Internship Diary

Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

Under the guidance of Mr. Chandra Prakash,

Advocate, Jaipur District Court and Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,
For the duration 05/06/2015 to 05/07/2015

Submitted by
Aditya Rajasthani
4th Year, B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
BA0130003
 MAIN TASKS (WEEKLY BASIS)

 Week 1:

During my first week of internship I learnt to draft a counter affidavit in service tax matters. I
drafted two counters in the week. On one day I read the brief, did the necessary research
work which I had to do and then I would draft a counter in the succeeding two days. On one
day I used to draft the counter myself and on the other day I would proof read it first myself
and then sit with CP Sir to discuss the matter and then get it checked from it. If necessary
then I would make the necessary alterations and send it to him. I followed the same procedure
for the other matter I took a day to read the brief and the other two days to draft the counter.

I also attended the proceedings of the following cases:-

S.NO. NAME OF CASE STAGE

1 STATE VS SUKHWINDER PWs

2 RAJKUMAR V. NARINDER PWs

3 STATE V. SAURABH BAIL APP

4 STATE V. INDERJEET NOTICE

5 STATE VS PARDEEP Appearance

 Week 2:

I was asked to research for a case on contract of indemnity, i.e. JASWANT SINGH V.
SECTION OF STATE, wherein it was held that rights of the indemnifier are similar to the
rights of a surety u/s 141 of Indian Contract Act 1872 where he becomes entitled to all the
benefits of all the securities that the creditor has against the principal debtor whether he was
aware of them or not. Where a person agrees to indemnify, he will be entitled to succeed to
all the ways and means by which the person originally indemnified might have protected him
against loss or set up his compensation for the loss.

I also observed the drafting of an affidavit and also the format of the R.T.I. and then I went
for the following cases:-
S.NO. NAME OF CASE STAGE

1 RESHMA VS CENTURION SCHOOL NOTICE

2 SHAMLA VS HDFC OPP PARTY EVIDENCE
3 JASPAL VS SURJIT ARGUEMENT
4 STATE VS SUKHWINDER EVIDENCE
5 OM SINGH VS SHYAM SINGH ARGUEMENT ON APPLICATION
6 SUNTRA DEVI VS HUDA EVIDENCE
7 SHRI SHANKAR FEED VS SHANKAR FEED REPLY
8 STATE VS RADHEY SHAM EVIDENCE
9 UPL VS HARDEEP 313 CRPC
10 POSHAK AGG VS CANERA BANK ARGUEMENT
11 PARTAP VS STATE EVIDENCE
12 STATE VS SHASHIKANTH EVIDENCE
13 MAMTA VS GAGANDEEP REPLY
14 KAWAL VS S.D.M. ARGUMENT
15 THURIA VS G.P. CONSIDERATION

 Week 3:

There was a case in which an application was filed by us for its exemption, i.e. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN V. BAJENDRA. In this case, the accused cut out plots on his land without
obtaining the NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (N.O.C.) from the Rajasthan Government.

Sir also taught me that how a plaint is to be prepared which contains issues that are to be
raised and then I along with him visited the court for the following cases:-

S.NO. NAME OF CASE STAGE

1 NAVJOT VS SURINDER ARGUMENT

2 SHASHO VS SHESHAM NOTICE

3 GFI VS KAUMCHAND CHARGE

4 NIRMAL BEHL VS SURAJ BEHL WRITTEN STATEMENT (DEF)

5 STATE VS AJAY (302 IPC) CHARGE

6 THURIA VS GP CONSIDERATION

7 STATE VS PRADEEP (379IPC) CHALLAN

8 KRISHNA VS RAMKRISHAN CONSIDERATION

 Week 4+2 Days:-

I was given the task to research on the functioning of the Debt recovery Tribunal and its
allied Acts i.e. the DRTA Act and the SARFESI Act. The point to be researched was that
whether a suit instituted under the DRTA Act would come within the meaning of a suit of
mortgage. The other point that I had to research on was related to the stock brokers, that
whether the stock broker’s license can continue to operate after the exchange has dissolved.
Another point I had research on in this week was whether a license to do something covers
allied activities under it too.

I also researched for the case i.e. STATE V. RAJESH, in which an order was awarded. This
case is a case of excise act. We represented the accused in this case and he was acquitted.

Later, I attended the court proceedings for the following cases:-

S.NO. NAME OF CASE STAGE

1 RENU V. VIPIN GARG L.O. REPORT

2 M/S BEST FOOD V. VISHNU LAKSHMI CROSS

3 STATE V. RAJESH ORDER

4 MAMTA V. GAGAN PWs

CASE STUDY-

In this phase I have concentrated on in depth case analysis. I studied various leading cases
and understood all the essential ingredients and procedures adopted by the court to gain a
better understanding of the law and the legal system.

 I went through a leading case so as to refer an important judgement on indemnity, i.e.

ADAMSON V. JARVIS, wherein Adamson was an auctioneer who was given cattle by
Garvis to be sold at an auction. Adamson followed the instruction and sold the cattle. But
Jarvis wasn’t the owner of the cattle. The real owner of the cattle sued Adams for
 conversion and was successful. Adam had to pay damages and then had to sue Garvis to
be indemnified for the loss that he suffered by way of damages to be paid to the real
owner. It was held that Adam carried out Garvis’s instruction and was entitled to presume
that if anything went wrong as per instruction, he would be indemnified. Henceforth,
Garvis was ordered to pay damages to Adam.

 Another interesting case which I studied was STATE OF RAJASTHAN V.

GURVINDER. The prime accused in this case were Gurvinder, Harleen Kaur and
Gurcharan Singh. The accused were being prosecuted to face trial for the commission of
offences punishable under Section 304-B and 216 of IPC.
The facts of the case were that the deceased was married to the accused. The accused
Gurvinder Singh already had a wife Harleen Kaur and a daughter from this wedlock. He
got married for the second time because his first wife could not bear a second child. The
second marriage was with the knowledge and consent of the first wife. After the marriage
she was jealous of the deceased and along with her husband tortured her. The deceased
would complain to her parents, who would try to resolve the matter through a panchayat.
The boy demanded dowry and stated if his demands were not fulfilled then he would kill
the girl or torture her to such extent that she would take her own life. After some time
Gurvinder singh called in the house of the deceased and told them that she had died after
falling from the stairs. When they reached along with 6 other people, they saw that there
was blood everywhere. Post mortem showed that she had died due to a gun wound on the
right side of her head. She committed suicide with a licensed revolver of her husband due
to the torture inflicted on her. After the death of the deceased Harleen kaur went to stay
with her father Gurcharan Singh who tried to harbour her and hid her from the authorities.
I have gone through the FIR. I have also gone through the charge sheet. In front of the
Hon’ble Court a new charge was added 306 which is abetment to suicide.
I have thoroughly gone through all the evidence and their cross. I have also gone through
all the PWs. I have also read the judgement in which Gurvindr Singh was convicted under
304-B. Harleen Kaur was convicted under 306 and not 304-B as the second marriage was
null and void. Gurvinder Singh could not take advantage of this fact as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that even if the marriage is void, man will still come
under the purview of 304-B as the husband of the deceased. Due to lack of evidence
Gurucharan Singh was acquitted against the charge of 216 levied against him.
 The forthcoming case, i.e. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED V MUKERIAN PAPERS
LIMITED, deals with the exceptions wherein an injunction can be granted while
invoking the bank guarantee. And the court mentioned the following grounds for the
same.
1. Fraud in connection with the bank guarantee which would vitiate the very foundation of
the guarantee and the beneficiary seeks to take advantage of it.
2. Irretrievable injustice. The encashment must result in causing such injury which would
make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself.
However, the bank has no business to neither interfere with the transaction in between the
parties nor take sides and must necessarily encash the guarantee on demand. Liability of the
bank remains intact irrespective of the recovery "mobilization advance" or the non-payment
under the running bills.
The bank guarantee is a contract separate from the main agreement. The terms of the
guarantee are material and the invocation must be in accordance with the terms laid therein.

 ANCL and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank: It was referred in a case note
which says in case of unconditional bank guarantees, the beneficiary is not required to
give any reason justifying the invocation and he would be the best judge to decide as to
when and for what reason the bank guarantee needs to be encashed. In unconditional bank
guarantee the right to recover the amount under any running bills has no relevance to the
liability of the Bank under the guarantee. The liability of the Bank remains intact
irrespective of the recovery of mobilization advance or any non-payment under running
bills. Upon a demand for encashment, the bank is obligated to honor the demand issued
by the beneficiary regardless of any differences existing between the parties. Interference
from the court can be for only 2 grounds -egregious fraud & special equities.