You are on page 1of 32

LL.B.

(SIXTH SEMESTER)

COURT DIARY / INTERNSHIP REPORT


COURT DIARY/ INTERNSHIP REPORT

SUBMITTED BY:-
ANURAG TRIPATHI
153035
SESSION: 2014-2017

CAMPUS LAW CENTRE


FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
DECLARATION

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.

Dated: April , 2017


ANURAG TRIPATHI
Roll No. 153035
3rd Year, 6th Semester
Campus Law Centre, LL.B.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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.

Dated:: April , 2017


Place: New Delhi
ANURAG TRIPATHI
CERTIFICATE

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.

Dated: April , 2017


ANURAG TRIPATHI
INTRODUCTION

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

1st February, 2017 (Wed.)

• Joined the office and was assigned Litigation department.


• Was assigned a task to proof read a lease deed and mark key points which may
require editing.

2nd February, 2017 (Thurs.)

• 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?

3rd February, 2017 (Fri.)

• 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.

4th February, 2017 (Sat.)

• 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.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday.

6th February, 2017 (Mon.)


• Assigned the task of briefing of the paper book for the matter titled CBI vs. M.K.
Menon and ors.

7th February, 2017 (Tue.)

• Was assigned the task of vetting certain lease documents.

8th February, 2017 (Wed.)

• 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.

9th February, 2017 (Thurs.)

• Assigned the task of writing a speech on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in
India.

10th February, 2017 (fri.)


• Continued the Research on General Power of Attorney, enforcement of Power of
Attorneys and Intestate Succession under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 after
Suraj Lamps Judgment in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.
Prepared a note for the same.

11th February, 2017 (Sat.)

• Court was closed on account of second Saturday.

12th February, 2017 (Sun.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday


.
13th February, 2017 (Mon.)

• 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.

14th February, 2017 (Tue.)

• Was assigned the process of drafting the petition


• Was assigned the task to prepare a sale deed.

15th February, 2017 (wed.)

• 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.

16th February, 2017 (Thur.)

• Continued the process of drafting the petition.


• Was assigned the task to research for case laws on grounds for quashing of FIR

17th February, 2017 (fri.)

• 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.

18th February, 2017 (sat.)

• Continued the research for case laws on grounds for quashing of F.I.R.

19th February, 2017 (sun.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday.

20th February, 2017 (Mon.)

• Had taken leave due to a minor accident and consequent knee injury

21st February, 2017 (Tue.)

• 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.

22nd February, 2017 (wed.)

• Was assigned the task to research on the requirements for Assignment of Debt In
Hong Kong

23rd February, 2017 (Thur.)


• Was assigned the task to research on the topic “the documents which need not be
sealed by the company, a mere signature of a director is sufficient” for Hong Kong.

24th February, 2017 (Fri.)

• Court was closed due to Mahashivratri festival.

25th February, 2017 (Sat.)

• Continued the process of drafting the reply in the matter titled as M/s Lerros Fashion
vs. M.R.L. Retail Private Ltd.

26th February, 2017 (Sun.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday.

27th February, 2017 (Mon.)

• 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

28th February, 2013 (Tue.)

• 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

1st March, 2017(wed.)

• 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’

2nd March, 2017 (Thur.)

• Completed the task of Briefing the matter titled Ashok Jaipuria vs. Pragya Electronics

3rd March, 2017 ( Fri.)

• 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.

4th March, 2017 (sat.)

• 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.

5th March, 2017 (Sun.)

• court was closed on account of sunday.


6th March, 2017 (Mon.)

• 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.

7th March, 2017 (Tue.)

• 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.

8th March, 2017 (Wed.)

• 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

9th March, 2017 (Thur.)

• 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.

11th March, 2017 (Sat.)

• Court was closed on account of second Saturday.

12th March, 2017 (Sun.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday.

13th March, 2017(Mon.)

• Court was closed on account of Holi festival.

14th March, 2017 (Tue.)

No Listed Matters & No work assigned as the office was closed for the day due to renovation

15th March, 2017 (Wed.)

• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of E.C.E Industries vs. Surya


• Case No.: Cr. Com 104/1/12
• Judge Name: Ms. Ambika Singh, MM
• Court: Court No. 4, Patiala House Courts
• Next Date: 18th May, 2013
• Proceedings: Fresh Process to be served.
• Continued the task to research on the topic “What constitutes a publication under the
Copyright Act, 1957”, pertaining to a specific issue at hand in a related matter.
16th March, 2017 (Thur.)

• Continued the drafting of the criminal complaint.


• Was assigned the task to research on case laws where condemnation of delay was
granted, beyond the limitation on appeal against arbitral award as provided under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

17th March, 2013 (Fri.)

• given a task to draft an applicatioin for the notice of dishonouring of cheque dated
10th march 2017.

18th March, 2017 (Sat.)

• Attended Court proceeding in the matter of E.C.E Industries vs. Surya


• Case No.: Cr. Com 82/12
• Judge Name: Ms. Jageet Kaur, MM
• Court: Court No. 10, Patiala House Courts
• Next Date: 14th May, 2017
• Proceedings: Fresh Process against accused issued.
• Was assigned the task to draft a reply to the leave for amendment of objections filed
to the execution petition in the matter titled as Kali Ltd. vs. Ashok Chawla.

• 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.

19th March, 2017 (Sun.)

• Court was closed on account of Sunday.

20th March, 2017 (Mon.)


• 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 required to submit a note on the tasks handled during the course of internship.

21st March, 2017 (Thursday)

• 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

Bail Application No. of 2017

RAJIV KATARIA ….Applicant

Versus

THE STATE
NCT of Delhi,
New Delhi …….Respondent

FIR No: 21/2017


U/S: 452/323/506 of IPC
PS: PulPrahladpur, South-East District
Delhi Police, New Delhi

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL


U/S 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Most Respectfully Showeth:

• That the present application is being filed on behalf of the applicant


seeking his anticipatory bail in FIR No. 21/2017, u/s 452/323/506 IPC
registered at P.S. PulPrahladpur, New Delhi. A copy of the FIR is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE-A.

• 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 FIR in question is based upon concoction and fabrication in as


much as the allegations made therein are inconsistent and are self
contradictory. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not
report the matter to the police immediately after the incident, but made
the complaint only after more than 10 hours. As per the complaint the
alleged incident took place at 11.30 am whereas the FIR in question was
registered after 10.00 pm on 23.01.2017.

• 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 applicant is a law-abiding citizen with absolutely clean


antecedents. The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case nor
was he convicted earlier in any case.
• That the applicant has deep roots in the society. He has greatest respect for
the Courts and the judicial system. He is not likely to flee from justice.

• That the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in as much


as no recovery is to be effected from him.

• That the applicant undertakes not to attempt to influence any probable


witness in the present case. The applicant also undertakes to join the
investigation and to face the complete trial as and when so directed.

• That the present application is being filed most bona-fide and in the
interest of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:

• the Applicant may kindly be granted anticipatory bail;

• 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

• Such other or further order(s) be passed as are considered fit and


proper in the circumstances of the case.

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

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 15426 / 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Actia India Pvt. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus

HKA Agencies and Ors. ….Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 129 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ


WITH SECTION 2(b) AND SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971
AND UNDER RULE 3(C) OF RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR
CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT, 1975

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

• 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

Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2011.

The said petition was filed in the following back ground:

• On March 4,2009 an award was passed in favour of the Petitioner wherein the

details of the amount awarded are as under:

“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 @

7.5% p.a post filing of statement claim until payment .”


• That there after the Petitioner initiated the execution proceedings seeking

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

an interim order staying the operation of the award.

• Immediately, thereafter the petitioner entered appearance in the proceedings

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

during the pendency of the Arbitration proceedings, Actia(Petitioner) had filed

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

exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all proceedings including petition under 34 of

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

Court Ernakulam, Kerala for rejection of Respondents’ section 34 application on

account of section 42 of the Act, was allowed on 10.12.2010 and the Respondents’

application under section 34 was directed to be returned.

• 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

34 application before the Delhi High Court within 30 days.


• On February 6, 2011 Respondents filed section 34 application before Delhi High

Court which on February 28, 2011 issued notice on Respondents’ application

under section 34 of the Act.

• Aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench Kerala High court, the

Petitioner preferred the abovementioned SLP before this Hon’ble Court.

• 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

filed before this Hon’ble Court.

• 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.

• Under Clause 2( i) of the application it was agreed that on payment of Rs 2 crore by

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,

2012 in terms of settlement as recorded in the joint application as referred

hereinabove.

The following order was passed by this Hon’ble Court:

“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,

which is part of the application itself.

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

the settlement incorporated in the application.”

Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of the order dated

March 15, 2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court.

• 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

Petitioner presented the cheques on the dates as confirmed by the Respondents.

• 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

instalments were duly paid.

• 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

extent of the deferment/rescheduling of payments on account of certain alleged

financial constraint as faced by them in their business.

• 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

Respondents as a result of which they pleaded inadequacy of funds in their accounts.

• 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

inquiring as to by when he could present the cheques. To this, Respondents kept


asking for further time with repeated assurances portraying a very dismayed picture

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

February 2012 and 30th march 2012

• The copies of the emails exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent is

annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE _______ colly.

• Unfortunately, no new/fresh cheques were issued.

• 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.

• In the meanwhile, mails were exchanged between Petitioner and 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

Petitioner to Respondents; the copies of mails is annexed hereto and marked as

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

terms was not acceptable to the Petitioner.


• It is submitted that the sequence of events as detailed herein above ex facie

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

compromise/settlement, have deliberately failed to fulfill their commitment under the

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

Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents.

• 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,

which is contumacious. It is settled law that breach of an injunction or breach of an

undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil proceeding on the faith of which

the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt.

• 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

proceedings for contempt of Supreme Court, 1975.

• 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:-

• pass an order holding the respondents guilty of committing contempt of Court by


deliberate and willful disobedience of the undertaking given by them to this Hon’ble
Court

• detain the respondents in civil prison

• 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