request of plaintiff.

7. That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 30.05.2014 under
speed post calling upon to the Defendant for the payment of good s received by him,
which was duly served upon the defendant.

8. That after receiving of the notice defendant had sent a false reply to the same hence the
defendant has failed to comply the legal notice dated 30.05.2014 i.e defendant has failed
to make the due payment to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has approached this
Hon'ble court.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Ld.Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff.
2) Ld Presiding Officer is on the half day leave.
3) NDOH 07.08.2018.

33
DATE -24-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION DISTRICT.

ROHINI COURTS DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/s ZAMIL AIR CONDITIONER PRIVATE LIMITED PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S NAJ REFRIGERATION DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 5,21.654/- (Rs. FIVE LACS TWENTY ONE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR ONLY BESIDES INTERST
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE WITH COSTS OF THE SUIT
Brief facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1. That plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956
and is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of Air Conditioners for a long period and
thus has earned an excellent name, reputation and goodwill in the business market.

2. That defendant is an authorized dealer of conditioners and other electronic products.

3.Plaintiff authorized the defendant to sell its Air Conditioner Units and thus on the
demand of the defendant supplied it the Air Conditioner Units through various invoices
and in this regard running account was maintained by plaintiff with respect to the goods
supplied to the defendant.

4. That the goods supplied to the defendants were duly received by the defendant in good
condition and the same were acknowledged by him.

34
5. That as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff, there is debit balance of Rs.
5,21,654/- (Rs. FIVE LACS TWENTY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY
FOUR ONLY) in the account of defendant.

6. That on various occasion plaintiff requested the defendant to clear the outstanding
balances but defendant initially dilly dallying to make the payment and lastly started
giving was no response to the request of plaintiff.

7. That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 31.05.2014 under
speed post calling upon to the Defendant for the payment of good s received by him,
which was duly served upon the defendant.

8.That defendant has failed to comply with the notice dated 31.05.2014 i.e defendant has
failed to make the due payment to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has approached
and therefore the plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble court.

COURT OBSERVTAION
1) Sh. Mohd. Arif is present on behalf of the defendant.
2) It is submitted by Mohd.Arif that his counsel is not well today and requests for an
adjournment.
3) Last opportunity is given to the defendant for the arguments on a application under
Order VII Rule 14 CPC.

35
DATE -25-8-2018
IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE SAKET COURTS
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/S NETWORK 4 BARTER PVT.LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR (HEAD-OPERATIONS) PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. STRANDS SALON PRIVATE LIMITED DEFENDANTS
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
2. MR.AMIT CHAWLA
HEAD BUSINESS & FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT
STRANDS SALON PRIVATE LIMITED

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 3,60,759 (Rs. THREE LACS SIXTY THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY NINE ONLY LE. RS. 3,35,90 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
AND RS. 25,169/- INTEREST AMOUNT) BESIDES INTERST PENDENTE LITE
AND FUTURE WITH COSTS OF THE SUIT)
Brief facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1). That plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956
and is engaged in the business of barter trade network enabling its clients to buy and sell
on barter.

2) Plaintiff also acts as a Clearing House and a Third Party Record Keeper of trade
transactions among its clients and thus has earned an excellent name, reputation and
goodwill in the business market.

36
3) Believing defendant's representations as true and correct plaintiff entered into an
agreement dated 18.09.2013 with defendant whereby defendant got agreed to offer its
products and services in lieu of plaintiff offered products and services.

4) That as per the agreed terms plaintiff offered to defendant, media on a specific deal
that in lieu of these services, defendant had to provide the vouchers of the outlets wherein
the services has been offered by defendant company at various outlets located at India.

5) That Defendant issued few vouchers to plaintiff which were catered by plaintiff to its
clients which were not accepted by defendant at various outlets.

6) That when plaintiff informed defendant through e-mails on 26 March, 2014 and 18
April, 2014 about the non-acceptance of defendant vouchers as well as harassment faced
by plaintiff's clients at various outlets of defendants, defendant felt sorry and

7)That as per the accounts maintained by plaintiff, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.
3,25,000/-(barter amount) payable by defendant as barter value for the goods bought and
services availed of by defendant as well as a sum of Rs.10,590/ defendant (transaction
fee) as transaction fee for the purchase orders.

8) That since the amount payable by defendant has been outstanding for a period of more
than 30 days, plaintiff was entitled to cancel/block defendant user account with
immediate effect as per clause 3.4 of the Agreement.

9). That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 01.08.2014 under
speed post calling upon to the Defendants for the payment of goods/products and services
received availed by the defendant, which was duly served upon the defendant as the same
has not been received back.

10) That after receiving of the notice defendants neither complied with the legal notice
nor replied to it. That defendants have failed to comply the legal notice dated 01.08.2014
therefore the plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble court.
COURT OBSERVATION
37
1) Defendant ex-parte.
2) Adjournment sought as witness is not available today due to ill health of his mother.
3) Last and final opportunity given failing which PE will be closed by order.
4) NDOH 20.10.2018

DATE -27-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
ANJULA GUPTA ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABL INSTRUMENT

ACT, 1881 (AS AMENDED TILI. DATE)
Brief facts of the case
(Defendant in the present suit)

1. That complainant a Company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act,
1956. The present complaint is filed by the complainant through Mr. Love Kumar. The
complainant company has authorized vide authority letter dated 17/09/2014 to file the
present complaint

2.That the complainant is a reputed finance Company and carries on the business, inter
alia of providing the loan finance, hire purchase and leasing of motor vehicles and
machinery /plant /equipment and working capital loan for the business.

3.That the M GENESIS LOCATION SERVICES PVT LTD (hereinafter referred to as

"Borrower"), approached the complainant for grant of loan, and made an application for

38
availing finance facility of Rs. 28,84,740/ for business purposes and accordingly the Loan
Agreement bearing Agreement No. 010012XX was entered.

4 Further, the borrower assured and represented to the complainant, inter alia, that it has
the financial capacity to repay the loan amount, if the same is sanctioned.

5. That the accused in his personal and individual capacity also stood as the guarantor.

6. That the accused in discharge of the liability of the aforesaid borrower issued the
following cheque in the favour of the complainant.

7.That the accused while issuing the said cheque assured the complainant that on its
presentation the same will be honored and as such the complainant presented the cheques
at its banker namely HDFC Bank

8. To the utter shock of complainant the cheque was returned back vide bank returning
memo date 11/08/2015 with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS".

9. That the complainant tried to contact the accused but the accused didn't responded and
there after the complainant got issued legal notice as per the provisions of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 through his advocate vide Dated 01/09/2015 which was sent to
make the payment of the cheques amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.

10. That the said notice was duly served upon accused on 07/09/2015. Despite having
the knowledge of the notice the accused failed to make the payment within 15 days which
the accused legally bound to make the payment, hence the complainant has no other
option but to file the present complaint.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Ld.Counsel for accuse has moved an application for exemption from personal
appearance on behalf of the accused
2) Application U/S 145(2) moved. Copy supplied.
3) The application is allowed. Put up for cross examination of complainant on 02.11.2018
39
DATE -28-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS

DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S OPTIONS MEDIA SOLUTION PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S NETWORK 4 BARTER PVT LTD DEFENDANT

SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF THE C.P.C
FOR THE RECOVERY OF RUPEES 2,97,504( RUPEES TWO LAKHS NINETY
SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FOUR RUPEES ONLY).
Brief facts of the case
(Defendant in the present suit)

1).That the plaintiff is the proprietor of the firm in the name and style of M/S Options
media Solutions, and is engaged in the business of digital marketing and advertising

2) That the plaintiff issued the invoice dated 31-05-2615 vide invoice No. 014/2015/16
for the display of advertisements en metro panel of the Mayur Vihar Ph-1. Laxmi Nagar
and Nirman Vihar metro stations and the billing amount was Rs.1,11,571

3) That on 31-05-2015 another invoice was issued by the plaintiff vide invoice No.
016/2015-16 for the display of advertisement on metro panel of Anand Vihar and HUDA
City Centre metro stations and the billing amount was Rs. 22,363

4) That on 30-06-2015 another invoice was issued by the plaintiff vide invoice No.
022/2015-16 for the display of advertisement on metro panel of Noida Sector-18, Karol
Bagh, Rajouri Garden. M. G. Road, Laxmi Nagar, Nirman Vilar and Anand Vihar metro
stations and the billing amount was Rs. 1,28,550

40
5) That on 15-12-2015 another invoice was issued by the plaintiff' vide invoice No.
052/2015-16 for the display of advertisement on metropanel of Noida Sector-18 Metro
Station and the billing amount was Rs 37,021.

6) That the total amount of the invoice is Rs. 2,97,504 (RUPEES TWO LAKH NINETY
SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FOUR ONLY) is yet to be recovered
from the defendants.

7) That despite duly issuing and accepting the invoices and the invoices are annexed with
the suit, the defendants are deliberately delaying the payment in order to harass the
plaintiff.

8)That the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,97.504 Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Seven
Thousand Five Hundred And Four Only) under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and is instituted
within the imitation period prescribed under the law.

COURT OBSERVATION
1)Ld.Presiding officer was on leave.
2)NDOH 06/08/2018

41
DATE -29-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

NEWDELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M/S INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
MADHUR GUPTA
GENESIS LOCATION SERVICES PVT LTD ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

ACT, 1881 (AS AMENDED TILL DATE)
Brief facts of the case
(Accused in the present suit)

1) That complainant a Company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act,
1956. The present complaint is filed by the complainant through Mr. Love Kumar. The
complainant company has authorized vide authority letter dated 17/09/2014 to file the
present complaint

2)That the complainant is a reputed finance Company and carries on the business, inter
alia of providing the loan finance, hire purchase and leasing of motor vehicles and
machinery /plant /equipment and working capital loan for the business.

3)That the M GENESIS LOCATION SERVICES PVT LTD (hereinafter referred to as

"Borrower"), approached the complainant for grant of loan, and made an application for
availing finance facility of Rs. 28,84,740/ for business purposes and accordingly the Loan
Agreement bearing Agreement No. 010012XX was entered.

42
4)Further, the borrower assured and represented to the complainant, inter alia, that it has
the financial capacity to repay the loan amount, if the same is sanctioned.

5) That the accused in his personal and individual capacity also stood as the guarantor.

6) That the accused in discharge of the liability of the aforesaid borrower issued the
following cheque in the favour of the complainant.

7)That the accused while issuing the said cheque assured the complainant that on its
presentation the same will be honoured and as such the complainant presented the
cheques at its banker namely HDFC Bank

8) To the utter shock of complainant the cheaque was returned back vide bank returning
memo date 11/08/2015 with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS".

9) That the complainant tried to contact the accused but the accused didn't responded and
there after the complainant got issued legal notice as per the provisions of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 through his advocate vide Dated 01/09/2015 which was sent to
make the payment of the cheques amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.

10) That the said notice was duly served upon accused on 07/09/2015. Despite having
the knowledge of the notice the accused failed to make the payment within 15 days which
the accused legally bound to make the payment, hence the complainant has no other
option but to file the present complaint.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Ld.Counsel for accuse has moved an application for exemption from personal
appearance on behalf of the accused
2) Application U/S 145(2) moved. Copy supplied.
3) The application is allowed. Put up for cross examination of complainant on
02.11.2018.

43
DATE -30-8-2018

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S ZAMIL AIR CONDITIONERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
SHRI LALAN KUMAR JHA PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
YAMAN SATIJA
PROP. OF BABAJEE ENTERPRISES, DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 37.97,365.72 BESIDES INTERST PENDENTE

LITE AND FUTURE WITH COSTS OF THE SUIT
Brief facts of the case
(Plaintiff in the present suit)

1)That plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956
and is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of Air Conditioners for a long period.

2)That defendant after coming to know about the name, reputation and goodwill of the
plaintiff had made representations to the plaintiff that he wanted to act as authorized
dealer of plaintiff and considering the said representation.

3)Plaintiff authorized the defendant to sell its Air Conditioner Units and thus on the
demand of the defendant supplied it the Air Conditioner Units through various invoices
and in this regard a running account was maintained by plaintiff with respect to the goods
supplied to the defendant.

4) That the goods supplied to the defendants were duly received by the defendant in good
condition and the same were acknowledged by him.

44
5).That towards the due discharge of part liability of goods supply to defendant;
defendant had issued one cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 31.08.2013 drawn on Punjab
National Bank, which was bounced/ dishonored by defendant Bank with the reason
"Exceeds Arrangement".

6) That defendant issued another cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- dated 01.10.2013 again
drawn on above said bank but the said cheque was also dishonored by defendant bank
with reason "Effects not Cleared".
.
7) That thereafter a notice dated 08.10.2013 was issued to defendant which was duly
served upon him. That it is pertinent to mention here that on the said date there was a
debit balance of Rs. 75, 78,502.16/- in the running account of defendant, which is
maintain by the plaintiff.

8)That after receiving of the notice defendant made the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and
requested to plaintiff for some more time to clear the remaining balance of Rs.
72,78,502.16/- That defendant also issued letter dated 21.11.2013 to plaintiff and assured
that defendant shall clear the outstanding amount of Rs.72,78,502.16/- by 31.01.2014.

9). That in the Month of April, 2014, there was debit balance of Rs. 44,78,502.16/- in the
running account of defendant; maintained by the plaintiff.

10). That the plaintiff was thus constrained to issue a legal notice dated 16.04.2014 under
speed post calling upon to the Defendant for the payment of goods received by him,
which was duly served upon the defendant.

11) That defendant his failed to comply the legal notice dated16.08.2014 i.e. defendant
has failed to make the due payment to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has
approached this Hon'ble court.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Defendant requested to refer the matter to mediation.
2) The Court ordered to settle the dispute through mediation.
45
DATE -31-8-2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS,

DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :-
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT
VERSUS
YOGENDER JHA RESPONDENT 1
RAJESH GUPTA RESPONDENT 2
PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT 3

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI

RULES 1 & 2 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF NORTH
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED
02.11.2017 IN SUIT NO.11266/16 PASSED BY COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER (WEST)/DELHI,THEREBY DECREEING THE
SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM
DEMOLISHING THE TEA STALL THE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT FOLLOWING
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Brief facts of the case
(Respondent 2 in the present suit)

1) That the appellant, North Delhi Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by Judgment dated
02.11.2017 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in Suit No. 11266/16.

2) By way of the impugned judgment, the td. Additional senior Civil Judge passed a
decree in favour of respondent No.1 and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and
restraining the defendants from demolishing the tea stall of the plaintiff at main Rohtak
Road service lane in front of F-5, Udyog Nagar, Delhi without following due process of
law.

46
3) Respondent No. 2 is Public Works Department, under whose jurisdiction, the road on
Which the tea stall of the plaintiff is located.

4). That respondent no.1 states that the suit property i.e. Tea stall on footpath opp. F-5
Udyog Nagar,Nangloi, Delhi-110041, is a Government land and PWD officials /
respondent No.1 in collusion with the respondent No.3 tried to demolish the tea stall
at the suit property on 20.07.2010.

5)He has stated that respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property. Thus,
he has sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from removing his
tea stall at main Rohtak Road, service lane in front of F-5, Udyog Nagar, Delhi

6). That by the impugned judgment, the Ld. Senior Civil Judge thereby decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff and restraining the defendants from demolishing the tea stall of the
plaintiff at main Rohtak Road,service lane in front of F-5, Udyog Nagar, Delhi without
following due process of law.

7)The Ld. Senior Civil Judge completely ignored the evidence on record and erred in
passing a decree in favor of respondents 1 completely ignoring the fact that The plaintiff
i.e. respondent No. 1 herein is an encroacher on the government Land.

8) By way of the said encroachment he has occupied the whole foot path of National
Highway due to which great difficulty is being caused to the pedestrians.

9) Further the respondent No.1 is squatting in non squatting zone and the encroachment
does not attract the provisions of street vending Act.

10)Further that the respondent No. 1 is not eligible under the TehzDazari scheme.

COURT OBSERVATION
1) Proxy counsel for Respondent no-2 submits that review application is pending in the
Court of Sh.Rajinder Singh , Ld SCJ
47
2) Respondent No.1 seeks adjournment on the ground that his Counsel is not availablr
today.
3) The matter is put up for Final Arguments on next date.
4) NDOH 22.09.2018

48
 LEGAL DOCUMENTS DRAFTED DURING
THE INTERNSHIP
IN THE COURT OF _____________ AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Lt. X_____S/o Y ........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. Shanti Devi …...DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 500, INDIAN PENAL CODE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Plaintiff is serving in the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers of the Indian
Army as a Lieutenant Colonel in his present posting. He enjoys a reputation of unblemished integrity
and honest throughout his professional career till date. In recognition of his services to the Country
the Plaintiff was awarded a special commendation from the Chief of Army Staff in the year 2014. It
will not be out of place to mention here that considering ability and integrity, the Plaintiff is due to
appear for the promotion board shortly.

2. That the Defendant No. 1 is well acquainted with the Petitioner through common friends since
2003 as the wife of Defendant No. 2 who was also enrolled with the
Petitioner during Degree Engineering Course. It is a matter of fact that since the inception of
marriage between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 there were frequent fights which often lead
to physical abuse as well. It was during this difficult period in the life of Defendant No. 1 that the
Petitioner along with his wife sympathised with Defendant No. 1’s difficulty. However, the frequent
fights led to divorce between the two Defendants. It was during this time that the Petitioner under the
instruction and company of his wife decided to provide mental and moral support to Defendant No.

3. That during this period the Defendant No. 1 had approached the Petitioner and his wife to help the
Defendant No. 1 financially. In view of the fact that the Defendant No. 1 being a single mother with
a young child, the Petitioner’s wife never shirked from her duty as a friend and provided her
immense emotional and moral strength after the said divorce. During this period, the Defendant No.
1 had urged Petitioner’s wife to accompany her to several places under various personal grounds but
49
due to prior commitments had requested her husband i.e. the Petitioner to accompany the Defendant
No. 1, who in good faith and as a sincere sympathiser agreed to accompany the said Defendant only
pursuant to his wife’s instruction. It is without saying during all this while, the Petitioner was
absolutely unaware of the Defendants sinister plans to defame and malign the reputation of the
Petitioner.

4. That the Defendant No. 1 under a figment of her imagination took up a fancy for the Petitioner and
made it known to the Petitioner that she wanted to marry him which could be accomplished only if
the Petitioner divorced his legally wedded wife.

5. That the Petitioner was shocked at such treaties and unacceptable exhortations by Defendant No.
1, to which the Petitioner raised serious objection and refused to any of the frivolous demands made
by the Defendants. On such refusal and objection, the Defendants threatened the Petitioner with dire
consequence and threatened to ruin and damage his reputation by implicating his name in sexual
harassment case. The Defendant No. 1 also made an illegal demand of Rs. 20, 00, 000/-(Rupees
Twenty Lakhs) from the Plaintiff.

6. That under these circumstances, the Petitioner and his wife discontinued any social contact or
interactions to protect their family and their marriage. It is apparent that the Defendant No. 1 post this
incident was determined to hurt, and harm the public image and reputation of the Petitioner as well as
his professional career.

7. That sometime in the first week of February, 2016 the Defendant No. 1 along with her Husband
i.e. Defendant No. 2, circulated an audio recording on social media and Whatsapp to the Petitioner’s
colleague and common friends containing certain disparaging and damaging statements against the
Petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention here that this was never accidental but an evil
conspiracy to lower the Petitioner’s prestige. A true copy of the recordings has been annexed
herewith as Annexure 1.

8. That it is a matter of fact that even after the purported divorce the Defendant No. 1 has been in
constant touch with her former husband i.e. Defendant No. 2 and hence,

50
have been plotting schemes to malign the Petitioner and create impediments in his professional and
personal life.

9. That the said audio recording was circulated to extract money from the Petitioner as both the
Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 are aware of the Petitioner’s social setup. The Defendant No. 1
had also made such defamatory speech public amongst his colleagues and friends knowing very well
that the Petitioner is due for promotion.

10. That it will not be out of place to mention here that the Defendants’ sinister conspiracy
endeavoured to lower the Petitioner’s prestige in the eyes of the colleagues and friends in the Indian
Army and neighbourhood by falsely projecting him as a man of poor character and have given all
members of society/community an opportunity to raise an eye/ object on the Petitioner’s reputation
and public image. Thus the acts of the Defendants have caused the Petitioner’s character
assassination and said false statements have tarnished the good name of the Petitioner.

11. That it seems that the Defendants deliberately and knowingly with a malafide intention to
attack/tarnish the image of the Plaintiff made the said frivolous and vexatious recordings circulated
publically with some ulterior motive and malice while knowing it to be false.

12. That the Defendants have made false and baseless allegations/imputation and gestures in public
only with an intent to defame the Petitioner and hurt his integrity therein causing great mental,
social, spiritual, and professional loss to the Petitioner for which the Defendants are responsible and
liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff.

13. That for the reasons disclosed above and for the words, representations, imputations and gestures
made and imputed/gestures by both the Defendants in public, they are responsible for hurting,
blackmailing and harming the Petitioner’s reputation. Thus, the Defendants are liable to be
prosecuted and punished for the offence of defamation with imminent legal action.

14. The persistent conduct of the defendant in the past allows the reasonable apprehension that they
shall continue dispatching tarnishing messages to all and sundry to humiliate and bring further odium
to the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances that the urgent intervention of this Hon’ble Court is
implored.
51
15. That the cause of action arose on 16.01.2016 when the Defendant No. 1 proposed the Plaintiff for
marriage. The cause of action arose in February, 2016 when the defendants circulated audio
recordings on Whatsapp to the Petitioner’s colleague and common friends containing certain
disparaging and damaging statements against the Petitioner thereby causing immense damage to the
reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs and lowered their image in the eyes of the recipients of the
impugned e-mail and numerous others. The cause of action further arose on demanding payment of
Rs. 20, 00, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the plaintiff with the intention to extort money from
the Plaintiff. The cause of action thus is continuing and subsisting.

16. That for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and / or relief of damages the Suit is valued at Rs.
20,00,100/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Hundred Only), on which the ad-valorem court fees of Rs.
80,004/- (Eighty Thousand Four Only) is affixed. For the relief of permanent injunction, the relief is
valued at Rs 5000/- on which the court fees of Rs. 500/- is affixed. Thus, a total court fee of Rs.
83000/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Only) has been affixed. This Hon’ble Court has the
pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present plaint. Any further court fees payable in
respect of any punitive damages awarded shall be paid as required.

17. That the Plaintiff and the Defendants have a place of permanent residence in New Delhi. The
plaintiffs and a number of the other recipients of the impugned audio recordings dated February,
2016 are located in Delhi, thus the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff is, amongst other places,
severely affected in Delhi. The Plaintiff and the Defendants both have their place of work in Delhi. A
significant part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.

18. That the suit is within the period of limitation as provided for by the Limitation Act. That no
other or similar proceeding is filed or pending before any other Court and the Plaintiff have no
efficacious remedy but the instant Suit. The Plaintiff reserves the right to present such additional
facts, documents and grounds as may come to their knowledge or possession hereafter.

19. That the instant petition is in the interest of justice and bona fide.

52
 PRAYER
NOW WHEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:-
a) Pass an order directing the Defendants to publish an unconditional apology in any two of the
National Daily Newspapers both in Delhi and Kolkata;

b) Pass an order directing the Defendants to give an unconditional apology through social media by
circulating the said message on WhatsApp, Facebook and any other social media site to the
Petitioner, his colleague and common friends;

c) Pass a decree/ order/ direction thereby awarding damages of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs)
against the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff towards loss of reputation and goodwill and donate the
same to the Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Connaught Place for the obnoxious acts done by the
Defendants;

d) Pass a decree / order / direction thereby awarding punitive damages against the defendant in
favour of the plaintiffs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, and / or;

e) Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff, and / or;

f) Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/s.

53
 VERIFICATION
It is verified at ……….. on this the ……. day of …………, 2017 that the contents of paragraphs
………….to ………….of the plaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge as well as based
on information derived from the records of the Plaintiff maintained in the ordinary course of business
and what is stated in paragraphs …… to ……..is based upon information received and believed to be
true by us. Paragraph ……. is the prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
PLAINTIFF
FILED THROUGH

54
 IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(DIST.WEST) TIS HAJARI COURT, DELHI.
BAIL APLICATION NO._______ OF 2017.
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE
Vs.
X ___ D/o____
FIR NO.________
U/S____________
P.S____________
APPLIICATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL, UNDER SECTION 437 OF CR.P.C.
The accused above named most respectfully showeth:
1. That the accused above name was arrested by the police on 20th of December 2016 and is in
judicial custody since then .it is alleged that on 20th December 2016.

2. The accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has nothing to do with the
alleged offence

3. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts stated in the FIR are
fabricated, concocted and without any basis.

4. That the applicant is not required in any kind of investigation nor any kind of custodial
interrogation is required, nor is any recovery to be made at the instance of the applicant.

5. That the applicant undertakes that he will not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

6. That the applicant is a permanent resident and there are no chances of his absconding from the
course of justice.
7. That the applicant undertakes to present himself before the police/court as and when directed.

8. That the petitioner has not filed any petition for the grant of bail previously in any Court.

55
9. That the petitioner shall abide by any condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

10. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail on terms
and conditions this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

New Delhi.
Dated_______
APPLICANT
THROUGH ADVOCATE

56
 CONCLUSION
To conclude the report, I would say that this internship experience was a great teacher for me and
also was an amazing learning experience. Though the strike did put a break on the entire learning
process, it did form a part of my internship experience.
It opened up the curtain between academic knowledge and its application in real life. It gave me a
taste of what I am going to do in my future. I felt privileged to be a part of the legal fraternity and I
was also lucky to have interned with Mr. DIBYAPRASHANT SINGH (CLC). From his, I not only
got to learn the quirks of the legal profession as a lawyer but I also got to know the importance of
having a wide social base and the importance of networking.
One thing that will always stay with me is to be a successful and a passionate litigator, one needs to
love the heavy case files and the voluminous books and love to be surrounded by them and feel awed
by them.
All in all, the internship experience was fascinating as well as satisfying. It was an enriching 8 weeks
which certainly made me think in a different way about various problems one sees in his life. I am
eagerly waiting to be able to do another internship soon.

****************

57