Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
(SIXTH SEMESTER)
SUBMITTED BY:-
ANURAG TRIPATHI
153035
SESSION: 2014-2017
This declaration is made on this ____ day of APRIL 2017 at Delhi that this internship report
has been prepared and drafted by me under the supervision of Mr.Y.P. SINGH, Advocate at
Delhi High Court, Chamber no.702 lawyer's chamber block, Dwarka court, sec-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi. It contains the work accomplished by me which was assigned to me during
internship. This work was done in respect of the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
award of degree of LL.B. This has not been submitted either in whole or in part to any other
Law University or affiliated Institute under University, recognized by the Bar Council of
India for the award of any law degree or diploma within the territories of India.
At the outset, I would like to thank God for his blessings and benevolently granting me
vigour and audacity to complete my internship successfully.
This is to express gratitude towards a person who guided and motivated me throughout my
internship period. It gives me immense pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness and deep
sense of gratitude and respect to Mr. Y.P. SINGH, Advocate at Delhi High Court, Chamber
no.702 lawyer's chamber block, Dwarka court, sec-10,dwarka, New Delhi ,without whose
constant guidance, this internship would have not been possible. I am thankful to him for his
invaluable teachings, guidance, advice given to me, for helping me in exploring and
understanding the legal drafting preparation for cases and research methodology better.
The document attached herein are the true copy of the certificate received by me in lieu of the
work undertaken during the course of my internship and the drafts prepared by me for the
drafting purposes.
The classroom study and practical training in the field of law is considered as two sides of
coin. The legal profession is one of the professions which are considered incomplete without
the practical training. During our five year course, we are taught both substantive as well as
procedural laws but in order to understand their real application, it becomes very essential to
understand the court proceedings and drafting for the purpose of submissions in the Hon’ble
courts. Theoretical knowledge is not complete without practical experience. Practicing in
court, only for a few months can make you learn more than your entire five year span of the
college, practically.
Internship period is a phase which provides a golden opportunity to a law student, before his
graduation, to work in the Courts for understanding the functioning and proceeding of the
Court and the most importantly, it helps in better understanding of the pleading before the
Hon’ble courts. It is due to these reasons, internship is considered as incorporated as part of
the curriculum and is given such significance.
I got an opportunity to associate myself and work under the guidance of Mr.Y.P. SINGH,
Advocate at Delhi High Court for the span of almost 2 months. During that period, I learnt a
lot about the art of Drafting, Presentation of Pleadings and the Research on different aspects
of law and the challenging propositions that he asked me to undertake.
This internship period was of valuable work experience to start my legal career and helped
me to develop necessary understanding of this field and its future prospect. The experience
taught me how the written laws are applied in the real world. It also showed me the minute
details of the drafting and pleadings which are either not mentioned or overlooked. Following
pages show the range, variety and versatility of work that I have done during my Internship
period.
INTERNSHIP REPORT FROM 1ST OF FEBRUARY, 2017 TILL 20TH OF MARCH,
2017
FEBRUARY 2017
• Was assigned research on the topic: Can a person posing as an advocate, be punished
under the Advocates Act, if not, then under what law can he be punished?
• Was assigned to assist the fellow to draft an affidavit for change of name of the
product
• Was assigned to make an application of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of criminal
procedure code 1973.
• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of Shaan Singh vs. Sarabjit Singh.
• Case No.: Suit No. 2048/2012
• Facts: The present suit was filed by a minor through his mother, against his
father and other family members of the father, claiming partition of properties,
rendition of account, mesne profits, permanent injunction etc.
• Judge Name: HMJ Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
• Court: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
• Next Date: Disposed off as suit withdrawn
5th February, 2017 (Sun.)
• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of India Poly Roads Pvt. Ltd. vs. India
Polymer Pavement
• Case No.: OMP No. 453/2012
• Judge Name: HMJ Manmohan Singh
• Court: Court No. 21, Delhi High Court
• Next Date: 27th February, 2017
• Proceedings: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one week time to file
the rejoinder. Let the same be filed within a week. List on 27th February,
2017.
• Was assigned the task to make an application under order XIII Rule 9(1) of C.P.C.
• Was assigned the task of summing up the e-mail communications made with a client
pertaining to a suit to be filed in UAE.
• Assigned the task of writing a speech on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in
India.
• Was assigned the task to draft a Contempt petition as the Respondents in the matter
titled M/s Actia India Ltd. vs. H.K.A. Agencies had disregarded the settlement
recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• Was assigned the task to draft a revival of execution petition in the Delhi High Court,
as the Respondents in the matter titled M/s Actia India Ltd. vs. H.K.A. Agencies had
disregarded the settlement recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• Was assigned the task to research on case laws relating to requirement of filing a
layout plan of the land under Order VII Rule 3 of C.P.C., in cases of encroachment.
• Continued the research for case laws on grounds for quashing of F.I.R.
• Had taken leave due to a minor accident and consequent knee injury
• Was assigned the task to prepare details of litigation handled by the firm for Sima
Tectubi.
• Was assigned the task to vet and edit a suit which was required to be filed in the
subsequent week.
• Was assigned the task to research on the requirements for Assignment of Debt In
Hong Kong
• Continued the process of drafting the reply in the matter titled as M/s Lerros Fashion
vs. M.R.L. Retail Private Ltd.
• Was assigned the task to research on the liability of a non-executive and non-resident
director, to pay tax under ‘West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Calling and
Employments Act, 1979
• Was assigned the task to brief to be submitted in Court in the matter titled Ashok
Jaipuria vs. Pragya Electronics
ITERNSHIP REPORT FROM 1ST OF MARCH, 2017 TILL 20th OF MARCH, 2017
MARCH, 2017
• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of Arun Kapur vs. Vikram Kapur
• Case No.: FAO 57/2002
• Judge Name: HMJ V.K. Shali
• Court: Court No. 25, Delhi High Court
• Next Date: 17th May, 2017
• Continued the task of Briefing the matter titled Ashok Jaipuria vs. Pragya Electronics
• Completed the task of research on the liability of a non-executive and non-resident
director, to pay tax under ‘West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Calling and
Employments Act, 1979’
• Completed the task of Briefing the matter titled Ashok Jaipuria vs. Pragya Electronics
• Was assigned the task to re examine a reply to application filed under section 151
CPC in the matter titled as M/s Lerros Fashion vs. M.R.L. Retail Private Ltd.
• Was assigned the task to draft a Writ Petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 54/2012
under section 482 in the matter titled Sarabjit Singh vs. State.
• Was assigned the task to research on the requirements for creation of a public trust, if
any, under the Indian Trust, 1882 and its management, registration, and any related
statutory requirements.
• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of Girish Kapur and Ors. Vs. Arun Kapur
• Case No.: CS(OS) 430/2004
• Judge Name: HMJ. Hima Kohli
• Court: Court No. 22, Delhi High Court
• Next Date: 8th May, 2017
• Proceedings: It was submitted that the Defendant has expired on 7/2/13 and
the Counsel for Plaintiffs No. 1 to No. 4 seek permission of the Hon’ble Court
to take necessary steps to file an appropriate application to bring on record his
legal heirs. Matter listed on 8th May, 2013 before the Joint Registrar for
further proceedings.
• Continued the task of research on the requirements for creation of a public trust, if
any, under the Indian Trust, 1882 and its management, registration, and any related
statutory requirements.
• Was assigned the task to draft an evidence by way of an affidavit for the matter titled
M/s Actia India vs. H.K.A. Agencies
• Was assigned the task to research on the topic “What constitutes a publication of an
artwork under the Copyright Act, 1957”, pertaining to a specific issue at hand in a
related matter.
10th March, 2017 (Fri.)
• Was assigned the task to research on the topic of renewal of lapsed patent due to non-
payment of fee, under the Patents Act, 1970
• Continued the task to research on the topic “What constitutes a publication of an
artwork under the Copyright Act, 1957”, pertaining to a specific issue at hand in a
related matter.
No Listed Matters & No work assigned as the office was closed for the day due to renovation
• given a task to draft an applicatioin for the notice of dishonouring of cheque dated
10th march 2017.
• Was assigned the task to research on case laws relating to requirement of filing a
layout plan of the land under Order VII Rule 3 of C.P.C., in cases of encroachment.
• Was assigned the task to research and prepare a jurisdiction and court fee comment
pertaining to matter of which a suit was to be subsequently filed.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Versus
THE STATE
NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi …….Respondent
• That the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of one Sh. Ravinder
Kumar, S/o PuttilalKanojia wherein it was falsely alleged that the applicant
slapped and also had beaten the complainant.
• That the entire controversy involved in the FIR in question relates to one
Yamaha showroom, situated at RZ-6, PulPrahladpur, M.B. Road, New Delhi.
As a matter of fact, the Applicant herein is a sole proprietor of the firm M/s
Adarsh Yamaha and which holds an agency agreement with India Yamaha
Motor Private Ltd. for the sale of motorcycles. A letter dated 30.7.2015
issued by the said company in favour of the applicant.
That the property in question, where the dealership showroom was opened by
the applicant, is actually owned by one Sh. Inder Kumar Aroras/o Sh. KR
Arorawho entered into a lease agreement dated 10.8.2015 with the applicant.
Subsequently, under some arrangements, Sh. Inder Kumar Arora persuaded the
applicant to allow him to manage the business operations from the said
showroom. The complainant has been working as an associate with Sh. Inder
Kumar Arora.
• That for some time, there has been some misunderstanding regarding the
business operations from the said showroom between the applicant and
Sh. Inder Kumar Arora and it was being contemplated that either the
Letter of Intent/agency be transferred in favour of
Sh. Inder Kumar Arora or the applicant should vacate the premises. It is
only in this regard, that the FIR in question was got registered against the
applicant with a view to pressurize him so that the applicant may concede
to the demand of Sh. Inder Kumar Arora and his associate Sh. Ravinder
Kumar, the complainant herein.
• That even if it is assumed that there were some disputes between the
parties the same were only civil disputes and an attempt has been made to
give a colour of criminality by concoction for oblique motives. Even
otherwise the delay in lodging the FIR is also not explained.
• That the perusal of the FIR shows that the complaint in question is a proxy
complaint given by Sh. Ravinder Kumar at the behest of
Sh. Inder K. Arora. The allegations made in the FIR in question do not
constitute the commission of any offence much short of the offences
alleged therein.
• That after registration of the FIR, Sh. Inder Kumar Arora and the
complainant pressurized the applicant to agree for an amicable out of the
court settlement and parties are contemplating to settle the matter. The
applicant has agreed to remove his business operations from the premises
in question. It is also learnt that the complainant has already intimated to
the police that he wants no action on the FIR in question.
• That the applicant has nothing to do with the present FIR which is false
and fabricated. Moreover, the offence u/s 452 of IPC is not made out even
taking all the allegations made in the FIR in question on their face value.
The FIR in question has been registered on bald allegations.
• That Section 452 of IPC, a non-bailable offence was mentioned in the FIR in
question only as a pressure tactics. The applicant can possibly be harassed
and humiliated at the instance of the complainant as it is apprehended that
he may be illegally arrested in the present FIR.
• That the present application is being filed most bona-fide and in the
interest of justice.
PRAYER
• in the event of his arrest in the FIR No. 21/2017, U/s 452/323/506 of
IPC registered at PS: Pul Prehlad Pur, Delhi Police, he be ordered to be
on bail on such terms and conditions as are deemed fit and proper by
this Hon’ble Court; and
APPLICANT
Through
Y.P.Singh
Advocates for the Applicant
Ch. No.702, Dwarka court,
New Delhi
NEW DELHI
25.01.2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN
Versus
• That the Petitioner had filed the above captioned petition challenging the judgment
dated 11th January, 2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
• On March 4,2009 an award was passed in favour of the Petitioner wherein the
“In total Rs. 2,52,79,787/- was awarded (comprising of principal sum of Rs.
2,30,43,558.72/- and interest upto the date of filing of the claim amounting to Rs.
12,36,228.68/- and the cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs) with interest on principal amount @
execution and enforcement of the award dated March 4, 2009 and filed an
Execution Petition no. 241 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
• The Respondents in the said execution raised the plea that the execution petition
was not maintainable before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as “the branch
concerned falls within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court,” wherein the
Respondents have filed application being Arbitration O.P. No. 744 of 2009
challenging the award and where under the District Court, Ernakulam has passed
pending before the District court Ernakulam and also filed an application being
I.A No. 104 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC interalia on the ground that since
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi a petition under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being OMP No. 655 of 2008 praying for the
restraint order with respect to the bank account of HKA and ors(Respondents),
particulars of which were given in the said petition under reference. The
Respondents had entered appearance and also filed their reply. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide its order dated April 2, 2009 passed the order
for attaching the amount lying deposited in the said bank account of the
Respondents with specific direction that the same shall not be disbursed and
disturbed till further orders and without the leave of the court. In view thereof, in
accordance with section 42 of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had
the act to the exclusion of all other courts including the court at Ernakulam.
• In view of the pendency of proceedings before Kerala District Court, the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court adjourned the execution Petition sine die with liberty to the
parties to revive the same as & when the occasion therefore arises.
• The Petitioner’s application being I.A No. 104 of 2010 before the Ld. District
account of section 42 of the Act, was allowed on 10.12.2010 and the Respondents’
• That the Respondents still took their chances and challenged the said order of
District Judge before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court, which
ultimately vide its order dated January 11,2011 dismissed their appeal; however,
despite the said dismissal, the Division Bench in para 18 of the said judgment of
January 11,2011 passed the direction permitting the Respondents to prefer section
• Aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench Kerala High court, the
• In the SLP this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated July 6,2011 stayed the
proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the section 34 petition of the
Judgement Debtors being OMP no. 173 of 2011. Here to annexed and marked as
ANNEXURE ______ is the copy of the said order dated July 6,2011.
• Sometime around November, 2011 the parties i.e. the Petitioner and the Respondents
deliberated and reached an amicable settlement. A joint application being I.A. no. 2 of
2012 under order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed before this Hon’ble Court. Here to
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _______ is the copy of the joint application
• As per the settlement as arrived between the parties, the Respondents were to pay Rs
2 Crore to the Petitioner in full and final settlement of all dues; the said sum was to be
paid in twelve instalments i.e. eleven PDCs of Rs 16,65,000/ and a demand draft of
Rs 16,85,000/;.
• The terms of settlement were incorporated in para 2 of the application ; under clause
2(g) of the application the Respondents undertook that the post dated cheques shall be
honoured by their bank as and when they are presented for payment.
the Respondents the award passed by the learned arbitrator dated Marc 4,2009 would
stand satisfied.
• That the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed off the aforementioned SLP on March 15,
hereinabove.
“IA 2 of 2011, has been filed in the Special Leave Petition, praying for the
matter to be disposed of, since the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement,
In terms of paragraph 2(d) of the application, a cheque for the sum of Rs.
16,65,000/- has been made over by the respondents to the petitioner’s learned
advocate. Accordingly, let the Special Leave petition be disposed of, in view of
Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of the order dated
• That around one month after the order of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondents
requested for rescheduling of payment dates of its PDC’s and the demand draft.
Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _______ is the email dated 20.04.2012
by the Respondents to the Petitioner. Agreeing to the Respondents’ request, the
• That accordingly, out of the total agreed settled sum of Rs 2 Crore the Respondents
paid an amount of Rs 1,33,40,000/ only i.e. out of the twelve instalments, eight
• That thereafter, however, for the remaining four instalments totalling to Rs 66,60,000/
falling due from July 2012, the Respondents again requested for an accommodation to
• That on the request of the Respondents, the Petitioner accordingly and bonafide
believing the request of the Respondents did not present the two cheques dated July
31, 2012 and August 31, 2012 respectively on their due dates. Pertinent to mention
that even for the cheque dated June, 2012 the Petitioner on the request of Respondents
further accommodated the Respondents by extending the time with respect to the
Payment of Rs. 16,65,000/- due against the cheque dated June, 2012. The said
payment was made by the Respondents in two instalments in November 2012. The
reason cited by Respondents for delayed payment was heavy income tax paid by the
• That thereafter as the Respondents were not forthcoming with the new date for the
presentation of the aforesaid cheques, several mails were issued by the Petitioner
about the Non availability of finances. The Respondents cited various reasons/excuses
to the Petitioner for non-payment. The patience of the Petitioner was being tested.
• Ultimately, Respondents via email dated December 5, 2012 stated that for the balance
4 instalments he needed some more time and he would clear the balance 4 instalments
via 4 new cheques from Jan 30 to April 30 ,2013. In furtherance of the Respondents’
email and as per the recent RBI notification regarding the new format of the cheques
the Petitioner sent an e-mail dated December 6, 2012 to the Respondent asking for
reissuance of fresh cheques dated 30th December 2012, 30th January 2013, 28th
• The copies of the emails exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent is
• That the Petitioner states that since the Respondents failed to issue new cheques, the
Petitioner on December 24,2012 presented the two cheques dated September 29,2012
and October 31, 2012 for Rs. 16,65,000/- each drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd
Pallrivattom Branch, Kochi 682025, for encashment. That both the cheques were
returned unpaid by the bankers of Respondents for the reason “funds insufficient”.
The copy of the memos received from the Bank is annexed hereto and marked
ANNEXURE ________ colly. That cheque dated October 31, 2012 was represented
by the Petitioner on January 18, 2013 but the same was again dishonoured. The copy
of the memo received from the Bank is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE
_______.
• That the Petitioner has issued legal notices under section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 to the Respondents on January 25, 2013 and January 28, 2013
with respect to cheque dated 29.09.2012 and 31.10.2012 respectively. Annexed hereto
and marked ANNEXURE _____ & ______ respectively are the copies of legal
notices dated 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013. It is submitted that the same was being
issued without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to recover the entire due amount
as per the original award and to initiate the present contempt proceedings against the
Respondents.
between December 25, 2012 and January 21, 2013 i.e. subsequent to the presentation
of two cheques by Petitioner for encashment and before issuance of Legal Notices by
ANNEXURE _____ colly. In one of the mails dated December 31, 2012 the
Respondents informed that they have issued a new cheque in lieu of the cheque which
had become date invalid. The said cheque was received by the Petitioner on January
5,2013 and is dated February 28,2013; subsequently in one of the mails dated
19.01.2013 the Respondents informed that instead of the four due instalments, they
can only pay two instalment and that too in between March 15 & 30, 2013. The said
mail was replied by Petitioner on 21.01.2013 informing that any renegotiation of the
demonstrate that the Respondents have not only deliberately and contumaciously not
complied with the terms of joint application filed before this Hon’ble Court in which
the order dated March 15,2012 was passed by this Hon’ble Court but have also
deliberately violated the undertaking given to this Hon’ble Court under the said
application and therefore, the Respondents clearly are guilty of contempt of this
Hon’ble Court.
• It is submitted that since the Respondents have deliberately flouted the terms of
settlement as recorded in the joint application filed before this Hon’ble Court and
have failed to pay the due amount for which undertaking was given them. Moreover,
as the Respondents /contemnors had failed to satisfy the award, as settled in terms of
the compromise, the Petitioner moved an application for the revival of the execution
proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for recovering the remaining award
amount in which notice has been issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court .
• It is submitted as the Respondents have not complied with the terms of joint
application filed before this Hon’ble Court and are guilty of violating and that too
deliberately the undertaking as given before this Hon’ble Court as well as the order of
this Hon’ble Court dated March 15, 2012 disposing the present matter in terms of the
joint application, the Petitioner is moving the present petition before this Hon’ble
• It is submitted that the order dated March 15, 2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court was
based on the undertaking given by the Respondents to this Hon’ble Court. The
Respondents have deliberately and intentionally infringed and violated the order,
• That the willful disobedience and breach of the settlement order Respondents
constitutes contempt of Court and the Respondents are liable to be proceeded against
under article 129 of the Constitution of India read with section 2 (b) and Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Rule 3 (c) of the Rules to regulate
• That the present application is made bonafide and is in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:-
• Attach the properties of the Respondents for deliberately flouting the orders of this
Court.
• Pass such further or other order and/or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PETITIONER
THROUGH:
Y.P.Singh
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
NEW DELHI
DATED: FEBRUARY, 2017